My last word in a dialogue of the deaf

Posted by Geoff Beck on March 02, 2006, 02:26 AM | #

Is there any particular reason why you stop at three posts, knocking JW nearly off the blog.

I mean, surely, you could concoct six or nine posts and fill the entire front page!

Posted by onetwothree on March 02, 2006, 02:27 AM | #

The survival of white ethnic groups depends entirely on the reproductive decisions of white females.

And this is a function of...whim?

Examples from elsewhere.  As the population of Japan decreases as a result of low birth rates, you will eventually see the country hit, say, 30, 40, or 50 million individuals. Now, at this point, survival of the fittest being what it is, the “fittest” will necessarily be the Japanese themselves since they are the only competitors on their landmass. As population growth reverses or stabilizes, there will have been no other group to have taken the place of the natives.

Had they been importing foreigners, the Japanese would have hit 30 million while the [Indonesians/Arabs/Filipinos] would have hit 50/60/70 million, for example. It would be impossible for the Japanese to ever increase to 100 million again because the carrying capacity of the Island would be exceeded by the combination of the two groups long before that number would be reached.  It is entirely possible that 30 million would become the new ceiling for Japanese. At that point, the situation you see in, for instance, Lebanon, between Christian and Islamic Arabs shows up...in which the mix proves a chronically increasing imbalance. That same situation could certainly occur very soon in small countries like Holland, cities like London, and eventually in larger countries like England, Germany, and eventually big countries like the US.

Posted by friedrich braun on March 02, 2006, 02:42 AM | #

I see the mad spammer is again spamming MR with the usual boring drivel.

Posted by calyen on March 02, 2006, 03:53 AM | #

The survival of white ethnic groups depends entirely on the reproductive decisions of white females.

Because the decisions of white men not to marry or have children have nothing to do with it.

The desire of Western women to settle down but finding it difficult to meet a committed man is a notorious part of modern life.

Go back to the drawing board!

Posted by James Bowery on March 02, 2006, 06:08 AM | #

The survival of white ethnic groups depends entirely on the reproductive decisions of white females.  What geographic arrangements they make for themselves and their children is entirely trivial compared to that.

Ask any pig farmer why he doesn’t pen Yorkshires with Durocs and he’ll tell you that the next season’s offspring will be biased toward Yorkshires.

Ask any heterosexual white boy entering adolescence in an “integrated” school if he would prefer to be in an all white school.

Posted by John Ray on March 02, 2006, 07:16 AM | #

“Is there any particular reason why you stop at three posts, knocking JW nearly off the blog.

I mean, surely, you could concoct six or nine posts and fill the entire front page!”

LOL

The Beckster must be desperate for something to say.  I expect a lot better abuse than that!

Posted by Guessedworker on March 02, 2006, 09:27 AM | #

The principal causes of the low birth rate in the West are:-

1) The pill.

2) The cost of living, particularly housing.

3) The confusion which reigns in the female mind, especially the liberal female mind.

There are others, but these are the big-hitters.

The principal effects of large-scale Third World immigration are:-

1) Dispossession.

2) Deracination.

3) Financial parasitism.

4) Cultural attack.

All apply irrespective of whether or not the immigrations are “nice people”.

Posted by Mark Richardson on March 02, 2006, 11:34 AM | #

I don’t think affluence is primarily responsible for low birth rates. Most people still want three children. But they are only managing, on average, half this number.

Why? The main reason is that many middle-class women believe that their 20s are for careers/travel/parties, and that they should only get serious about marriage and children in their thirties.

But by this time, as Calyen points out, men have had much time to adapt to bachelorhood and have often lost the capacity to fully commit to marriage and fatherhood.

A lot of men, too, get put off by the current relationships culture. They believe that younger Western women treat them harshly and arrogantly; that they can be too easily fleeced by divorce courts; that women now offer only sex, which commodity can be found abundantly outside of marriage; and they sense that relationships are being structured around female independence, at the cost of any traditional benefits men might once have attained from marriage.

I’m not sure that older men quite realise the crisis point being reached in relations between men and women - there is a considerable amount of bad faith being created.

Even if men stubbornly transcend all of this, there is still the problem of the “late start” - if the whole process of marriage and family formation only begins in the 30s, there isn’t much time to achieve those three babies.

Posted by Steve Edwards on March 02, 2006, 02:12 PM | #

Race replacement (broadly defined as the replacement of one ethny with another on any given territory) and “extermination” are not the same thing. One is the cause of the other - so while it is true that people in England are not literally being “exterminated”, population pressures are creating the phenomenon of “race replacement”...which may or may not lead to “extermination”. But then, there is a lot in between here and “extermination”, and it is certainly not positive.

To be unable to grasp this point after a year and a half of education is to be either wilfully blind, or simply cognitively unhinged.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 02, 2006, 02:31 PM | #

Yes, Fred is quite correct.  There are many intertwined factors at play, and one of the most central is large-scale Third World immigration.

I do feel that one must understand the present-day in terms of a continuum begun in the aftermath of WW2 and with no halting place along the way to complete marginalisation of Western Man in his own homelands.  The question that John raises is whether that marginalisation is not, in fact, within whites’ own gift to control since they can always choose to have offspring once again.  But this presupposes that perfectly ordinary, non-awake white people aren’t under the dominion of large-scale social forces - which they most manifestly are - and are equipped biologically and culturally to out-breed poor, low IQ Third Worlders - which they are not.

When an host population is reduced to an atomised, rural minority it has indisputably lost control of its own fate.  This is the end-point of the immigration conveyor belt. A people which looses its living space has lost the battle to survive.  Living space is the guarantor of group survival, and the only people to have developed an alternative are Jews.

John has to answer the question not in terms of what whites can do to avoid marginalisation by recommencing replacement-level reproduction but whether, actually, that course is open at all in the conditions in which they now find themselves.

Posted by Lurker on March 02, 2006, 05:30 PM | #

One could argue the Gypsies have also evolved an alternative, crap though it is compared to Jewish achievements

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 02, 2006, 07:38 PM | #

Why doesn’t it happened in Tokyo?  Anyone take a wild guess?  (Hey just curious ....)

Duh.  I’d explain but why bother?  Those who can get it already have.

Posted by Steve Edwards on March 02, 2006, 08:20 PM | #

Fred’s point about the lack of race-replacement in Tokyo vis-a-vis the undeniable fact of race-replacement in London (now conceded as a fact by John Ray) is a perplexing one, especially as women in Tokyo are substantially less “reproductive” than women in London.

So clearly, the phenomenon of race-replacement isn’t necessarily about reproduction. There must be another factor that is both necessary and even sufficient, which John Ray has either accidentally overlooked or deliberately obfuscated. What could possibly be causing race-replacement to occur in London and not Tokyo? HmmmHmmm, I can’t possibly imagine.

Posted by James Bowery on March 02, 2006, 09:40 PM | #

The low rate is common to ALL affluent populations.

No it’s not. Utah is a notable counter-example.

Posted by AD on March 02, 2006, 09:59 PM | #

I think JJR cannot admit to himself that whites, especially whites ruled over by ‘right wingers’, are ever victims of anything. It doesn’t compute with his 18th century Burke worldview. If half of Australia were slaughtered by invaders tommorow he would tell himself that it happened because Australia wanted it to....then post on MR telling us that anyone who complains is a paranoid ‘leftist’.

Posted by karlmagnus on March 03, 2006, 01:20 AM | #

JJR, just keep repeating to yourself: THE WORLD DOES NOT NEED MORE PEOPLE, IT NEEDS FEWER.

Posted by Calvin on March 03, 2006, 02:29 AM | #

The White population of the world is being driven down by the relentless attack of the culture machine. White Europeans are taught in a relentless and sophisticated campaign waged through cinema, television, the news media and popular music, to find fulfilment in sexual promiscuity and conspicuous consumption. This is not a choice. People are coerced into this lifestyle by financial institutions that push credit in order to dupe people into unmanageable debt. The goal of the banker is the same as the goal of the drug pusher. The bankers need to create dependence to convert the citizen into a cash cow. In order to do so they offer the financial equivalent of the free drug sample, the easy access loan and the credit card. Western females have been co-opted into this system to in order to double the profits of the plutocrats. The campaign is progressing through an assault on children. The present cultural trend is towards the sexualization of children, turning them also into an exploitable market. Western women are discouraged from having children by stigmatising, as social failures, those who cannot maintain a certain standard of living. A standard of living that is expressed through ownership of cars, sofas, designer clothes, etc. Western women are further discouraged from parenthood by the provision short term palliatives in the form of cheap booze, designer drugs, international travel on a shoestring and the false glamour of the nightclub and restaurant scene. This is consolidated by the universal availability of contraception and manipulations of the property market that make family housing unattainable for the vast majority of the population.

The world is moving into a socio-economic paradigm that will break down into three loose classes. There will be a small class of “technocrats” whose ascendancy will be the result of their mastery of new ultra-sophisticated information systems: a vast class of “mediators” that will constitute a bureaucracy and a control system through which the mediators will exert their will upon the third class. The third class will be an outer party service class of low wage, disenfranchised sub-proletarians Serfs . In the future this class may well include doctors, dentists and other professionals who are now regarded as members of the privileged classes, paradoxically, teachers and other low status professionals, because of their usefulness as dissemblers of elite propaganda, will be elevated to the higher, mediator status. The modality of the nascent socio-economic paradigm, actually bears a close isomorphic relationship to Islamic cultural norms. Islamic cultures tend to spawn a small spoilt elite with a large caste of priests and petty government officials reigning brutally over a vast indoctrinated peasant class. This is why the plutocrats encourage Islam. Islam is the blueprint for the new caste system. We have the collision of a plutocracy that seeks to reduce millions of Europeans to the status of peasants, with an ideology that already reduces the majority of humans under its power to roboto-peasant status. Nothing happens by accident.

Posted by ben tillman on March 03, 2006, 06:09 AM | #

The survival of white ethnic groups depends entirely on the reproductive decisions of white females.

Stupid.

Posted by Andrew on March 03, 2006, 08:55 AM | #

The end result JJR comes back to Alende principle, or we are Left and destined to leave this planet at someone else’s beckoning. Europeans became so Intelligent only to become so DUMB, is this a mathematical equation or Psychology exploited?

Posted by Calvin on March 03, 2006, 10:23 AM | #

This is bollocks. The dowturn in White birthrates is nothing more than a short term trend. You cannot make a credible claim about long term demographic trends based on a measurement that only goes back to the mid eighties. There was a baby boom in the sixties, did that mean that Caucasians became locked into a cycle of exponential population growth? It didn’t did it, so why should we assume that the downward trend of the past few decades indicates some kind of permanent chronic decline? The real demographic crisis is not the “decline” in White birthrates, but the explosion of third world populations.

Posted by Amalek on March 03, 2006, 09:31 PM | #

Fertility rates are among the most unpredictable aspects of the life cycle, usually doing what they have to do to make expert extrapolations look daft within a few years.

There was a big scare in the 1930s, with headlines in British papers such as ‘Are We Dying Out?’ This was at a time when-- contrary to the ‘Hungry Thirties’ myth still peddled by know-nothings-- standards of living were rapidly improving for most under the greatest government of modern times.

It was feared that potential mothers, yesterday’s freshly emancipated flappers and their younger sisters, were becoming selfish: preferring jobs, movies, lipstick and dancing to having lots of kids. The post-1945 baby boom flabbergasted demographers who had supposed that the previous trend would carry on after the men came back. Instead there was a renewed upsurge in home-centredness which, pace Betty Friedan, was a genuine preference among younger women. Having babies quickly (albeit within wedlock) was as fashionable in the 1950s as waiting till your ovaries need medical assistance is today.

In Germany, similar difficulties to ours were encountered in the 1930s despite the strenuous drive to promote big families in any modern European country. The Nazis did pump up the birth rate per 1,000 population from the Great Depression’s trough figure of 15 in 1933 to 20 by 1939; and this was above the 1920s Weimar average. But it remained far below the 33 of 1900. Just before the war nearly one quarter of German women remained childless, mainly by choice; and in the Reich capital it was one in three.

Those concerned about race replacement would do better to concentrate on schemes for repatriating coloured aliens.

Posted by JB on March 03, 2006, 10:20 PM | #

JJRay:

The survival of white ethnic groups depends entirely on the reproductive decisions of white females.  What geographic arrangements they make for themselves and their children is entirely trivial compared to that.

So Whites in America should try to outbreed mexicans ? Their failure to outbreed mexicans will be what lead them to become a minority in their own country, it had nothing to do with immigration laws and anti-discrimination laws, the government’s refusal to protect the border and the media cover-up of the mexican invasion and its moral condemnation of whites’ interests ? When white couples stopped making as much children as they did before did millions of mexicans appeared all of a sudden and started churning out babies ?

JJRay:

I agree that race replacement does happen.  I myself grieve at the loss of the London I once knew. But the white Londoners have NOT been exterminated.  Like all affluent populations they have simply done two things:  1). Moved to more spacious accomodation further out; 2).  Ceased to reproduce at replacement levels.

3) non-whites moved in, with the help of the government which opened the doors to them

4) non-whites made a lot of children

remove 3 & 4 and London would be still white though with less people because 1 & 2 only implies the quantity of whites was reduced not their proportion. And you were once a teacher ?

JJRay:

And the low reproduction rate has NOTHING to do with being “crowded out” by blacks.  The low rate is common to ALL affluent populations.  The most prosperous population in China are the Hong Kongers and they have virtually NO ethnic competitors.  So what is their reproduction rate?  The world’s lowest—.9.

so by your logic the chinese in HK are going to disappear very soon if they don’t raise their reproduction rate on their overcrowded island.

please make this post your last word on the subject. I would be embarassed