Money buys babies

Posted by Guessedworker on June 12, 2005, 04:27 AM | #

Surely the meaning of this is that you can send all the immigrants home.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on June 12, 2005, 06:37 AM | #

Oz seems to have policies closest to WN positions, both birth rate and immigration-wise. Whats wrong with the ADL crowd down under? Neutralized? Dont own the media? Hehehe.

Posted by John Ray on June 12, 2005, 06:39 AM | #

No ADL here but there are Jewish organizations of course

Posted by Mark Richardson on June 12, 2005, 06:45 AM | #

I don’t think the payment is the main reason for the fertility upswing.

If you want to improve fertility you need men and women to partner. This was disrupted in Australia in the 1980s and 90s by an intensive wave of feminism which has now died down.

The strong economy has probably also helped men to get jobs, which lifts the confidence of men to partner.

In my own family (myself and my siblings) there are four children under the age of three and in my wife’s there are also four.

None of these kids were born as the result of a baby bonus. Rather it’s a generation finally seizing a window of opportunity to marry and have children.

Posted by Charles Copeland on June 12, 2005, 06:53 AM | #

It would be interesting to have a breakdown of the rising birth rate by social status / income / level of education / IQ / bastardry, etc.

This increase may backfire if it chiefly concerns the lower orders —more babies = more crime, more social disintegration, more bastardry.

Anybody have any ideas on this?

Posted by jonjayray on June 12, 2005, 08:11 AM | #

Almost certainly the less responsible elements predominate

Posted by stari_momak on June 12, 2005, 08:49 AM | #

Almost certainly the less responsible elements predominate

I disaggree. Those who are not responsible do not plan parenthood, and thus have parenthood thrust upon them. There would be little change ‘at the margin’ in response to these incentives. On the other hand, those who are responsible do plan, and there fertility would probably change at the margin if monetary incentives were available to help offset some of the cost of having and additional child.

Congradultions to Australia. No doubt soon, however, this policy will be called racist. Why pay for increased native births if immigrants can be had to increase population—the only possible explanation can be racism.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 12, 2005, 08:56 AM | #

“This increase may backfire if it chiefly concerns the lower orders —more babies = more crime, more social disintegration, more bastardry.”

I think it’s a mistake to view “the lower orders” of the white race as something fundamentally distinct from “the upper orders.”  If Charles Copeland meant the lower orders of an alien race, go ahead and pose the question.  But if he meant the lower orders of the white race, I don’t see any problem:  the important thing is to get the white race’s birth rates up (which this bit of good news and also Mark’s comment above prove is easily accomplished by means of the simplest amendments to government policy), and as for the proper equilibrium between “the orders,” it’ll all even out in the end, through mechanisms we don’t understand whatsoever but the white race itself does perfectly and will see to it without any meddling required on our part.  Just leave it alone, stop driving white birth rates down through the mechanisms we all know perfectly, and the rest will follow as day follows night.

Posted by Charles Copeland on June 12, 2005, 09:14 AM | #

Fred,
If a dysgenic natalist policy were—over a couple of generations—to reduce average Europid IQ to that of Sub-Saharan Africa, we might as well kiss ourselves all goodbye.

Already a large proportion of young offspring of the ‘white race’ have tatoos all over their bodies and bones through their noses—yuk! Seems you can take the chav out of the council estate, but you can’t take the council estate out of the chav.

But perhaps I’m just a doomster ..

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 12, 2005, 09:28 AM | #

“No doubt soon, however, this policy will be called racist.”

Stari is right of course, and when the accusations of “racism” start, they just have to be ignored, that’s all.  I mean, sooner or later the white élites are going to have to start defending themselves in the simplest, most trivially uncomplicated ways if the white race is to survive.  It’s not hard to look someone in the eye who hates your race and wants it exterminated by whatever means he can cook up, and say to him, “You’re lying and I’m not listening to you.”  Is that hard?  How hard can that be? 

HOW HARD CAN IT BE, for Christ’s sake?  HOW HARD???  WHITE ELITES CAN’T MANAGE IT???

If whites can’t manage that sooner or later—stand up to the true racists who loathe them with a burning passion and can’t sleep nights for lying awake calculating ways in their sick brains for how to destroy them—no one can save them and they’re destined to exit the world stage forever.  Here, by the way, is where Christianity comes in as the main culprit.  It’s true that el-sicko Jews are the first to think a lot of this stuff up, but then you get the Christians latching onto some of the sickest stuff as if it’s the greatest thing they’ve ever heard in their lives, and they go joyously, rapturously running over the cliff en masse, exactly like the lemmings of fable.  The wacko Jews who thought the stuff up probably look at that in drop-jawed amazement then look at each other unable to believe thier luck—no sooner did the weirdest most pernicious stuff leave their lips than the Christian morons all fell head-over-heels in love with it and couldn’t WAIT to put it into practice.  Since we’re being frank on this blog, I’ll add that from what I’ve observed, Irish Catholics are the worst in this regard among Christians.  The Irish Catholics as a race were never too swift in the first place—remember when the first Neanderthal skulls were uncovered in the middle of the century before last, some reputable scholar actually said “What’s the big deal?  It’s obvious they’re just modern-day Irish skulls.”  To get itself a reputation like that for, shall we say, “cognitive endowment,” a race has to be ... how to put it, exactly? ... well ... let’s leave the rest to the imagination, shall we?  Combine that with this almost universal misinterpretation of today’s excessively feminine variety of Christianity which has it that ideally white Christians wouldn’t protest at the extinction of their race because to protest would be the opposite of Christian self-abnegation.  What’s urgently needed from the Catholic Church and all Protestant denominations is clarification of the fact that Christian self-abnegation does not extend to the warm embrace of the extinguishing of one’s race, sub-race, ethnicity, ethnie, ethnoculture, nation, country, or nation-state at the hands of its coldly-calculating enemies.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 12, 2005, 09:33 AM | #

“Fred, If a dysgenic natalist policy were—over a couple of generations—to reduce average Europid IQ to that of Sub-Saharan Africa, we might as well kiss ourselves all goodbye. Already a large proportion of young offspring of the ‘white race’ have tatoos all over their bodies and bones through their noses—yuk! Seems you can take the chav out of the council estate, but you can’t take the council estate out of the chav.”

I wouldn’t worry about that stuff, Charles Copeland, I really wouldn’t.  Just get the white birth rate up (by simply taking away the downward pressures on it) and keep resisting leftism in our societies, and all the rest of the demographic pie will fall naturally into place as it did very nicely and without our eugenic help until the year 1965 or thereabouts.  There’s lots of stuff we don’t know how to do but nature does perfectly, if we but let it.

Posted by john fitzgerald on June 12, 2005, 09:46 AM | #

If your refering to european
“lower orders” and “less responsible elements”, they’re the ones who make Australia Australia, not the intellectuals and elites who are as spineless and souless as they are everywhere else.
Jews are the richest and most powerful group there.
Anyone who steps out of line in targeted
mercillessly.

Posted by Charles Copeland on June 12, 2005, 09:55 AM | #

Fred,

You’re beginning to sound like some agent provocateur from the ‘Committee for Public Safety’ whose assignment is to discredit the Majority Rights blog as part of the lunatic fringe. 

Next thing we’ll all be defamed as spreading the ‘virus of racial hatred’, thanks to being associated with the likes of yourself.

Posted by Stuka on June 12, 2005, 10:11 AM | #

At long last, some genuinely good news.

Fred, I agree with you about modern-day Christians (if that is even the right term). What with Christian morons, sicko Jews, Muslim fanatics…well, we’re not left with much, are we?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 12, 2005, 11:05 AM | #

What, you mean with the Irish Catholic thing I wrote, Charles?  Sorry, but what I wrote stands.  The Irish Catholics in the U.S. are the worst Christians when it comes to clamboring on board of the genocide-of-whites juggernaut.  Part of the reason is the Irish Catholics as a race are not very bright, if you want to know the truth.  Sorry if that offends any Irish Catholics here.  (I’m Catholic, by the way, though not Irish—that goes without saying, since if I were, instead of being here I’d likely be with the Hillary-for 2008 blog or some damn thing).  If we’re going to talk about the Jewish role in this crap—and we not only should talk about it, but we must, if we’re to get to the bottom of this damned infernal mess—why are certain Christian groups exempt?  If we’re going to face up to the sad but not hopeless, not insurmountable truth about lower Negro IQs as a race, why can’t we face certain sad truths about certain white groups who are at least as responsible as, if not more responsible than, Jews as a group, Negroes as a group, yellows and Hindus as a group, and so on.  I don’t exempt anybody.  I’m not worried about sparing the feelings of the one who’s trying to exterminate me:  sorry, Charles.  I’m for calling a spade a spade, be it thoroughly degenerate WASPs like George Bush, John Spong, or Gene Robinson, or the clueless British royal family, for that matter, who seem to be a pack of intellectual morons and moral nothings unable to do their duty to their country; wacko Jews like the ones endlessly thinking up and endlessly spouting pure shit like this

, to speak frankly,—the sort of thing you read and say to yourself, “Oh my God, more Jewish names here!  Will it ever end with these people?  What’s wrong with them that they constantly dream this insanity up???( * ); stupid Irish Catholics who’ve never seen a society-destroying wacko left-wing proposal they didn’t think was the best thing since sliced bread; clueless white women in the voting booth who cannot be trusted to cast their votes in ways consistent with the survival of races and nations because they weren’t born with the brain circuits or hormones that permit the slightest idea what races and nations are; and so on.  I don’t spare anyone’s feelings who’s trying as hard as he can to destroy all I love most—sorry, Charles.  I have no intention of exposing the role of some, while holding back in regard to the perhaps even bigger role of others.
_______________
( *  My opinion is Jews were born that way—a large percentage of them have a genetic predisposition to think up, and passionately dedicate themselves to, nation-destroying ideas, and, analogously to Cochran & Harpending’s discovery on Ashkenazi intelligence, what happened was having one copy of the gene either conferred a survival advantage for their group down through the centuries or was linked to a gene that did, but didn’t make the Jew carrying it want to destroy his own nation, just made him want to destroy the white Christian nation he lived in, while Jews carrying two copies want to destroy white Christian nations and their own—Zionist Jewish neocons, for example, carry one copy of the gene, so want to destroy the white Christian nation they live in through race-replacement immigration, while anti-Zionist Jews like George Soros and Prof. Noam Chomsky, for example, carry two copies of the gene, so want to destroy both the white Christian nations they live in and the state of Israel.  There, Charles—I hope that doesn’t give you a conniption fit.)

Posted by Kubilai on June 12, 2005, 11:17 AM | #

I think Fred speaks with unbridled passion about a subject that is extremely important and obviously dear to his heart and ours as well.  The way he says it is relatively immaterial in relation to the message itself.  He is not advocating anything aside from a wake-up call to our people.  He only appears as a fringe element due to the deeply entrenched PC-speak that has enveloped our entire societies.  The “virus of racial hatred” tag is placed upon us as we speak because we speak FOR White European rights and try to identify the causes of our current plight.  NO MATTER HOW WE SAY IT, the racist tag will be used ad infinitum in order to help muzzle the dialogue.  Do not kid yourself about this.  The left has no interest in truth or how sensitively it is verbalized.  They want complete domination AND suppression of the topic and are not interested in dialogue, period.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 12, 2005, 11:21 AM | #

Thanks, Kub.

Posted by Kubilai on June 12, 2005, 11:23 AM | #

‘Tis nothing but the truth, Fred

Posted by Charles Copeland on June 12, 2005, 01:00 PM | #

“I hope that doesn’t give you a conniption fit”.

No, when I’m in the virtual psychiatrist’s chair, I don’t get hysterics. I listen to the patients’ words and try to understand what makes them tick. Fred, you’re an anthropological phenomenon, not a subject with whom one can conduct a reasoned dialogue, so I won’t even try. I’ll just take notes and nod my head while you splutter on. And I forgive you, for you truly know not what you do.

With the likes of you around, it’s no wonder that the ADL and similar organizations aren’t running out of scare stories with which to circle the wagon. If you didn’t exist, extremist Zionists and ‘anti-racists’ would have to invent you. What a godsend you are to every gentile baiter on the planet!

And when I read your paranoid prose, I understand why so many Jews were desperate to create a state of their own.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 12, 2005, 01:19 PM | #

Looks like some straight talk gave Charles Copeland such a case of the fantods he can’t think straight, poor guy.  But as the saying goes, those who can’t stand the heat should get out of the kitchen.  I’m “an anthropological phenomenon,” now?  Been called lots of things but that’s a first.  Let’s see Mr. Copeland solve the problem of advancing white-Christian genocide with his preferred combination of obfuscations and outright blindnesses.  Go ahead, Charles—show us the formula for getting the ADL and the SPLC to drop what they’re doing and all flock here to become regular MR.com readers and fans.  If you know a way to pull that off, my hat’s off to you.  Until then, go get your head screwed on frontwards please.  And furthermore, stop boring me in particular with your know-nothing formulae for hare-brained eugenics.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on June 12, 2005, 02:42 PM | #

Copeland = Kaplan?

Posted by Stuka on June 12, 2005, 02:50 PM | #

Go get ‘em, Fred!

Posted by gay homosexual on June 12, 2005, 04:29 PM | #

i love babies! i think they’re cute

Posted by Guessedworker on June 12, 2005, 04:45 PM | #

I know Charles personally, btw, and have had the pleasure of his company in our home in Sussex.  He is an intelligent, garrulous, educated, funny, impossible Irishman who, either through endemic courage or foolishness, takes it upon himself to attack galloping Europhilia from inside the belly of the beast.

We bear the same scars of battle, having got ourselves jointly banned from Samizdata for persistent race realism or being Nazis or whatever.  So Charles has done the plain-speaking thing.

What we are witnessing here, therefore, is a conflict of style.  I would not wish it to see it slide into personal abuse.  We are dealing all the time with hot issues on this blog, and sang froid is the only sustainable way of doing so.

Posted by Amman on June 12, 2005, 05:07 PM | #

<style.

I would disagree, sir. Charles Copeland isn’t the only one to call out Scrooby on his spastic demeanor. J.Richards has similarly chastised him for his behavior towards me when I asked for clarification in his “race-mixing” post. Also, if I recall correctly, a rude fellow named “Random Lurker” barged in here a few weeks ago, pointing out some of Scrooby’s rhetorical excesses. I had assumed Lurker was simply being snide, but now I’m not so sure.

You’re exactly right in saying some degree of “sang froid” is necessary on a blog such as this. So it makes little sense to call Copeland’s denunciation of Scrooby as merely a “conflict of style.” As the proprietor of this blog, is there nothing you can do to curb Fred Scrooby’s markedly uncivil behavior towards other readers of MR?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 12, 2005, 05:20 PM | #

By the way, here’s part of a letter from a reader of Steve’s blog

which touches on a point I made in one of my comments above:
_______
A reader writes

A good book I don’t think I’ve ever gotten anyone else to read is Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter’s

.  It’s basically about where the ‘60s radicals came from. They break it into two groups, leaders and followers. Did the studies, has statistics, etc. And he shows pretty convincingly that nearly all the leaders were Jewish kids, while most of the followers were Christian kids.

If I remember right, the Jewish kids came from mommy-dominated households that usually supported the kid’s political activities. Many of these families turn out to have had backgrounds in Communism or extreme leftism of one sort or another, so the kid wasn’t breaking with family tradition, he was doing what they always did. Rothman’s pretty convincing when he writes about how leftism and radicalism served these families as replacements for the Judaism they’d lost, and he paints a picture I found convincing of millennia of Jewish experience—shtetls, persecutions, fervent Orthodoxy, argumentation, etc—suddenly finding itself in America, where it’s free, and they aren’t persecuting it. So you had all these wild-eyed, charismatic, brilliant people, suddenly without the compression of traditional life. What to do with all that fire and brilliance? Answer: Marx, Freud, civil rights, etc.

Interesting that he doesn’t talk about the Jewish kids or families being smarter than the Christian kids, just more fiery, Messianic, charismatic, and supported by their families in it all. I came away with a picture in my head of these brilliant Jewish kids kind of performing for the family and the ethnic group, and (probably without thinking about it) somewhat at the expense of ... America. (Rothman’s view of this isn’t far from Macdonald’s, even though Rothman is Jewish.)

Posted by Guessedworker on June 12, 2005, 05:34 PM | #

Amman,

I rely entirely upon common interest to secure the right ambient temperature here, abetted by the native intelligence of those who sometimes err to acknowledge the fact and do it right next time.

Fred’s a fine man and he would be the first to admit that sometimes he comes up a bit short of the positively serpentine tact I’m asking for.  But he cut himself a lot of slack with me when he destroyed David B of GNXP on one of JW’s threads.  I’m sure it will all work out.

Posted by Charles Copeland on June 12, 2005, 05:40 PM | #

Guessedworker, thanks. Very briefly—it’s late and tomorrow I must rise early to carry on the war against Europhilia.

At the European Commission’s internal (and more or less uncensored) website), I am the ONLY official who has publicly and eponymously defended the patriotic Vlaams Belang against accusations of ‘racism’ and ‘fascism’.

In the unlikely event that some Websnooper comes across Fred Scrooby’s semi-paranoid postings in the vicinity of my name, how am I to react? I am sorry but Fred is in objective terms harming all who come into contact with him.

There is a continuum in politics and I am pretty far to the right myself—but I’m not going to continue any discussion with a commenter like Fred who has a monocausal explanation of a complex reality. The fact that many leading representatives of a highly intelligent minority breeding population are no angels on the immigration front does not mean that they’re responsible for all the sufferings of the world. I’ll omit the argumentum ad Hitlerum, though.

I don’t mind being denigrated as a ‘racist’ by the PC community, but I don’t feel like being told by Vlaams Belang supporters that I’m a persona non grata with them as well—thanks to the likes of Stormfronter Fred Scrooby.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 12, 2005, 05:55 PM | #

Copeland needs a thicker skin.  I didn’t know he was an Irish Catholic and now that I know I could care less, and what I wrote stands.  Very sorry Charles.  I don’t respect people who can’t criticize their own race, ethnic group, or religion when it’s called for, especially if they’re ready to criticize others—sorry but that’s not gonna work.  Our business is to get to the bottom of what in the goddamn hell’s going on.  Some other group is partly at fault for the crap that’s going on, you criticize it.  Your own group is partly at fault for the crap that’s going on, you criticize it.  Since when is someone’s group off limits?  For years I’ve admired Copeland’s posts wherever I’ve seen them, mainly at VFR; also very briefly at Richard Poe’s Forum.  I’ve always considered him an excellent thinker; always been extremely impressed with his comments, knowledge, reasoning, views, and so on.  I’ll not swallow his trying to exempt his own group, however.  As for personal abuse, he started it and I replied in kind (unless he considers my Irish Catholic comment to have been personal abuse, which it wasn’t, no matter whether right or wrong—I am here just trying to get to the bottom of things like anyone else here). 

Amman stop your whining.  Toughen up and get on with it, please.  No one’s keeping you from saying what you want.  If you have something to say of value people will read it gratefully and value it.  If not, not.  My advice to you would be (just as when you were posting under the names “Herodotus” some months ago and, just recently, “Anonymous”—yes, yes, you denied that was you but I don’t believe it, unless it was your twin brother) to tighten up your prose, leave off the false politeness and other little digressions, and make your point the quickest way in the fewest words instead of your tendency to this sort of indirect obliqueness in your prose.  Was part of what you resented in my comments in that thread my saying I was interested in having endless discussion of what happens when Bengali girls bear the children of African Negroes, Chinamen, Mexicans, Vietnamese, and so on?  Well it if was, now you know what whites have to endure constantly and we’re all heartily sick of it, I can tell you.  I was giving you a taste of your own medicine.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 12, 2005, 06:00 PM | #

By the way, Charles, what did this mean?:

“The fact that many leading representatives of a highly intelligent minority breeding population are no angels on the immigration front does not mean that they’re responsible for all the sufferings of the world. I’ll omit the argumentum ad Hitlerum, though.”

I didn’t quite get it.  Explain it plainly, in very plain language, please.

Posted by jonjayray on June 12, 2005, 06:00 PM | #

“sang froid is the only sustainable way of doing so”

sang froid?

Hey!  Do we need that Froggy talk?  What about good old Germanic expressions like: “Cool it”

And Fred is to be enjoyed.  He is so extreme that I am sure he is an agent provocateur for the ADL.  He is technically Jewish, you know.  Israel would have him in a flash

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 12, 2005, 06:00 PM | #

No euphemisms please.  Go ahead.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 12, 2005, 06:04 PM | #

“He is technically Jewish”

I don’t know why in hell you persist with that, John.  I am Catholic.

Posted by a on June 12, 2005, 06:09 PM | #

The fact that you even post at a site like “Majority Rights” is incriminating enough. Kevin Lamb just got fired from his job ‘cause he’s an editor of The Occidental Quarterly, a publication that isn’t particularly far removed from this blog’s politics. It’s not just Scrooby you should be worried about—most of the blog agrees with him, hell, Stuka and Tillman make him look like a veritable philo-semite. And, of course, I don’t think Vlamms Belang would be too happy about you rubbing shoulders with Randy Weaver-wannabe Geoff Beck. No need to piss off the ruling regime across the Atlantic, eh?

This whole place is essentially Stormfront Lite. Why you’re picking on Scrooby alone is quite the puzzle.

Posted by gay homosexual on June 12, 2005, 06:12 PM | #

can’t we all get along? i like fred scrooby, i dont think he’s that bad

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 12, 2005, 06:19 PM | #

Well, you certainly seem to hang around a lot, “a.”  (You’ve got everything about the site wrong, btw, but maybe that comes from having a room-temperature IQ and spending so much time over at GnXp.)

But listen, why don’t you just stick with Katy Couric and Matt Lauer—they’re more your speed.  Hey, just a suggestion ...

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 12, 2005, 06:23 PM | #

If Charles “Mr. Delicate” Copeland is afraid of my posts here poisoning his relationship with the Vlaams Belang that’s got to be one of the most pathetic things I’ve heard in a long time, I must say.  It’s also incredible.  I can see I had this guy pegged all wrong.

Posted by Amman on June 12, 2005, 06:26 PM | #

I do have to agree with Fred here. Guessedworker takes pains to keep all of the Stormfront/National Vanguard riffraff away from here; MR is hardly what I’d call “Stormfront Lite.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 12, 2005, 06:39 PM | #

“He is so extreme”  (—John “David Blunkett” Ray)

I’m so extreme, John, and you’re the one who, Blunkett-like, sees no upper limit to Oriental and Subcontinental immigration coming into Oz?  Yet I’m the extreme one, I who call for a reasonable upper limit before things get out of hand and a nation’s race actually changes?  Some U.S. president—I forget which one (Gerald Ford?  Jimmy Carter? I can’t recall) was in a meeting with Deng Hsiao-Ping during an official visit, and broached the subject of China’s not permitting dissidents and others who wanted to leave to do so, calling it human rights abuse.  Deng looked at him and asked, “Sir, maybe that can be arranged.  How many hundred millions do you want?”  That shut the president up, apparently.  So, John—How many hundred millions of Chinamen do you want for Oz?  (And you call me the extreme one?  Official U.S. immigration policy from 1924 to 1965 was “extreme”?  That’s hysterically funny, John.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 12, 2005, 06:39 PM | #

Thanks, Amman.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 12, 2005, 06:46 PM | #

Thanks to you also, Gay Homo.  I didn’t miss you supportive comment, above, and I appreciate it (unless you were being sarcastic, of course, in which case I take back my thanks ).

Posted by Stuka on June 12, 2005, 07:34 PM | #

ahem

Posted by Mark Richardson on June 12, 2005, 07:58 PM | #

“I’m so extreme, John, and you’re the one who, Blunkett-like, sees no upper limit to Oriental and subcontinental immigration coming into Oz.”

Nicely put Fred. I have to say that Fred’s post today was the first that struck me as crossing any sort of line. I’m not of Irish ancestry, but I thought it was a needless put-down of one of the distinctive European ethnies. (To the Irish: please defend yourselves from multiculturalism!!!)

Apart from that post, I usually agree with Fred’s comments, even if they are written more vehemently than my own. Why is it extremist to complain about race replacement?

Fred has done many of us a great service by linking to our stories and sites and by contributing to our comments pages. I, for one, am grateful for this very useful assistance.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 12, 2005, 08:00 PM | #

Stuka, thanks.  And thanks to John Ray who, I now realize, tried in his own way to pull me out of the lion’s jaws at one point, and the others also—GW, of course, and the others.  Look, I don’t want to harm the blog—I’m also thankful for any condemnation of my posts if it’s soundly-based.  Copeland’s didn’t strike me as such.  Sorry.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 12, 2005, 08:03 PM | #

Thank you so much, Mark.  Maybe I did cross a line today.  I’ll stive to be appropriately circumspect in future.  I appreciate the criticism, Mark.

Posted by Svigor on June 12, 2005, 08:15 PM | #

I for one agree with a lot of what Scroob had to say about the Irish.  I have no preexisting animus whatsoever against the Irish, in fact I’m 1/4 or so Irish and could “pass” in a heartbeat.

The problem is that the Irish too-frequently are up to no good.  Whether that’s because they’re about the whitest human group on Earth (not speaking about skin tone but rather genome here) and thus have lost most ethnocentrism genes, or whether they’re doing it all just to stick it to the Anglos is up for debate.

Posted by Stuka on June 12, 2005, 08:18 PM | #

Fred, I’ve greatly enjoyed your writing since my first visit to the discussion board at Jim Kalb’s site several years ago (at least I think that was you!). You’re a delight to read.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 12, 2005, 08:31 PM | #

Thanks so much again, Stuka.  For the record—if you’re trying to figure out if that was me or not—the pen names I’ve used since starting to post comments at blog sites in late 2000 or early 2001 have been Cognassier (means “quince tree” in French), Levophobia, Unvarnished, Unadorned (used that one the longest), and now Fred Scrooby (Scrooby, as the erudite and perspicacious John Ray noted here once, being the town in the mother country where the Pilgrim Fathers first came together as a congregation).

Posted by Lurker on June 12, 2005, 11:17 PM | #

Unadorned - Ive remember seeing that name - somewhere!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 12, 2005, 11:37 PM | #

Unless someone else used it too, Lurker, that was me.
__________

Just want to mention, these two sentences from the linked article use the right term, “birth rate”:

“The Federal Government’s $3000 baby bonus has helped to reverse the nation’s declining birth rate, with new statistics revealing an increase for the first time in a decade. [...] The birth rate is the highest it has reached in seven years and is the first time it has increased significantly since 1961 when it peaked at 3.55.”

And these two use the wrong term, “fertility rate”:

“The Howard Government’s $3000 baby bonus for every baby born in 2004 played a significant role in halting the nation’s declining fertility rate, the Australian National University’s head of demography, professor Peter McDonald said. Prof McDonald predicted the fertility rate would rise to 1.8 in 2005 as the baby bonus starts having an effect.”

Whenever I point this out, someone pipes up and says, “No, fertility rate is the right term:  demographers use it interchangably with birth rate.”  Ya, I know they use it interchangably with birth rate.  That’s the problem:  it’s the wrong term.  Fertility refers to a woman’s ability to get pregnant and have a child.  If a woman decides not to have a child that doesn’t mean she has low fertility.  Her fertility could be sky-high, for all we know.  Catholic nuns of child-bearing age, for example, have zero or very low birth rates but there’s no reason to suppose they have other than normal fertility.  Likewise, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with women’s fertility in low-birth-rate populations.  For whatever reason, they’ve just decided not to get pregnant and have babies.  If a woman with low fertility tried to get pregnant she’d have more difficulty getting pregnant than a woman with normal fertility.  Women who have avoided pregnancy who then decide to try to get pregnant have no particular problem doing so, all other things being equal (appropriate age, etc.).  There are two problems with demographers’ traditional use of the word “fertility” as synonymous with “birth rate”:  1) it’s simply wrong, and although I don’t know the origin of that usage I’d guess it was originally pure ignorance or carelessness with terms.  2) It has the potential to mislead people into supposing that low-birth-rate populations are that way because there’s something wrong with the fertility of the women (and therefore perhaps naught can be done about it).  There isn’t anything wrong with the fertility of the women:  their fertility is just fine, thank you; the fault lies elsewhere.  If some population’s women had suffered an epidemic of disease which left most of them with blocked fallopian tubes from scarring due to infection, that population would have a low birth rate and one cause in that case would be low fertility.  But obviously the low birth rates of the various groups that demonstrate them—non-Hasidic Jews, for example, who traditionally have low birth rates, or whites across the Western World these past few decades—are not generally due to some fertility problem among that group’s women (there’s nothing wrong with Jewish women’s fertility or white women’s fertility in general).

Posted by ummjack on June 13, 2005, 03:01 AM | #

I’m Irish Catholic.  It’s true, we’re really dumb.

Posted by Steve Edwards on June 13, 2005, 07:57 AM | #

The birth rate and fertility rate measure different aspects of population growth. I don’t think there is any reason to get hung up about it.

Let’s get back to the real issue - there is no compelling reason to overthrow the cultural majority of Australia, and recent events are a small step in the right direction.

Posted by ben tillman on June 13, 2005, 09:44 AM | #

I’m Irish Catholic.  It’s true, we’re really dumb.

The Irish are hardly “dumb”, but let’s face it:  All populations of northern and western Europeans are not dumb but gullible.  Manipulable. 

That is how we are constituted.  We are constituted so as to create an ecological niche for manipulators, just as the green crab provides a niche filled by the sacculina barnacle, for instance.  Theoretically, one must suppose that this is the price we pay for our creativity.

Posted by Svigor on June 13, 2005, 03:16 PM | #

How have you determined that these populations are naturally more gullible than others?  I’m not ruling the “white vulnerability” theories out, but I need a bit more than I’ve seen supporting them in the past.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 13, 2005, 04:15 PM | #

Look, I hope it’s obvious that in “crossing that line” which I crossed (as Mark rightly put it) in my offending post I wan’t trying to put the Irish Catholics down as a race.  They are a race I love, respect, and want only the best for (survival as a race first and foremost, of course—something no one twenty years ago would have dreamt it would be necessary in the year 2005 to add).  My post was, as Kubilai understood perfectly in his generous comment shortly after, a call for the U.S. Irish Catholic community to wake up please.  My criticisms of the Jews have the same aim:  not demonizing them or putting them down or wishing them anything but the best as a race, but only pleading with them to wake up.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 13, 2005, 04:28 PM | #

Forget about it, Fred.  Anyway, I’m not sure I don’t like you better when you’re biting some poor sod’s brains.  John’s right.  Don’t ever change!

Posted by ben tillman on June 13, 2005, 04:46 PM | #

How have you determined that these populations are naturally more gullible than others?

It is not a matter of relative gullibility.  Whether others are more or less gullible is wholly beside the point, unless one is planning a propaganda offensive against another race.  But we are engaged in self-defense rather than aggression.

Posted by Svigor on June 13, 2005, 05:23 PM | #

Sorry, I thought you were speaking relatively.

Posted by Svigor on June 13, 2005, 05:30 PM | #

In that case, I wholly agree:

That is how we are constituted.  We are constituted so as to create an ecological niche for manipulators, just as the green crab provides a niche filled by the sacculina barnacle, for instance.

Indeed.  I was thinking along similar lines yesterday (because of something you posted here about individuals as groups and groups as individuals); right now trying to fight the race-destroyers is a bit like cells in a body trying to rebel, having somehow learned of a cancer that is afflicting the body’s nervous system.  It’s not the best situation for those cells to be in.

What did you mean by this:

Theoretically, one must suppose that this is the price we pay for our creativity.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 13, 2005, 06:01 PM | #

Thanks again, GW.

Posted by ben tillman on June 13, 2005, 07:02 PM | #

Theoretically, one must suppose that this is the price we pay for our creativity.

Even though it is not necessary to claim that (or determine whether) we are more susceptible to such manipulation, it is evident that we are susceptible, and our elite are the ones who open the gate to enable the entry of the manipulators. 

I do not see such a phenomenon in other races, though I admit I haven’t looked very hard.  Triandis says all elites are less group-oriented than are the masses, but still this seems to be a phenomenon peculiar to (or especially pronounced in) our race.  To the extent that we have a greater problem in this regard, we must look to ourselves and see what is different about us that might create the susceptibility.

You are right to look to the immune system for insight.  Immunology has sometimes been “summarily” defined as the “science of self/non-self discrimination”, though a more-nuanced definition is more complete:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/biology-self/

Think about that the next time you encounter a person or statute that opposes or prohibits “discrimination”.  The overt purpose is to prevent us from discriminating between self and non-self!  It takes no imagination to understand what is going on once you realize that we are in fact an imperfectly integrated biological organism, if you will forgive the redundancy.  That is why, ultimately, David Sloan Wilson’s books (which elucidate the theoretical underpinnings for MacDonald’s contemporaneous exposition of an example of a human “group” strategy at work) are so much more important than MacDonald’s. 

But I have digressed considerably.  Back to the elites:  How are they bamboozled? 

Cognitive elitism.

The same method is used by Jews and the Asians at GNXP; the intelligent outsider purports to have more in common with the elite white gentile than do his poor relations.  (I will not go into numerous other phenomena that follow.)

And now I arrive back at the point you questioned.  Our creativity is a function of (or at least shares a common cause with) our greater variety in ability within the race—the famous wider standard deviation.  And this greater difference between the two tails of the bell curve provides the crack into which the wedge of cognitive elitism can be driven.

Posted by ben tillman on June 13, 2005, 07:23 PM | #

But there is another sense in which our creativity creates a niche for parasites.  And please bear with me, as I am making this up—hypothesizing—as I go.

Aside from the bacteria that occupy deep-sea vents, the fuel used by all living things is created by photosynthesis.  The fuel created by plants (which have incorporated photosynthesizing bacteria) invites other organisms to use plants as a source of energy.

We are not plants, but we are also creative.  We create technology and political arrangements that create a superabundance of resources that are coveted by those outside the group.  This superabundance also allows for stratification and the concentration of wealth in a few hands as the bonds of bidirectional social control between strata are broken; i.e., the hierarchy tends to escape the “reverse dominance hierarchy” explored by Chris Boehm.  This, too, creates a crack into which the wedge of cognitive elitism can be driven.

Posted by stari_momak on June 13, 2005, 08:03 PM | #

If I might take it back to the Irish thing for a moment. Remember, it was the Micks of Southie, in Boston, that led the first really grass roots rebellion against leveling, neighborhood destroying integration by bussing. There an iconic photo of a guy that is a dead ringer for Dennis O’Leary, wielding the American flag as a weapon against those who would invade his neighborhood. Should be on the wall of every American.

Posted by ummjack on June 13, 2005, 10:51 PM | #

I keep telling you guys, breeding for intelligence is suicidal.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on June 13, 2005, 10:51 PM | #

Speaking of gullibility those 30-75 million evangelical Christians are very much mind slaves, duped into accepting a recently invented variant of Christianity that is virulently pro-Israel. If we must assess the battlefield the outlook is rather grim.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 13, 2005, 11:09 PM | #

“I keep telling you guys, breeding for intelligence is suicidal.”

(Likely as not it’ll be suicidal for the marriage, at any rate.)  I agree with ummjack.  Guys, marry the girl you love, and girls, marry the guy you love.  That’s all there is to it.  The rest will take care of itself:  nature made it that when we do that, we get healthy, happy, smart societies.  Nobody has to worry about “eugenic breeding” (as if anyone had the slightest idea how to “eugenically breed” in the first place ... which they don’t ...)  Eugenics ain’t gonna replace love, guys.

Posted by ben tillman on June 13, 2005, 11:15 PM | #

Speaking of gullibility those 30-75 million evangelical Christians are very much mind slaves, duped into accepting a recently invented variant of Christianity that is virulently pro-Israel.

There may have been a connection between Scofield and the Secret Six, who financed John Brown.  John Brown, of course, was inspired by biographies and glorifications of Cromwell.  The roots of present-day Christian Zionism may trace right back to 17th-c. England and Holland.

Posted by Amman on June 14, 2005, 12:05 AM | #

I do not see such a phenomenon in other races, though I admit I haven’t looked very hard.  Triandis says all elites are less group-oriented than are the masses, but still this seems to be a phenomenon peculiar to (or especially pronounced in) our race.

Actually, I can think of an example in which the Negro race displayed the same characteristics. In Ethnic America, Thomas Sowell (Yes, I know he’s a Negro, but in this case his scholarship seems sound) points out that the Northern black elite cared more about “sucking up to whites,” so to speak, than about racial solidarity. When their ignorant, ill-educated Southern brethren began pouring into Northern cities during the late nineteenth century, Northern black elites denounced their fellow blacks as stupid and lawless and staunchly (but ineffectively) opposed their entry. This led to a “black flight” John Derbyshire has described, in which the black middle class, just like whites, fled cities where Southern blacks poured in.

This would certainly seem like an indication that, at least during the late nineteenth century, Negro elites were not very loyal to their race as a whole. So I suppose white elites are not alone in their “deracinization.”

Posted by Steve Edwards on June 14, 2005, 01:14 AM | #

Throughout all this controversy over birth rates, etc (which, as I concur with Mr Scrooby, is a very real problem), is anyone aware that Hong Kong’s “fertility rate” (number of children per woman) is 0.90?

This is the lowest fertility rate in the world to my knowledge. How could it fall so low?

Posted by jonjayray on June 14, 2005, 06:49 AM | #

Wow!  What a free-for-all my little post has evoked.

To get back to matters of substance, it is true that the Irish have a lower average IQ than the Brits.  Most of the smart Irish either became priests (and thus fucked only boys) or emigrated.  And I am myself in part descended from some of the emigrants concerned so have no animus against the Irish in noting all that.

Posted by jonjayray on June 14, 2005, 07:04 AM | #

Below is an interesting email I received:

Regarding the news on Australia’s increased birth rate. We will have to wait a few years to see if the growth is permanent. It could simply be a result of women having their babies a few years earlier to take advantage of the financial benefit. However I have doubts that the baby bonus is the cause. The benefit only started on 1 July 2004 so all the growth would have to have occurred in the last 6 months of the year, something which I think is unlikely.

I have been expecting such an increase for some time. What has to be remembered is the USA has been undergoing a similar increase since the 1980’s. No one really knows why but the best guess is that Americans believe their country is a good place to have children.

See http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1291056

This country’s economy has been booming for years , Parramatta were I’m at, had unemployment around 10% a decade ago, its now under 3%. Even in expensive Sydney home ownership is still affordable for a family if they are willing to go to the outer suburbs. Have a look at the McMansion estates near Blacktown. Theres often a 4x4 in the garage. The federal government can take a lot of credit for this. Sound economic policy has made it possible. Perhaps John Howard can really claim to be the “father” of the nation.

The long term political effects will be interesting. As the economist article make clear Europe is slowly fading away with a birth rate well below replacement. By the middle of the century the USA will completely overshadow Europe. If the Australian birth rate increase is real then we also will have a younger more dynamic population. It will horrify the left elite but we are more likely to move closer to the USA then away .

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 14, 2005, 08:07 AM | #

Before this thread ends on babies and birth rates, I thought I’d post the following nice column

I saw yesterday, which seems to go hand-in-glove with the subject:
__________________________

Sun, June 12, 2005

KEEPING ABREAST OF FEMINIST “VIEW,” by Ted Byfield—Calgary Sun

“The target of this feminist revolution,” said a shrewd woman when the feminist revolt appeared about 35 years ago, “is supposed to be the man. It isn’t. It’s really the child.”

That woman was, in fact, my wife and, as usual, she had her reasons.

“Women like to think it’s the man that hampers us and holds us back, she said.  “But that’s nonsense, and most of us know it. It’s the child who occupies our life, takes years of our time, ruins our figure, destroys our career aspirations.  But that’s the way it was intended to be. It’s a fact of life. We’re expected to give. That’s our job. That’s our nature. If you fight it, you’re not fighting with the man, or with society. You’re actually fighting with God.”  (As it happens, this particular woman had both career and motherhood. She raised six children, became an altogether competent journalist, and is now, at 76, the central copy editor on our 12-volume history of Christianity.)

What brought all this to mind last week was an unusual incident in New York City. About 200 women gathered outside the ABC television studio and began breast-feeding their children.  It was a “nurse-in,” intended to protest the remarks of television newscaster Barbara Walters on a show called The View, in which Barbara and three other women present, I suppose, the world from the feminist viewpoint.

I’ve never seen it, but the name itself suggests a kind of politburo of feminism, laying down “the view,” the party line, from party headquarters. “Here is what you are to think of this, and here is what you are to say about that.” The Catholics have the Pope, the Protestants have the Bible, and the feminists have Barbara Walters.

One thing The View doesn’t like is the breast feeding of children in public. Or anywhere else, it seems. Barbara had to sit next to a nursing mother on an airplane. She found the spectacle “gross and disgusting,” she said. When one of her three colleagues put her month-old child on formula, she was lustily cheered by the others. [cont’d next comment]

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 14, 2005, 08:08 AM | #

[cont’d from previous comment] It’s well there should be a protest. The image of the mother nursing the child is, surely, one of the primal positive symbols of humanity. The mother gives herself to the child, and because she does this, the human race continues. That has always been the message of the nursing mother, and it is an altogether satisfactory message.

The normal male reaction to it is curious. The female breast, when it is not serving this purpose, arouses in most of us an erotic response. It is, literally, sexy. But as soon as it is turned over to this other function, the whole erotic element vanishes, and another value replaces it.  It seems beautiful, but in a very different way. It suggests the idea of wealth, of plenty, of richness. You get the same feeling when you look at a field of full, ripe and rich wheat or barley, waving in a light August wind, the sentiment some great and unknown Jewish poet expressed in the 65th psalm:

The fields shall be clothed with sheep, and the valleys shall stand so thick with corn that they shall laugh and sing.

Now all this is plainly lost on Walters, and the pontificators of The View. But notice this: To them, the nursing mother is not merely something irrelevant. It evokes disgust and revulsion. It is loathsome. Why?, one wonders.

Because, of course, it defiantly declares the “giving” role of women—the giving, in particular, of life to the child. And the child is the enemy, the enslaver, the tyrant. “Take that away,” they say. “I don’t want to see that. You have no right to show me that.” It does not accord with The View.

The truth is much that is human does not accord with The View, and the English language has a word for something which is only partly human. We call such a thing a “monster,” and when it is deliberately created, a monstrosity.

It was against this monstrosity that those women in New York were protesting.
___________________

(I saw the link in a

.  Kevin Michael Grace, whom I esteem highly, was critical of the piece, as can be seen at the first link of this last sentence, but in sort of a harmless way, so I forgive him.  I disagreed with Kevin’s curmudgeonly finding of fault with the “letter” of the writer’s intent instead of respecting its “spirit.”  I loved the piece, I love the idea and sight of women breast feeding, and what Barbara Walters actually did say as noted by Kevin was almost as bad as what the writer inaccurately reported her to have said—so, she richly deserved the roasting she got in the piece, as far as I’m concerned, the jealous bitch!  Where does she come off saying that about a breast-feeding mother-and-baby, one of the most beautiful sights in God’s creation!)
_________

Err ... Did I say “hand-in-glove”?  Hmmm ... doesn’t sound right in this context ... “bosom-in-nursing-bra”? ... Nah. No good. ... “nipple-in-baby’s-lips”? ... Even worse. ... I’d better quit while I’m still ahead—let’s leave it at “hand-in-glove,” shall we? ...

Posted by ben tillman on June 14, 2005, 10:57 AM | #

Actually, I can think of an example in which the Negro race displayed the same characteristics. In Ethnic America, Thomas Sowell (Yes, I know he’s a Negro, but in this case his scholarship seems sound) points out that the Northern black elite cared more about “sucking up to whites,” so to speak, than about racial solidarity.

The “Northern black elite” were not black.  They were of mixed ancestry, so they weren’t even of the same race as those with whom they lacked solidarity.  Still, if we extend Rushton’s theories, we see (or hypothesize) that blacks are more individualistic and less ethnocentric than whites, and the “black elite” (even when it is genetically similar to the black masses) is likely more easily separated from its poor relations than is the white elite.  So, you do indeed have a point.  I spoke imprecisely.  I should have limited my comment to other races of average or above-average intelligence.

Posted by ummjack on June 14, 2005, 01:22 PM | #

Got milk?

Posted by Amman on June 14, 2005, 02:14 PM | #

The “Northern black elite” were not black.  They were of mixed ancestry, so they weren’t even of the same race as those with whom they lacked solidarity.  Still, if we extend Rushton’s theories, we see (or hypothesize) that blacks are more individualistic and less ethnocentric than whites, and the “black elite” (even when it is genetically similar to the black masses) is likely more easily separated from its poor relations than is the white elite.  So, you do indeed have a point.  I spoke imprecisely.  I should have limited my comment to other races of average or above-average intelligence. 

Oh, yes, you’re quite right. Intermarriage was quite common in the North—still, I think mixed Northern blacks were more black than white…my memory might be failing me, but I remember hearing that Northern blacks were on average only 37% white.

I should have limited my comment to other races of average or above-average intelligence.

Well, which average? Remember, an IQ of 70 is “average” for an African Negro

Posted by Svigor on June 14, 2005, 04:24 PM | #

The world average seems to be around 85-90 if memory serves.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 15, 2005, 02:19 AM | #

On the Barbara Walters/The View breast-feeding flap, here‘s an extremely gratifying column by one of my fav commentators, Michelle Malkin, up tonight at Vdare.com

.  (Love ya, Michelle!  And you nursed your babies for six and thirteen months?  What a woman!  What a mother!  Beautiful!  Thanks to all that mother’s milk nourishing their bodies and brains just when they needed it most for their natural development, those two kids are going to grow up to be exceptionally good-looking, healthy, and brainy!  Eat your heart out, Barbara Walters!)