Posted by John Ray on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 12:56 | #

Japan too is facing a similar demographic disaster.  It is an enormous loss to lose so much of a population that contributes so much

Posted by Phil on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 14:17 | #

I am often a little bemused by this constant fretting over the “ageing” disaster.

Britain ruled the world in the 19th century with a population that was a bare fraction of what it has now. Some of the finest products of civilization were produced by the ancient Greeks - and in pure numbers they were miniscule compared to the masses of people that inhabit most nations today. But where is the Aristophanes, Plato, Theucidides, Homer, Socrates or Aristotle of our age? Where is a writer who could produce an Iliad?

And for all the people we have today, we don’t have a Shakespeare in our midst although in sheer numbers there could be no comparison between Elizabethan England and the England of 2005.

The only thing that really matters is character. If Britain ceases to be Britain – by a combination of mass displacement and the atrocious quality of its popular culture, the native birth-rates would be irrelevant. On the other hand, even with a very low birth-rate, if Britain survived into the future intact as a nation, perhaps the possibility of a renaissance would remain.

This is, I believe, the fundamental issue that ought to matter to Conservatives. Now of course, if we have let in so many Muslims in our midst that even with zero immigration, the future would belong to them, we can forget about birth-rates. Muslims can outbreed any people in any nation. I would like someone to cite one example of Muslims being outbred by another people in the same country. It has practically never happened.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:26 | #

>  that ought to matter to Conservatives.

Don’t hold your breath.

Posted by sr on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:26 | #

What do you call a rabble of naked heads and greedy beaks tearing at the decaying flesh of the West?

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:40 | #

The need is for a worldwide population program that will psh the Third World to adopt the civilized reproduction practices of the Italians and Japanese.  1 billion, the world population at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, is quite enough—steps need to be taken immediately to get us back to that leevl as soon as possible.

The “demographic disater” is easily solvable by the bastards working longer and not retiring at 55. Japan has no real problem; Italy is an idle disaster, but it’s their own fault.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:47 | #

” ‘that ought to matter to Conservatives.’  Don’t hold your breath.”  (—Geoff)

Isn’t it time we stopped calling ourselves conservatives?  Yes I know, I know, we’ve been through all this before and it’s boring, partly because there’s no viable alternative right now.  But still—there’s got to be some other name for us.  We should take any name that fits regardless of whether it’s already been stolen by the left (such as “Progressives,” my personal favorite for us).  I for one call myself “a conservative” as seldom as humanly possible.  I emphatically DO NOT belong to the same political faction as “conservative George Bush,” but am politically as far away from him as it is possible to get!

“What do you call a rabble of naked heads and greedy beaks tearing at the decaying flesh of the West?”  (—sr)

Country Club Republicans?

Posted by Matra on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:02 | #

The only thing that really matters is character

The decline in birthrates is, of course, related to character. But numbers do matter, particularly in war. The industrial output of a nation (the US in WW2) and number of men they can afford to sacrifice in war (US and especially USSR) can determine who wins to fight another day. What Hitler would’ve given for another 50 million Germans! If indigenous birthrates don’t recover and the Muslims keep arriving it could force a showdown sooner rather than later (good!) or the opposite could occur - paralysis, demoralisation and eventual collapse.

That said, small nations are often more united and less complacent than large ones as they feel more vulnerable. I thought it was interesting that in the months after 9/11 the countries that saw a seachange in opinion with regard to the Muslims within were Denmark (pop. 6m) and the Netherlands (pop. approx 17m) - even before the deaths of Pim Fortyn and Theo van Gogh. 9/11 led to greater change in Danish immigration laws than it did in the US!

Posted by Andrew Luttrell on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:29 | #

I would have said by 2050 the population would be safe , because as Phil points out, Moslems breed like rabbits, sure the U N realised that, HA , yep they realise that, I would have thought the Vatican would need a change of Underpants in that case, as it soon will become another Moslem assett by default, Praise Allah for Multiculturalism, the devinity and its scriptures. Hmmmmm

Posted by sr on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:30 | #

Multivulturalism.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:42 | #

“The need is for a worldwide population program that will push the Third World to adopt the civilized reproduction practices of the Italians and Japanese.”  (—Martin Hutchinson)

There is one, Martin—according to the Tranzis, that is.  It’s called <u>free trade</u>.  Free trade’s supposed to lift living standards in the Third World and that, in turn, is supposed to restrain population growth there (by the well-known socio-economic Law that says “the richer a society gets the bitchier and less motherly its women get”( * ), refusing to have children since belly stretch marks don’t look good in a bikini and breastfeeding makes the bustline sag( ** )—stuff like that, which they didn’t think about back when they never knew if they were going to starve to death in any given week or not).  The problem is free trade doesn’t work as claimed.  NAFTA hasn’t increased Mexican wages, has flattened U.S. manufacturing wages, has taken away industrial jobs from north of the Rio Grande, and has restrained Mexican population growth all right, but achieved it by opening up U.S. borders, sending forty million Mexicans and their offspring who otherwise would be there here instead, so Mexico now has forty million fewer Mexicans than it would’ve and we have forty million more (the dream-come-true of the Tranzi religion of “free across-borders movement of labor to go along with free across-borders movement of capital), with the burden of paying for all those Mexican peasants and their babies falling on white shoulders so there are correspondingly fewer whites able to afford to have babies of their own or as many as they’d have liked, or even to afford marriage and home-buying—you know, stuff used to start a family with, not to mention the husband’s steady job with decent wages and benefits, now a thing of the past since NAFTA—and thus proceeds race-replacement, the silliest idea John Ray, “The Bad John,” ever heard of. 

( *  Hutchinson’s Law, isn’t it?  Yes I think it’s called Martin Hutchinson’s Law after the financial journalist and author.)

( **  Which it doesn’t, by the way, for all the shallow barren-is-better bitches out there—it doesn’t, any more than bearing babies widens the female hips—those are both complete myths:  the women with sagging breasts would’ve had them anyway, breastfeeding or not, and the dreaded wider hips and bigger ass that come with the approach to age 40 are the result of getting fatter, not of bearing babies.  Sorry, girls:  no excuses!)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:56 | #

Matra’s right, above:  small nations look around them with noses butting right up against their borders and realize, “Hey, there aren’t that many of us to spare; the foreigners are right there across that border a hundred miles in that direction and three hundred in that one—we’d really better start to take steps now to preserve ourselves, literally speaking!  This is no joke!”  Big nations like the U.S. occupy an entire continent, and medium-size England in particular has the illusion of being big because of all the influence of the U.S.‘s nonchalant outlook on its, England’s, thinking—it sees the world partly through the U.S.‘s “Hey don’t worry about a thing, there’s nothing to worry about”-colored glasses.  Especially if you include English Canada, it’s all Anglosphere from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the Rio Grande to the North Pole.  U.S. English-speakers look around and see no threat anywhere from any quarter—in fact, they start to get sick of Englishness out of sheer monotony.  That’s how smaller nations may well fare better demographically than bigger ones—the danger seems so far away and so unlikely to the bigger ones, and they feel so unassailable, it’s harder for them to sense alarm until it’s nearly too late.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 18:08 | #

“I would have thought the Vatican would need a change of Underpants in that case,”  (—Andrew)

For the fact of so many Catholics and Catholic groups sticking their nose into affairs that don’t concern them in support of race-replacement immigration, the Vatican deserves to get flooded with Bantus from the Sudan and Moslems from anyplace until there’s not a single white or Christian face to be seen there, and the liberals in the Vatican Court who make policy figure a few things out and start putting a leash and muzzle on some of these local bleeding-heart Catholic groups worldwide who are on the wrong side of the white-genocide-through-race-replacement crisis.  (I’m Catholic, incidentally.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 18:56 | #

“Multivulturalism”

LOL, sr.  That sums it up, doesn’t it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:21 | #

Hearty congratulations to the Brits, by the way, on getting that Russian sub crew out alive today!  (It seems the Yanks, transporting their equipment as fast as they could, arrived on the scene some hours after the Brits had already begun the job, so weren’t needed at all.)  Way to go, guys!  ...I guess the Royal Navy is one outfit that hasn’t quite gone “sclerotic” just yet ...

Posted by john rackell on Mon, 08 Aug 2005 01:16 | #

Speaking of the Royal Navy, this is quite funny - hidden in the byways of the BNP site:

If the Battle of Trafalgar had happened today, under loony left, politically correct rule:

“Order the signal, Hardy.”

“Aye, aye sir.”

“Hold on, that’s not what I dictated to the signal officer. What’s the meaning of this?”

“Sorry sir?”

“‘England expects every person to do his duty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious persuasion or disability.’ What gobbledygook is this?”

“Admiralty policy, I’m afraid, sir. We’re an equal opportunities employer now. We had the devil’s own job getting ‘England’ past the censors, lest it be considered racist.”

<continued>

http://www.bnp.org.uk/humour/trafalgar.htm

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 08 Aug 2005 01:45 | #

LOL!!!

Posted by Tournament of Champions on Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:05 | #

Would anyone object if we WNs regime-changed Italy and outlawed condoms/diaphrams/abortions for a trial period of 5 years? It’s not as slick as economic incentives or beating the womens lib ideas out of female skulls, but I think it’d work quite well.

Posted by AD on Tue, 09 Aug 2005 03:26 | #

Isn’t it time we stopped calling ourselves conservatives?  Yes I know, I know, we’ve been through all this before and it’s boring, partly because there’s no viable alternative right now.  But still—there’s got to be some other name for us.

White.As in,positively white,not regretably white.

White must mean pro-white.Light skinned people who work against their own group interests are not white.There is no ‘i’m white,but…....’.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 09 Aug 2005 05:48 | #

It appears that increased literacy rates directly correlate to decreased fertility thru higher usage of modern birth control methods and result in lower infant mortality rates.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12283968&dopt=Abstract

It appears that driving down birth rates in developing countries is as simple as teaching women to read. According to the above study a female literacy rate of 65% in india cuts child/woman rates significantly.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 Aug 2005 08:09 | #

AD,

Anything wrong with White Conservative?  It’s true.  For us it distinguishes itself from the useless mainstream varieties of Conservatism and implies a critique of same.  In the public mind, it distinguishes from white extremism.

I certainly wouldn’t mind being called a White Conservative by some leftist self-hater.  The joke’s on him.

Posted by JB on Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:56 | #

JJRAY:
“Japan too is facing a similar demographic disaster.  It is an enormous loss to lose so much of a population that contributes so much”

but there’s practically no non-japaneses in Japan, unlike in Europe where there are substancial groups of non-europeans, especially muslims/north-africans. A ‘demographic disaster’ in Japan won’t kill Japan. 

We can blame feminism, abortion, etc. but none of these things can kill us unless they’re combined with mass immigration - and mass immigration without feminism, abortion, etc. could kill us anyway.

“Our” governments have pushed us into a demographic competition that they have started by letting so many non-whites settle and breed in our lands. And they relentlessly attack those who side with the White camp through laws, which practically forbids whites from defending themselves physically as well as intellectually, and with propaganda at schools, which hopes to convince young whites that their race is bad and that those who want it to be preserved and be healthy are so wrong that they must be fought to death.

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 04:10 | #

I certainly wouldn’t mind being called a White Conservative by some leftist self-hater.  The joke’s on him.

  I know you don’t need to be told that isn’t on the table.  We’re all “White Supremacists” [sic].

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:19 | #

“It appears that driving down birth rates in developing countries is as simple as teaching women to read.”  (—Desmond Jones, 4:48 AM)

But women in the U.S. could read in the 1960s when they were bearing babies at the rate of somewhere in the three-point-something range, or even close to four.  What then happened was the left got its mitts on things and drove down white birth rates, not by teaching women to read but by teaching them not to bear babies, pure and simple.  That teaching, which is multi-faceted, has to be undone.  It’s a death-wish.  That’s all it is, no matter what sophistries they use in their attempt to cover that fact up.

In re JB’s comment just a couple above this one:  I was on the point of taking some excerpts from it and pointing out how true they were, but the whole thing’s true from the first to the last word, so I’d have to paste the entire comment to point out what was so absolutely, perfectly right about it.  To simplify things I’ll just note that JB’s whole comment of 5:56 PM, the whole enchilada from beginning to end—starting with the words “but there’s practically” and ending with the words “fought to death”—is a veritable fount of purest truth and wisdom throughout:  every word, comma, hyphen, quotation mark, and period.  Let’s just say JB has caught on—it’s plain, perfectly clear, that this is an individual whose head is screwed on, as they say, frontwards—not sideways, not backwards, not inside out or upside down, but frontwards.  Is that too much to ask?  Apparently it is nowadays, for the most part.  Good job, JB!  You’ve got it down far better than many an Ivy-League college professor, I can guarantee it.