← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · darkeddy
Thread ID: 4486 | Posts: 34 | Started: 2003-01-17
2003-01-17 05:06 | User Profile
3rd world immigrants and their descendents are filling up the West. This does not bode well for whites, or for those who like simply like whites!
One solution is expell non-white or break nations up into smaller ethnic-enclaves. Another is to wait for collapse. I reject the first solution as politically un-workable--it's just not going to happen (I also think that is immoral to expel non-white citizens simply for not being white, but put that to the side). And even if one thinks collapse into civil war is a possibility--shouldn't we have a contingency plan for the situation where collapse does not occur.
Obviously, we need to limit 3rd world immigration. However, the extent to which this will be politically possible may be more limited than is sufficient to secure a good fate for the white race. And even if we manage to cut off 3rd world immigration altogether, will that be enough?
Something more is needed: I suggest that the answer is increasing the white birth rate. White needs to breed with other whites and have larger families.
Now there have to be conditions on how this works. For example, it can't be that only stupid people breed, as this might have un-fortunate evolutionary effects. Likewise, white solidarity cannot be total, and those of us interested in the flourishing of white of N. European descent need to promote not simply the idea of a higher white birthrate, more specifically a higher birthrate among those of N. European descent (in Europe, N. America, Australia, S. Africa, etc. -- including, potential, those with Jewish heritage).
What would a proper increase in the white birthrate do? For one, it would ensure that white remain the majority in countries that are currently white. This is essential for maintaing control of institutions of cultural transmission, legislation on race relations, immigration policy, and the ability of governments to confiscate white wealth for the 'betterment' of non-whites. All of these results are necessary if there is to be a continuing, authentic white civilization with flourshing white cultures.
Second, a higher white birth rate would lead to a renewed sense of vigour among whites, and ought to aid economic and scientific development, given white abilities in these areas. These developments would further augment white cultures.
How do we increase the white birth rate? Obviously, as soon as one is able, the first thing to do is find a suitable white mate--no easy task, of course--and, as soon as feasible, start having a lot of kids.
Second, there are less strenuous alternatives: one needs to promote the idea that it is a good thing for whites to have a lot of kids with other whites. In order to do this, it is important to play down environmental worries, and to contrast the population pressure caused by children 'entering' already in-place families vs. the population pressure and disruption caused by allowing large numbers of highly-foreign foreigners to immigrate to the West. It is also important not to criticize large white familes for being too large, and to scoff at people who claim to be helping the environment by not having white children.
One can talk about the problems of supporting an aging population without a replacement white population, one can just flat out point to the need to replenish the (white) race given all non-whites who are moving to the West or having lots of kids of their own in the West, and one can point out the way a vibrant white youth population will be good for white culture as a whole.
Beyond these measures, one can work to reduce the size of the government, lower taxes on the middle class, end welfare, institute school choice and the creation of Euro-centric education (in the US), and, as always, work to curb both legal and illegal immigration from the 3rd world.
2003-01-17 15:54 | User Profile
**darkeddy: How do we increase the white birth rate? **
I guess you must've missed Romaina -- where the govt REQUIRED women to throw 4-5 kids -- and most of the kids ended up warehoused in massive 'orphanages' because there was no money, no food, no housing for the women, and no way for them to care for all these kids. And the kids ended up destroyed, or so damaged that they were useless in the society. The few adopted out to the US don't count... Saving a couple does NOT balance the destruction of thousands.
And where is the armed power of the govt going to come from (yeah, I know, it's here already -- but in service of destruction of whites, not forced breeding...) to FORCE women to breed? And where will the shocktroops come from to manage every white block and make sure the women (and their men, who won't be able to feed their own kids AND all the illegitimate kids from all non-whites!) don't surreptitiously abort (or kill after birth) children they just can't feed?!
2003-01-17 17:06 | User Profile
I focus on the idea of increasing the white birth rate precisely because it does not require state intervention. Indeed, all it requires--to reach a truly high, levels of white replenishment and flourishing--is that the state not intervene at the level it currently does. It is difficult to support large families if the tax is taxing massive amounts of whites wealth, either directly through individual taxes, or indirectly through taxes on buisenesses that whites use. Likewise, state intervention in areas of race relations and welfare also damage white families.
2003-01-17 17:37 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 17 2003, 11:06 ** I focus on the idea of increasing the white birth rate precisely because it does not require state intervention. **
You're talking about a problem that's largely going to fix itself. Third World birthrates are dropping like a rock. Mexico's facing demographic decline. India and China, thanks to selective abortion, have overwhelmingly male populations (less females, less babies). The only place where rates are increasing is the Islamic world, and that's more of a European problem which can be fixed by rational immigration controls. Also, religious fundamentalism tends to do itself in, the next generation of Islamics are going to pretty fed up with the strictures they're living under now, and are going to cut loose. It's already happening in Iran.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't close our borders, BTW. We should, and posthaste. There's no reason to continue aggravating an obvious problem, but then again, we're not necessarily facing the annihilation so often predicted.
Best, P
2003-01-17 17:44 | User Profile
I am afraid that I do not share your optimism about the birth rates of all 3rd world nations. We have to look at the totality.
More importantly, we have to look at the birthrates of 3rd world immigrants in the West. Latinons in America, for example, continue to have extremely high birth rates.
Finally, we need a means of un-doing the damage already done by 3rd world immigration.
2003-01-17 18:05 | User Profile
P: what on earth are you talking about? Yes, the birth rate in Mexico has dropped from 5 to 3 births per woman in 75 years. But considering they're living to 75 instead of 50, the net is: same number of Mexican growth.
Also, look at Africa. Exploding growth, Nigeria went from 50M (1975) to 150M (today). Is that not explosive?
As for having kids, they're not expensive. That's bullshit, if they were HIspanics wouldn't have so many. They're only expensive to white suburbanites who think they need huge houses, SUVs, and Baby Gap clothes.
-Jay
2003-01-17 18:12 | User Profile
Originally posted by jay@Jan 17 2003, 12:05 ** They're only expensive to white suburbanites who think they need huge houses, SUVs, and Baby Gap clothes. **
Boy, are you in for a surprise.
B)
2003-01-17 18:49 | User Profile
Well, I grew up with 5 siblings, so I have some concept of large families. We ate lots of PBJs, apple wedges, and glasses of milk.
Food has never been cheaper in US history. Look at all the fat-butts you see around you. People aren't starving. Besides, I already pay for public schools anyway, might as well drop my own kids off there.
-Jay
2003-01-17 19:06 | User Profile
P: what on earth are you talking about? Yes, the birth rate in Mexico has dropped from 5 to 3 births per woman in 75 years. But considering they're living to 75 instead of 50, the net is: same number of Mexican growth.
Older people aren't immigrating. It's the excess younger generation that goes. It's already having an effect in Mexico. They have their own labor shortages in some of the southern cities, and they're beginning to have their illegal alien problems as a result.
Also, look at Africa. Exploding growth, Nigeria went from 50M (1975) to 150M (today). Is that not explosive?
Nigeria is a majority Moslem country. The growing birthrate coincides with rising fundamentalism, but fundamentalism burns itself out after a while; see Iran.
Don't get me wrong, Jay. I agree our borders are a problem and need to be fixed, and now, but on the other hand the sky isn't falling.
Best, P
2003-01-17 19:13 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 17 2003, 11:44 **
**
I am afraid that I do not share your optimism about the birth rates of all 3rd world nations. We have to look at the totality.
Third World populations overall are slowing down and some will begin dropping.
More importantly, we have to look at the birthrates of 3rd world immigrants in the West. Latinons in America, for example, continue to have extremely high birth rates.
And they start dropping off and matching white norms after a while. In fact, they have higher abortion rates than whites.
Finally, we need a means of un-doing the damage already done by 3rd world immigration.
I'm sorry, you can't undo every historical mistake. The best you can hope for is to limit damages. Close the borders enforce serious penalties on employers for hiring illegals and let time do its work. Any "undoing" will most like wind up doing more harm than good.
Best, P
2003-01-17 20:04 | User Profile
Avalanche Posted on Jan 17 2003, 09:54
**And where is the armed power of the govt going to come from (yeah, I know, it's here already -- but in service of destruction of whites, not forced breeding...) to FORCE women to breed? **
Aye. A countryââ¬â¢s use of arms is a very poor alternative to media in moulding the minds of its citizens. Force changes behaviour quite nicely but -- Helsinki (or is it Stockholm?) syndrome aside -- it does not instil loyalty and belief in the virtue of political system such as ââ¬Ådemocraciesââ¬Â enjoy. In modern countries, and the west in particular, media is that arm of the state whose function it is to effect behavioural change in the populace by issuing directives via boobtubes and other devices -- not unlike proclamations and writs bearing the kingââ¬â¢s signature in days past, but, of course, the messages are infinitely more subtle and hence effective because nitwits think themselves well informed and some actually accept the literal meaning of the token ââ¬Åbalanced and objective newsââ¬Â that accompany ââ¬Ëgraveââ¬â¢ but still manufactured issues. All societies are oligarchies and democracy just happens to have the prettiest packaging because it indulges peoplesââ¬â¢ fantasies of having a say. This pretence of ours is dangerous and ought to be discarded. Furthermore, the current regime is openly hostile to whites and, to lesser extent, any expression of nationalism regardless of race because it threatens global markets, hence profits, and hence funds to maintain the whole shebang. Flooding our countries with savages and promoting miscegenation is integral to this plan and no legislation, even if sponsored by well meaning and only unwitting tools, will suffice to halt the tide of hedonistic orgy aided hyper-consumerism that our society was designed for. The Romanians ought to have known better because the legislative experiment aimed at increasing birth rate was tried in an empire that was the namesake of their country.
Our destiny has already been written and the title of the coming volume is misery. As always only the fit, the lucky, and the opportunistic (order of relevance uncertain) will survive, and I am confident that at least one pocket of survivors will be all white or very nearly so. Our genetic history tells of a bottleneck in the white gene pool, but I never thought the opening so small that it only accommodated seven as one theory puts forth (ââ¬ÅThe Seven Daughters of Eveââ¬Â). Whatever the case may be I must be off. This being Friday, off in search of a worthy mother of one potential Eve! :D
2003-01-17 20:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Jan 17 2003, 13:13 **
Third World populations overall are slowing down and some will begin dropping.
More importantly, we have to look at the birthrates of 3rd world immigrants in the West.ÃÂ Latinons in America, for example, continue to have extremely high birth rates.
And they start dropping off and matching white norms after a while. In fact, they have higher abortion rates than whites.
Finally, we need a means of un-doing the damage already done by 3rd world immigration.
I'm sorry, you can't undo every historical mistake. The best you can hope for is to limit damages. Close the borders enforce serious penalties on employers for hiring illegals and let time do its work. Any "undoing" will most like wind up doing more harm than good.
Best, P **
3rd world population growth (both in the 3rd world and in the West) is not slowing fast enough. It is all about comparitive rates, not simply 'up' or 'down' measures. Thus we need to take appropriate counter-measures, by promoting a higher white birth rate and limiting 3rd world immigration to the West.
I am not suggesting that we turn our attention to 'every' historical mistake. I am suggesting we take some action to limit the long-term damage of a particular set of historical mistakes tied to the dual rise of feminst, self-centered lifestyles in the West and the opening up of the West to 3rd world immigration. Increasing the white birth rate in proper fashion may cause some harm--but this will be more than outwayed by the good for whites and those linked to us.
2003-01-17 21:07 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 17 2003, 14:45 ** 3rd world population growth (both in the 3rd world and in the West) is not slowing fast enough. It is all about comparitive rates, not simply 'up' or 'down' measures. Thus we need to take appropriate counter-measures, by promoting a higher white birth rate and limiting 3rd world immigration to the West. **
Well, there is one way to do it. I just don't think it's ever going to happen. You eliminate Social Security, Medicare and every other old age benefit. Without retirement assurety from the government, people will look to having more kids around to support them in their dotage.
Best, P
2003-01-17 21:12 | User Profile
We can at least attempt to limit welfare, even if we can't immediately cut it off completely. That will, as you mention, strengthen the family. However, simply promoting the idea of augmenting white culture through large white families--this can have as powerful effect without a politician having to cast a single vote our way. Don't wait for the government to change. Buy some guns and some diapers.
2003-01-17 21:31 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 17 2003, 15:12 ** We can at least attempt to limit welfare, even if we can't immediately cut it off completely. That will, as you mention, strengthen the family. **
No, no. Not welfare. Cutting off aid to the poor will only decrease (maybe) their family size. I mean cut off old age benefits to everyone. That will increase birthrates among whites, as well as everyone else, because now younger workers will have to make their own social security instead of relying on Uncle Sugar.
As for promoting the idea, well, go to it. Just don't hold your breath. It's awful hard getting people to give up their toys for tots.
Best, P
2003-01-17 21:52 | User Profile
Any honest, hard-working person can make a living in the US. Welfare is nice, but strictly speaking, is only required by losers. We don't those sort of people breeding anyways. Putting money in the hands of hard-working families is a far better idea.
As far as promoting the idea of larger white families go: um, it would help if others promoted the idea as well. Thanks.
PS to Rban: I hope that Hindus have a prosperous future in India. But since I am not a neo-Nazi, I couldn't care less about your quaint racial theories. We of European descent developed rather a lot after leaving the Aryan homeland. I am sorry that you Hindu-types did not keep up, and enjoy the West if you are a citizen of a Western nation: otherwise, stay the hell out.
2003-01-17 22:01 | User Profile
Originally posted by rban@Jan 17 2003, 15:31 ** How about importing massive numbers of Aryan Hindus to offset other minorities? **
Ooo, what a surprise. Another Rban Brahmide.
Best, P
2003-01-18 01:14 | User Profile
Perhaps not strictly on-topic, but one of the major benefits touted by immigration enthusiasts is that modern economies can only function with a constantly growing population.
Here Anthony Browne, Environment Editor of the Times presents a contrarian view, that a gradually declining population may be the best possible scenario for our Western societies.
[url=http://www.populationinstitute.ca/essays/pop_the_pill_and_think_england.htm]http://www.populationinstitute.ca/essays/p...ink_england.htm[/url]
"....However, a declining population - and this is why businesses fear it - will involve a gradual but significant redistribution of power from the owners of capital to the owners of labour. A declining workforce puts those who work in a far stronger position - and for those marginalised in the workforce, it can have a very dramatic effect. Companies will be forced to train the unskilled, provide family-friendly policies to retain women and to entice the elderly to stay on rather than forcing them out....."
2003-01-18 05:18 | User Profile
Rban--you think the other children don't want to play? Let me suggest maybe you are projecting there, son. Given that I am not Jewish, it would be difficult for me to be a self-hating Jew. But thanks for your concern.
2003-01-18 08:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 17 2003, 05:06 **Something more is needed: I suggest that the answer is increasing the white birth rate. White needs to breed with other whites and have larger families.....
How do we increase the white birth rate? Obviously, as soon as one is able, the first thing to do is find a suitable white mate--no easy task, of course--and, as soon as feasible, start having a lot of kids.
Second, there are less strenuous alternatives: one needs to promote the idea that it is a good thing for whites to have a lot of kids with other whites. In order to do this, it is important to play down environmental worries, and to contrast the population pressure caused by children 'entering' already in-place families vs. the population pressure and disruption caused by allowing large numbers of highly-foreign foreigners to immigrate to the West. It is also important not to criticize large white familes for being too large, and to scoff at people who claim to be helping the environment by not having white children.
**
Beyond the fact that it is politically very incorrect to talk about the need for an increased European-American birth rate, (and not just for the reasons you discuss, but ANY reason) the social changes created by the Frankfurt School, i.e. the destruction of the family, the emancipation of women,and the feminization of society - are what basically creates the drop in the birth rates. Their effects aren't going to be reversed just by talking on the internet or reducing the taxes on alcohol.
2003-01-18 14:17 | User Profile
Just going on the Internet wont solve out problems? Egads!
I seriously doubt that 'the Frankfurt school' accomplished what you suggest. Or do you just mean that ideas such their had this effect?
I really don't know what 'spreading the word' about the birth-rate solution might accomplish. However, I seriously doubt that Okiereddust does either. It is certainly worth a try.
I think that it may be possible for right-wing patriots to accomplish a lot through increasing their family sizes, without having to change policies in leftists insitutitions.
However, there is also the fact that pointing to the birth-rate gives people additional reason to want to lower-taxes and get rid of policies that disturb traditional gender roles.
One added advantage here is the politicians and buiseness interested in lower taxes also have a reason to support a higher-birth rate, at least verbally: they can claim that they want to lower taxes for something that might be made to matter to a good many people--a higher birth-rate among working-families in Western nations (code for a higher white birthrate).
2003-01-18 18:13 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 18 2003, 14:17 **Just going on the Internet wont solve out problems? Egads!
I seriously doubt that 'the Frankfurt school' accomplished what you suggest. Or do you just mean that ideas such their had this effect?**
I meant through the movements it pioneered, and promoted through its culturally subversive tactics, specifically the decline of family and patriarchial authority and the rise of the feminist movement, as described by any good essay on the Frankfurt School, such as
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=11&t=1458&hl=the+new+dark+age]The New Dark Age - The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness[/url]
I really don't know what 'spreading the word' about the birth-rate solution might accomplish. However, I seriously doubt that Okiereddust does either. It is certainly worth a try.
Not really, since there is so visceral opposition to it and the concepts it represents among the cultural and managerial elite, who see eveything through the eyes of postmodernism and multiculturalist ideology.
Before you launch a campaign, you need to know just a little bit about your enemy.
I think that it may be possible for right-wing patriots to accomplish a lot through increasing their family sizes, without having to change policies in leftists insitutitions.
Dead wrong, at least by any realistic view of "right wing patriot" apt to be influenced by such a program (i.e., for all practical purposes, those who read internet forums such as these.
To influence anyone else, you will have to push your programme through the institutions of mass culture - i.e. those currently all controlled by leftist cultural- marxists.
However, there is also the fact that pointing to the birth-rate gives people additional reason to want to lower-taxes and get rid of policies that disturb traditional gender roles. **
Therefore all the more reason that the existing cultural left that controls our mass institutions will oppose it.
One added advantage here is the politicians and buiseness interested in lower taxes also have a reason to support a higher-birth rate, at least verbally: they can claim that they want to lower taxes for something that might be made to matter to a good many people--a higher birth-rate among working-families in Western nations (code for a higher white birthrate).
The WSJ has always been basically hostile to any such endeavor, as have all neo conservatives.
Your general approach on coming on this forum has been to diminish or downplay the need for us to take politically controversial and anti-mainstream positions, such as confronting Jewish neo con and liberal multiculturalist cultural domination of our society. Such tactics are just the standard diversions neo cons always oppose meaningful political action with.
2003-01-18 18:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Jan 18 2003, 10:21 > i.e. the destruction of the family, the emancipation of women,and the feminization of society - are what basically creates the drop in the birth rates. **
Don't forget taxes. And the fanatically anti-male system of law.
Did I mention taxes?
**
The feminist legal system of course is part of the overall FS feminization of society.
The tax system is somewhat overrated IMO. If you are to discuss it and use it as a tool, you need to address and propose, not just the bland, politically neutral across the board tax cuts the business-libertarians and ne-cons always propose, but specific targeted tax cuts aimed at ending the discriminatory surplus taxes families now must pay.
Such tax cuts, pushed by organizations like Family Research Council, have always been opposed by neo con organizations and institutions like the Wal Steet Journal, let alone the liberal mainstream.
2003-01-19 17:16 | User Profile
How can a white nationalist be comfortable with America's 'numbers'? Currently, whites are slated to be a minority in the next fifty years. Even if immigration is curbed, we will hit the 60% mark. And, anyway, should white nationalists really rely upon the state to do its duty of protecting the borders? Don't wait for the state, buy guns and diapers. If one influences like-minded souls to have more kids, this only increases the 'captive audience' for conservative ideals--and most kids come around to carrying on a lot of their parent's traditions.
I am glad there is some agreement that Europe, including Russia, has a problem. There problem is the larger one. They need to take action as well, and they cannot wait for the state either, even if European government are more open to the idea of promoting the native birth rate.
2003-01-20 20:08 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jan 18 2003, 12:13 ** > Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 18 2003, 14:17 **Just going on the Internet wont solve out problems?ÃÂ Egads!
I seriously doubt that 'the Frankfurt school' accomplished what you suggest.ÃÂ Or do you just mean that ideas such their had this effect?**
I meant through the movements it pioneered, and promoted through its culturally subversive tactics, specifically the decline of family and patriarchial authority and the rise of the feminist movement, as described by any good essay on the Frankfurt School, such as
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=11&t=1458&hl=the+new+dark+age]The New Dark Age - The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness[/url]
I really don't know what 'spreading the word' about the birth-rate solution might accomplish.ÃÂ However, I seriously doubt that Okiereddust does either.ÃÂ It is certainly worth a try.
Not really, since there is so visceral opposition to it and the concepts it represents among the cultural and managerial elite, who see eveything through the eyes of postmodernism and multiculturalist ideology.
Before you launch a campaign, you need to know just a little bit about your enemy.
I think that it may be possible for right-wing patriots to accomplish a lot through increasing their family sizes, without having to change policies in leftists insitutitions.
Dead wrong, at least by any realistic view of "right wing patriot" apt to be influenced by such a program (i.e., for all practical purposes, those who read internet forums such as these.
To influence anyone else, you will have to push your programme through the institutions of mass culture - i.e. those currently all controlled by leftist cultural- marxists.
However, there is also the fact that pointing to the birth-rate gives people additional reason to want to lower-taxes and get rid of policies that disturb traditional gender roles.ÃÂ **
Therefore all the more reason that the existing cultural left that controls our mass institutions will oppose it.
One added advantage here is the politicians and buiseness interested in lower taxes also have a reason to support a higher-birth rate, at least verbally:ÃÂ they can claim that they want to lower taxes for something that might be made to matter to a good many people--a higher birth-rate among working-families in Western nations (code for a higher white birthrate).
The WSJ has always been basically hostile to any such endeavor, as have all neo conservatives.
Your general approach on coming on this forum has been to diminish or downplay the need for us to take politically controversial and anti-mainstream positions, such as confronting Jewish neo con and liberal multiculturalist cultural domination of our society. Such tactics are just the standard diversions neo cons always oppose meaningful political action with. **
Okiedust, I am not sure how I deny the need to 'politically controversial and anti-mainstream positions, such as confronting.... liberal multiculturalist cultural domination of our society.' Surely promoting a higher-white birth rate would involve a direct confrontation? (Likewise, I support confronting "Jewish neocons," it is just that I happen to think that many white Jews can be convinced to act in solidarity with other whites. But enought about that subject--clearly, few on OD agree.)
You imply that that '"right wing patriot" apt to be influenced by such a program' as I propose are only to be found on Internet forums such as OD. But this does not seem at all accurate. Plenty of whites are concerned about declining white demographics, and might be influenced by the kind of ideas I have suggested if they encounter them. While posting such ideas on OD might not necessarily spread them very far--I don't know--I assume that those who use this forum also have access to other media that can influence whites.
For example, a pastor of a white church could simply talk about the low 'native' birth-rate.
In the end, I agree with you that more is required than simply spreading ideas about increasing the white birth rate. We also need to make changes to society that allow such ideas to be widely spread, discussed, and appreciated. But it is not a question of either/or. Both the project of spreading useful ideas and the project of enabling them to be properly spread ought to be pursued simulatenously.
2003-01-21 01:27 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 20 2003, 20:08 > The WSJ has always been basically hostile to any such endeavor, as have all neo conservatives.
Your general approach on coming on this forum has been to diminish or downplay the need for us to take politically controversial and anti-mainstream positions, such as confrontingÃÂ Jewish neo con and liberal multiculturalist cultural domination of our society.ÃÂ Such tactics are just the standard diversions neo cons always oppose meaningful political action with. **
Okiedust, I am not sure how I deny the need to 'politically controversial and anti-mainstream positions, such as confronting.... liberal multiculturalist cultural domination of our society.' Surely promoting a higher-white birth rate would involve a direct confrontation? (Likewise, I support confronting "Jewish neocons," it is just that I happen to think that many white Jews can be convinced to act in solidarity with other whites. But enought about that subject--clearly, few on OD agree.)**
You really need to do some study on the subject. We have a whole section on the neo cons, and you apparently haven't read a single stitch. Certainly haven't made any comments on them. Read the 4 pinned articles, and if you have anything good to say about the neo cons after that, by all means let us know. Until then, I'm assuming your ceasing and desisting out of recognized ignorance.
You imply that that '"right wing patriot" apt to be influenced by such a program' as I propose are only to be found on Internet forums such as OD.ÃÂ But this does not seem at all accurate.ÃÂ Plenty of whites are concerned about declining white demographics, and might be influenced by the kind of ideas I have suggested if they encounter them.ÃÂ While posting such ideas on OD might not necessarily spread them very far--I don't know--I assume that those who use this forum also have access to other media that can influence whites.
Hey if we seriously did, you think we'd be spending this much time on the net?
**For example, a pastor of a white church could simply talk about the low 'native' birth-rate.
In the end, I agree with you that more is required than simply spreading ideas about increasing the white birth rate.ÃÂ We also need to make changes to society that allow such ideas to be widely spread, discussed, and appreciated.ÃÂ But it is not a question of either/or.ÃÂ Both the project of spreading useful ideas and the project of enabling them to be properly spread ought to be pursued simulatenously.**
You sound full of good ideas. Go to it if you've got the energy. But as for us, we have to choose our priorities. It makes no sense to try to clean up a stream, when there is a huge herd of neo cons upstream defecating in it.
To paraphrase an old cartoon I read, what we're doing here, instead of spending all our time fishing excrement out of the water, is deciding what we really need to stop this waste of time is face upstream, and yell, in unison
"William Kristol, John Podhoretz and co, get your ASSES out of here"!!! :lol:
2003-01-21 01:46 | User Profile
I do not understand you analogy about streams and turds. Are we cleaning things? I am not interested in ideological purity. I want to help solve the white race's problems.
If you mean that attakcing neocons is the number priority is solving the these problems--I don't understand why one would think this goal ought to take all of one's intellectual energy. Isn't this just a way of letting the neocons win? We need to get active on many fronts.
And no I am not recognizing my 'ignorace,' I just see that there is no point in talking about outreach to Jews with so many Jew-bashers on this list.
I have a final suggestion: isn't the best way to counter neoconservative ideology by offering a positive ideology? A lot of people give up on conservatism because they feel that the future has little room for the white race. They embrace neoconservative ideals as means to achieving something they take to be meaningful--technological progress, prosperity, global monoculture--because the 'old gods' of ethnically-rooted cultures seem doomed to them. Unless you offer some alternatives--like being part of a group of families actively promoting an ethnically-rooted culture, with some hope of sucess--they are going to go neocon.
2003-01-21 02:01 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 21 2003, 01:46 **I do not understand you analogy about streams and turds.ÃÂ Are we cleaning things?ÃÂ I am notÃÂ interested in ideological purity.ÃÂ I want to help solve the white race's problems.ÃÂ
If you mean that attakcing neocons is the number priority is solving the these problems--I don't understand why one would think this goal ought to take all of one's intellectual energy.ÃÂ Isn't this just a way of letting the neocons win?ÃÂ We need to get active on many fronts. **
People who have no idea who their opponents really are or what they're doing really have no business theorizing about battle strategy
And no I am not recognizing my 'ignorace,' I just see that there is no point in talking about outreach to Jews with so many Jew-bashers on this list.
Really there is no point in talking to us about other issues unless you are willing to address the root causes of the problem and do a little study as I suggested. If a person goes to the doctor with a severe cough, and says firstly he is not willing to cut back on his heavy smoking, a doctor really shouldn't even see him. In any sense, its presumed he's not serious about getting well.
I have a final suggestion:ÃÂ isn't the best way to counter neoconservative ideology by offering a positive ideology?ÃÂ A lot of people give up on conservatism because they feel that the future has little room for the white race.ÃÂ They embrace neoconservative ideals as means to achieving something they take to be meaningful--technological progress, prosperity, global monoculture--because the 'old gods' of ethnically-rooted cultures seem doomed to them.ÃÂ Unless you offer some alternatives--like being part of a group of families actively promoting an ethnically-rooted culture, with some hope of sucess--they are going to go neocon.
What do you think we are trying to do with this forum? Really, you need to do some serious study of this forum before you do much more posting, if you want to be doing more than just demonstrating your ignorance.
The articles I referred to address these questions. Have you bothered to read them yet? Probably not.
Until you do, your signature should probably read
"My minds already made up. Please, don't confuse me with the facts"
2003-01-21 03:39 | User Profile
I read the articles you mention before I posted anything on this forum. I am not sure what 'facts' you think I am ignoring, as opposed to interpreting otherwise than you. Nor I am entirely sure what you mean about ignorace concerning the 'opponents,' unless you mean that I am not interested in focusing solely on neocon Jews, when there are also so many neocon Gentiles.
If you do not wish to discuss strategies with me, then do not.
As far as what I think you are personally tring to do with this forum: your approach seems purely negative, and focused on maintaing ideological purity, rarther than looking to creative strategies in desperate times. While I appreciate negative critique, I think it needs to be balanced by a consideration of positive alternatives to the Establishment. But I do not appreciate intolerance concering divergent analyses of what is broken and what can be set right.
As to others--I cannot say that I have found all that much discussion of alternative futures that might actually be made to occur in place of the one-world scenario that the neocons are planning. However, I haven't read everything here. Again, nor do I suppose that only such discussion is worthwhile.
2003-01-21 04:37 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Jan 21 2003, 03:39 I read the articles you mention before I posted anything on this forum. I am not sure what 'facts' you think I am ignoring, as opposed to interpreting otherwise than you. Nor I am entirely sure what you mean about ignorace concerning the 'opponents,' unless you mean that I am not interested in focusing solely on neocon Jews, when there are also so many neocon Gentiles.
After really reading all these horrible things about the neo cons, and reading all the comments, it strikes me that I would have found something I had to disagree with if I had your euphoric views about the neocons. It appears the only definitive thing you took from your preliminary inspection of our forum was NeoNietszche's avatar :lol:
To paraphrase what a professor once told me. "Read all the articles about the neo cons. If you still don't understand things, then read them again".
The reason we focus on the neo cons is 1. its basically a Jewish movement, as MacDonald explains and 2. That's the only type of Jewish "conservatism" there basically is. Jewish paleo's you can count on the fingers of your hand, even if you've lost a couple of fingers.
**If you do not wish to discuss strategies with me, then do not.
As far as what I think you are personally tring to do with this forum: your approach seems purely negative, and focused on maintaing ideological purity, rarther than looking to creative strategies in desperate times. **
If you're looking for strategy and tactics discussion, you might look to a link I just posted.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=15&t=5455]The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program, for the New Traditionalist Movement[/url]
However, as it appears from your final comments, you aren't even sure about what objectives you think we should achieve. If you aren't sure you know where you want to go, its a little early to figure out how to get there.
While I appreciate negative critique, I think it needs to be balanced by a consideration of positive alternatives to the Establishment. But I do not appreciate intolerance concering divergent analyses of what is broken and what can be set right.
My oh my. We're "intolerant"
As to others--I cannot say that I have found all that much discussion of alternative futures that might actually be made to occur in place of the one-world scenario that the neocons are planning. However, I haven't read everything here. Again, nor do I suppose that only such discussion is worthwhile.
Huh? We haven't discussed sufficiently the alternatives to one-world government. My oh My. After all this work, we might stop the drive to one-world government, and then find oh dear "we miss the neo cons and Trotskyism" "Come back Bronstein, come back.
I can see we need to work on some better alternatives for you, so you don't return in despair back to the Socialist Workers Party. :lol:
2003-01-21 05:25 | User Profile
I think people are being unduly harsh on darkeddy's idea, increasing the white birth rate should be a part of our movement. Multiculturalism is more of a cult that worships death ,death of the West in fact then a political movement and what better way to show the different spirit we possess than to champion white babies. However important birthrates maybe there are more important matters at hand ,stopping immigration for instance and deporting the 3rd world invaders here already and their offspring. Immigration is the knife to our throat that must be dealt with and when a white America and a white Europe are restored we can worry about how large a population we want. If you fight for your pro-white birth rate idea the neocons will fall on you like a ton of bricks and treat you no different as one who was planning to build gas chambers for Jews.Their other tactic would be to ally themselves with you but so distort your idea that in the end white women will be getting money for every mulatto baby they sire. Resistance to the genocide of the west as been crippled by false allies who undermine us and join with our enemies on every important matter. White nationalists and paleo-cons need to defeat this enemy before any progress for our race can be made
2003-01-21 06:13 | User Profile
Originally posted by martel@Jan 21 2003, 05:25 ** If you fight for your pro-white birth rate idea the neocons will fall on you like a ton of bricks and treat you no different as one who was planning to build gas chambers for Jews.Their other tactic would be to ally themselves with you but so distort your idea that in the end white women will be getting money for every mulatto baby they sire.
Resistance to the genocide of the west as been crippled by false allies who undermine us and join with our enemies on every important matter. White nationalists and paleo-cons need to defeat this enemy before any progress for our race can be made **
My point exactly.
2003-01-21 07:20 | User Profile
You want bigger families? Get rid of the nanny state!
It's a major magnet for the immigration everyone complains about. People who are productive will have larger families because their tax burden will decrease from dismantling welfare programs, divorces will go down, and feminism will take a big hit because out-of-wedlock single mothers won't have a government subsidy for their illegitimate kids' healthcare and daycare.
Check out this article. Saxon has a Darwinian outlook, and whether you agree with that or not, the nanny state certainly has promoted sloth and a "something for nothing" culture where people are artificially able sit on their butts and live in relative comfort that would be impossible at their present level of productivity in a competitive marketplace.
"Black people don't give a f*ck about welfare; niggas are shaking in their boots!"
--Chris Rock
[url=http://www.kurtsaxon.com/controv010.htm]THE NEW WORLD ORDER: Threat Or Promise[/url]
By Kurt Saxon
A hundred years ago there was no Social Security, no unions and Welfare was almost non-existent. "Over the hill to the poor house" was a common expression directed at anyone who wasn't getting his act together. When bills were unpaid, either the wife or the husband would throw up their hands and say, "Over the hill to the poor house for us".
The poor house was usually an old building where the paupers got nothing but food and shelter and not much more than enough to keep them alive. The county paid for it and sometimes the community contributed food and cast-off clothing. There was little, if any, medical care and the lifespan of the average pauper was short.
This was accepted, even by the paupers. People worked and put by for their old age or hard times. Parents took care of their children and expected to be cared for by them in their old age. The unfortunate or improvident died. The government was never involved. It was a system that had worked for thousands of years.
That is the way things were until 1935 in the middle of the Great Depression. The population had grown too large for the economic system to handle. Millions who could work could find no work and there just were not enough poor houses and the need had grown too large for county relief. The government would have to become involved.
Far-sighted politicians fought against government involvement in individual care, regardless of how callous it made them seem. Near-sighted and even realistic politicians urged government aid and a compromise was arrived at; Social Security.
It was a compromise since the age for collecting Social Security was sixty-five but the average life-span was about fifty-five. Also, the payments were very low. Moreover, only the actual worker, most often the male, could receive benefits. Housewives and children were not eligible. So the government did not see much of a drain on the federal budget.
Few people know that the government was on the verge of collapse. Millions of starvelings would have brought it down. But Social Security, such as it was and work programs, such as the National Recovery Act and the Civilian Conservation Corps, kept government in power until the Second World War.
Then the economy boomed. But it was a false economy as the cost of the war was put on the National Debt. After the war, the spending went on. The National Debt rose, Social Security expanded to include the worker's dependents, welfare increased, Medicare and Medicaid set in, farm subsidies and even near luxuries for criminals. Unemployment Compensation was instituted by the states. No one must suffer.
After the near collapse, the government decided it must never get so close to falling again. The politicians did not sit around a table and plan it, of course. The idea just got passed around and accepted by all. No matter what, come Hell or high water, hope the collapse comes during someone else's administration, we'll have ourselves a Welfare State. And they did it. They had to do it.
No one starves, no one really has to work, no one dies if money will keep him breathing in and out. Old people don't have to live with grudging children. Defectives are kept alive to reproduce their blighted kind. The National Debt goes up and up and the interest on it gets harder to pay each year as the population of the incompetent and the elderly grows year by year. Also, each year there are fewer and fewer competent people left to support the system.
All this demands more government control over the life of the individual, higher taxes, more rules and regulations. There is no stopping it and the alternative is mass starvation, the destruction of our cities and the collapse of the government, followed by the collapse of world civilization.
Unable to view the whole picture, more and more people are turning on their government. They are like spoiled children, angered at parents who not only can not give them what they want but who demand unwelcome responsibilities.
Our system has two generations of people born into the Welfare State. They have become so used to security and privilege that they have come to feel betrayed by a government unable to keep up the bounty and the freedoms they feel is their due.
Many people, unable to accept this growing inability of their government-parent to maintain the lifestyle, security and liberties they have become accustomed to, have fallen for the fantasy called "The New World Order". This, they are told, is a takeover by a sinister group who will take away all privileges and enslave everyone.
Regardless of all the talk and writings, there is no real evidence of such a takeover being implemented or even planned. Certain dishonest people, conspiracy-mongers, made up the plot and began to promote the idea about a year after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
They prey on the anxious and unprepared who are totally locked into the system, and do not believe they can survive without it. Instead of encouraging them to learn self-sufficiency, they demoralize them with the phony threat. This is a distraction which keeps them from focusing on the real threat.
The conspiracy mongers make a good living selling tapes and books on the subject. Some make an even better living selling such dupes assault weapons, ammo, camos, Boy Scout equipment and commercial survival foods.
Regardless, those who see and even experience the decline of our system, want what they grew up with. But barring that impossibility, they want order. The German's loved Hitler's "New Order". The majority of Russia's ignorant masses loved Stalin's brand of Communism. Lots of order there. On your TV you can see mobs of older Russians in Moscow marching with red flags and demanding Communism be reinstated. People want order above all.
Of course, the threat of The New World Order is frightening. But since the key word is "order", it is also a promise. Consciously, people reject it. But unconsciously they prefer it to the end of civilization as they know it. But they will not get it.
As a historian and a student of world affairs, I know there is no power-elite capable of imposing any sort of new order on the U.S., much less the world. The simple reason for this is that the population has grown too stupid and undisciplined to be organized or to carry out orders and are too many to manage.
From a world population of one billion in 1850, our species will hit six billion by the year 2000. There are just too many people and too few resources to support them for long. Any attempt by a tyranny to cull the populations to a manageable number would result in the total destruction of every city.
The main reason most people are still alive and any system works at all is due to the strength of the system which the corporations, industries, institutions and politics began many years ago. But now our system is on overload and it is just a matter of time until its basic strengths are overcome.
Since the ignorant outbreed the intelligent, every system is becoming swamped by morons. You have heard the phrase, "the dumbing down of America". The whole planet has "dumbed down". In my state, Arkansas, an intellectual is anyone who can read without moving his lips.
You have probably seen the TV ad for a reading course which says that only one out of four fourth graders can read at a fourth grade level. That means that three out of four American children are stupid. When I was in the fourth grade, the number would have been more like one out of ten were unable to read at a fourth grade level.
So neither reformer nor tyrant can control the accelerating decline of the world's systems. But every collapse in history has had its survivors. These have been mainly those most independent of the system. They knew the basics of life and how to maintain it.
You do not know the basics of life; you are not supposed to. The powers that be do not want you to know. The system is in the business of selling you the basics of life. And when the system dies, the basics of life will be cut off and you may die with the system.
You will certainly die if you allow yourself to be distracted from learning to provide for yourself and your loved ones. You can learn if you are one of those worthy to survive the collapse. Otherwise, you are just one cell among nearly six billion other cells in the body of our species. When the system dies, the human cancer cells, the fat cells, the worn out cells and the cells unable to do for themselves will be culled out.
This is called culling by "Natural Selection", a concept shelved for generations. You will live to see it. It is up to you to survive it.
2003-01-23 05:42 | User Profile
[url=http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic....ArticleId=57501]http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic....ArticleId=57501[/url]
What Europe needs is more babies Philip Bowring International Herald Tribune Monday, May 13, 2002
As it pulls in immigrants
HONG KONG After anti-immigrant electoral successes in France and elsewhere, Europe is focusing on the symptoms of a problem. It is refusing to examine a root cause that has nothing to do with incipient racism - Europe's extraordinarily low birthrate. Illegal immigration is driven by demand for labor as much as by abundant nearby supply.
On the occasions when the fertility issue is discussed, there is usually the assumption that nothing can be done, that to try to reverse it would be contrary to personal freedoms. That is shortsighted and selfish.
The average fertility rate in Europe is now around 1.5 births per woman, compared with the 2.1 required for natural stability. The rate varies widely from nation to nation, with Italy being at the bottom of the league, but even in relatively fertile France and Britain it is well below break-even.
If current trends continue, by 2050 projections show the population of Europe (including Russia) down from 730 million to 600 million. Even that assumes significant net immigration. There is nothing uniquely European about this. Due to the collapse of its birthrate in the 1960s, Japan has the world's oldest population - a major factor in its economic problems. Hong Kong, at 1.0, has the lowest fertility rate.
But Europe's problems with a low birthrate are uniquely acute. Hong Kong absorbs immigrants from across the border who have the same language and basic culture. Japan can, if it continues to choose to, keep to itself and prefer gradual demographic decline to immigration.
Australia and Canada can continue to use multicultural immigration programs to offset low birthrates, the migrant mix limiting frictions and enabling the Anglo-Celtic culture and institutions to retain preeminence.
Europe is different. Unlike North America and Australia, it has no tradition of populating a so-called empty continent. And even if the European Union decided today on a formal immigration program, it would not be able to control it to achieve the racial mix possible elsewhere.
The proximity of the Middle East and North and West Africa, and the existence of large communities from those regions already well established, means that, whatever the policy, they will supply the vast majority of newcomers, legal or otherwise.
Europe cannot do much about the push factor. But it can about the pull factor - the demand for labor in aging societies with working-age populations that are on the verge of a steep decline. Low fertility rates mean that the economic pressures for immigration will increase, not decrease, likely setting off further social tensions. People are the most important factor of production, even in technologically advanced societies. The current young-to-middle-aged generations in Europe seem to think they will be entitled to a continued very high standard of living despite the unwillingness of so many to contribute to the future.
It is sheer selfishness to expect that migrants, reared by families in poor countries, should be expected to fill huge gaps in the labor force, and hence the economy as a whole, created by Europe's unwillingness to reproduce.
It is sheer stupidity to assume that large increases in narrowly based immigration can be achieved without increased social tensions. Just to maintain the population at current levels will soon require much higher intake levels than are seen even in Canada.
Europe needs pro-natal policies at least as badly as the developing world once needed policies to reduce population growth. Population policies for the poor have been supported by European aid. In most countries they have been successful, overcoming cultural and religious obstacles and linking demographic change to economic development. Now Europe desperately needs a change in its social and cultural attitudes - and in its tax and pension policies - if it is to escape rapid economic decline, or more social unrest linked to resentment of increased migration, or both.