Article

2006-01-02 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Frank G 2006-01-02 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11136 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Mastry from Steyn, as always.

Question that has been on my mind for all Rantburgers: When it hits the fan, what country do we move to? Is there any sovereign territory that is not under siege and is sane (as we see it)?

Posted by Master of Obvious 2006-01-02 00:04|| 2006-01-02 00:04|| Front Page Top

#2 MoO - I don't know where you live, but I'm not moving anywhere when it hits the fan.

The USA will be the best place to be (if for no other reason than we're armed and most law-abiding citizens of other countries aren't)

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2006-01-02 00:13|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-01-02 00:13|| Front Page Top

#3 And we're also still religious and still do the "go forth and multiply" thing.

Posted by Wuzzalib 2006-01-02 00:32|| 2006-01-02 00:32|| Front Page Top

#4 Concur. As maddening as various things about the US can be, there's no better alternative when evaluated with the head screwed on straight.

If you disagree, you're disqualified under the last six words of the last paragraph.

Posted by Gluque Crolet3069 2006-01-02 00:52|| 2006-01-02 00:52|| Front Page Top

#5 If they outbreed us 5:1 then we need to outkill them 5:1. Eventually that is what it must come to or we will disappear. We need the WILL to breed, or/and the WILL to kill. Many - too many - lack that will. Now, I am not advocating going out and shooting your neighbors, but I certainly do advocate fighting back, hard. In a healthy society our soldiers in Iraq would have the total support of their countries.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2006-01-02 01:09|| 2006-01-02 01:09|| Front Page Top

#6 Documenting the paradigm shift a-comin'. Steyn nails every issue squarely on the head. He's like the real Father Knows Best. A smart guy, with a big view, a long view, a calm incisive mind, decent and fair, and I'm betting he's got those quaint patches on the elbows of his sweater. If he doesn't smoke a pipe, well, he prolly should start - and tell anyone who complains to fuck off.

As for zoomer Cameron Diaz, dibs on the left butt cheek. Heh, the place where her brain ought to be is filled with the customary wholly unsupported self-aggrandizing detritus and offal of limousine liberal goofiness, sloshing around in rancid Kool Aid.

If only he was an American citizen. Sigh. He missed out on college, so the moonbat indoctrination process didn't damage his brain, and a long look at Qanuck liberal politics turned him into a natural Conservative American. Hey Qanada, we'll trade you Diaz, Spears, Babs, hell - all of the "entertainment" industry - for Steyn. We'll understand if you decline. How about for Alberta? Okay, it was worth a shot.

Posted by .com 2006-01-02 01:39|| 2006-01-02 01:39|| Front Page Top

#7 Here's another question? Would it benefit the US if we opened immigration from Europe, or would the increase in the speed in the decline of Europe hurt us more? I think that if we accepted immigrants from the west, we would get the best and most ambitious of their countries. What would that do to Germany or Spain? Would they decline more quickly, and would that decline hurt us badly?

Posted by Formerly Dan 2006-01-02 02:07|| 2006-01-02 02:07|| Front Page Top

#8 I love Steyn - but this piece has too much linear thinking for my taste.

I agree that the EU will become Eurabia - even sooner than he predicts, unless the much ballyhooed bloody backlash actually occurs - which I can't predict one way or the other.

And while the demographics are certainly a major factor - I for one think this whole go forth and multiply bullshit makes as much sense as the idea put forth in the 70's that we would all starve to death. Cultures that don't breed themselves into poverty have the ability to educate themselves and produce technology to improve their lives and can provide larger percentages of their accumulated wealth to their fewer children which they can use to pay a bit more per hour for their needed care.

It's not that we won't be able take care of ourselves in our old age that is going to be the problem, but that we are letting the immigrants in masse and it is this influx of immigrants who massively breed and then expect the state to grant all those children all of the education/healthcare/roads/and other tax-funded benefits that the rest of us enjoy that creates the cultural demographic problems he cites. It's a big ponzi scheme that no one wants to address as they might not get to collect their full share that is coming their way.

I submit that we could do fine without the massive influx of immigrant laborers. And I don't think we need to start breeding like rabbits. Just like vacuum cleaners and washing machines eased our list of chores, their will be robots to farm and technology to create and distribute our ready made meals to assist us in our old age. These immigrants may mow our lawns and clean our homes, but would the world really come crashing to an end if we modified our culture to let the grass grow and we cleaned our own homes and couldn't afford to eat out quite as often?

I believe Steyn hits the nail on the head when he says that the problem is in what we choose to worry about. The "mass media" has misinformed us that John Ashcroft is a far greater threat than the Saudi funded mosques and too many have bought into the lie. The media has repeated the lie until they have made it virtually impossible for rational people to point out that it is not tolerant to tolerate the virulent intolerance of Islamic radicalism.

This is IMHO, the real threat to the western world. The Gobbelesque brainwashing of the American public and Western world that not only do we not need to be concerned with the current threat to western civilization - but that anyone who attempts to sound the alarm and take proactive precautions is a knuckledragging moron to be shunned and poo-poohed.

Unless we find a way to get the message out and sound the alarm to the average citizen, then western civilization may indeed fail.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-02 02:08|| 2006-01-02 02:08|| Front Page Top

#9 Finally, the courage to speak with clarity. The one great advantage Americans (and Canadians) have is that we will get to observe from ringside seats the decline and demolition of western culture in Europe in the very near future. If we do not learn from this direct example we will be doomed also. Hopefully, this will be so gruesome that all these idiots will wake up. I'm currently readjusting the zero in my scopes from 100 to 200 yards. Normally, I hunt at 100, but for these assholes I want to start a little farther out. We should immediately outlaw the practice of Islam in the US on political grounds. We are fortunate that the masses of immigrants from the south were indoctrinated as Catholics who breed very well yet.

And, yes, isn't everything a ponzi scheme nowadays. The entire US economy is betting that all the massive borrowing from the Japanese and Chinese will NEVER be repaid. We just expect to kite them. There may be too few Japanese to retaliate, but I'm not certain the Chinese will be so cooperative.

Posted by SOP35/Rat 2006-01-02 11:31|| 2006-01-02 11:31|| Front Page Top

#10 2b: And while the demographics are certainly a major factor - I for one think this whole go forth and multiply bullshit makes as much sense as the idea put forth in the 70's that we would all starve to death. Cultures that don't breed themselves into poverty have the ability to educate themselves and produce technology to improve their lives and can provide larger percentages of their accumulated wealth to their fewer children which they can use to pay a bit more per hour for their needed care.

Cultures don't breed themselves into poverty. For centuries since Malthus, that has been the load of bullshit sold to us by elites who were too lazy and irresponsible to put up with the burden of parenthood, but were fearful of being outbred by their "inferiors". It's only been with the advent of the pill that American families have grown significantly smaller. The US went through its rapid economic growth years when families were huge, and having six or seven siblings wasn't particularly exceptional.

There are countries that *blame* their poverty on having large populations. Basket cases like China and India. But the reality is that to have the population density of Japan, China would need to have a population of 3 billion. And to have the population density of Hong Kong, China would need to have a population of 50 billion. And yet Hong Kong and Japan are both more prosperous than China. Note that Hong Kong's population at the end of WWII was 1m. Its population today is 7m. China's population at the end of WWII was 600m. Its population today is 1.2b. Hong Kong's population has gone up 600% whereas China's has gone up 100%. And yet Hong Kong is richer than China. Why is that? It's because in a free economy, population growth is a asset, not a liability. Population growth is why Uncle Sam is a superpower, whereas Canada is just another developed country.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-01-02 12:24|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-01-02 12:24|| Front Page Top

#11 Ok ZF - so get busy. Time for you to do your share and start spitting them out. Look, I think people who have lots of kids are blessed in all of the important things in life. But the solution to the WOT is NOT to get into a baby-in-the-arms race with third world countries.

It's not that I disagree with what you write ZF or that I am willing to take back what I wrote above as much as I'm sick of arguments that are based on the premise that someone else needs to get busy and do something. Like upper-middle class white women who send their kids to private school being the biggest champions against vouchers and of keeping kids in public schools.

I don't have time to get into all of the reasons that this Buchananesqe argument is so totally bogus that I won't even start. But if you believe it then by all means, do your part.

I'm not an evil genius - but if I was, I couldn't escape the realization that the winner of this game isn't going to be the one who has the most to feed - but it will be the one who most quickly learns how to genetically eliminate those whose culture and beliefs are the antithesis of their own. Evil Dogbert in the science lab eliminating genetic markers that make cats. The 21st century day final solution.

I love Steyn - he's the best. But this particular argument of his is as linear as the ones from the 70's that we would all starve. It's as stupid as the whole grand caliphate idea. Let's all move backwards instead of forwards.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-02 13:13|| 2006-01-02 13:13|| Front Page Top

#12 [Multiculturalism]
"Itâs fundamentally a fraud, and I would argue was subliminally accepted on that basis."

Brilliant!

Posted by DepotGuy 2006-01-02 13:58|| 2006-01-02 13:58|| Front Page Top

#13 Population growth is why Uncle Sam is a superpower, whereas Canada is just another developed country.

Yet another piece of brilliant analysis from Z.F.!

Posted by Rafael 2006-01-02 13:59|| 2006-01-02 13:59|| Front Page Top

#14 Both sides have some point here.

Europe is screwed, but not because of birthrates, but what causes them. The Euros have gone nihilist. They are committing cultural suicide regardless of what the mohammedans do.

But the mos are also cutting their own throats. What Steyn does not point out is that birth rates are falling everywhere, including moland. By 2030 what will mo land look like? It could be watching China deal with an older population than the U. S. Realizing that with the post petroleum age upon them the same future awaits them and with declining revenue it will be even more unpleasant.

Again, the U. S. will be the place to be as long as we have to build fences to keep people out.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-01-02 14:52|| 2006-01-02 14:52|| Front Page Top

#15 "would the world really come crashing to an end if we modified our culture to let the grass grow and we cleaned our own homes and couldn't afford to eat out quite as often?"

According to the conventional wisdom standard, yes, yes it would. Haven't you figured out that the main uses of "advances" are to kill people and to make someone else do your work for you? :P [/not exactly joking]

*sigh* 2b, I think of what you're saying as merely a different approach to a common situation that both you and

"I couldn't escape the realization that the winner of this game isn't going to be the one who has the most to feed - but it will be the one who most quickly learns how to genetically eliminate those whose culture and beliefs are the antithesis of their own. Evil Dogbert in the science lab eliminating genetic markers that make cats. The 21st century day final solution."

Besides the problems of advocating genocide -- you're still wrong. It it were acceptable, it would still come down to whichever did it.

Nimble Spemble, good points, both. Cultural suicide and birth rates are two different things. Hell, I'm looking at China vs. Tibetans re: that. (China trying to deliberately geographically and demographically displace Tibetans with Han Chinese, yet overseas Tibetans... are Tibetans. Dunno if you will be able to say the same for Europeans, but get my drift? :P)

re: falling birth rates = need for immigration -- while one could accuse those who see this in the U.S. of "Buchananism," it's very real in Japan, but there they also have the spectre of young adults who just don't enter the workplace. Reason? Parents worked years in stable but grueling/boring jobs (salarymen), wanted their kids to have stimulating/"fulfilling" jobs, and boom, the young adult can't decide what he or she wants to do and thus remains a live-at-home slacker.

Posted by Edward Yee 2006-01-02 15:58|| http://edwardyee.fanworks.net]">[http://edwardyee.fanworks.net] 2006-01-02 15:58|| Front Page Top

#16 This is a thought-provoking piece, but I agree that it is rather linear. While Steyn refers to population numbers frequently, his main thrust is about culture. Will the Euros have the stones to defend and promote their culture? Will we? Who knows, but that is the point. The missing component in this argument are the unknowns.

What will be the result if the jihadis get an A-bomb and light it off in Europe? What if a replacement for oil is discovered/perfected in the next 20 years? What if the practice of democracy spreads in the ME and radical Islam is shunned?

Any one of these is a possibility and their result could make Mr. Steyn's argument seem as prosaic as the population bomb theories from the '70's.

From the prism of today I think that Steyn makes a compelling argument, especially with regard to the nanny state. However, I think the prism has blinders on, a common occurance with any long-term projection.

Posted by remoteman 2006-01-02 17:08|| 2006-01-02 17:08|| Front Page Top

#17 2b: I'm not an evil genius - but if I was, I couldn't escape the realization that the winner of this game isn't going to be the one who has the most to feed - but it will be the one who most quickly learns how to genetically eliminate those whose culture and beliefs are the antithesis of their own.

Even in a communist economy, the government doesn't feed the people - the people feed themselves. In fact, even in a communist economy, it isn't the government that feeds the people, it's the people who feed the government. In countries with crappy economies, the government gets in the way of people feeding themselves, sometimes by stealing what they produce and sometimes by making it difficult for the people to make a living via arbitrary rules that feed the moral vanity of the people in power.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-01-02 17:27|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-01-02 17:27|| Front Page Top

#18 ZF: Population growth is why Uncle Sam is a superpower, whereas Canada is just another developed country.

Rafael: Yet another piece of brilliant analysis from Z.F.!

Yet another content-free posting from Rafael. Fact is, Germany is a major power because it has 80m people. Denmark might have similar GDP per capita, but its 5m population makes it just another developed European country.

Population density is the major index of crowdedness. And yet Germany has twice the population density of China, but more than ten times the per capita income. If China were to become as crowded as Germany, it would have need to have a population of 2.4b instead of 1.2b. Point being that crowdedness determines nothing - in a free economy, population growth is an asset, not a liability.

Take a country like Bangladesh, which has a high population density - 954 per sq km and compare it to Singapore which has a population density of 6481 per sq km. Why does Singapore have 20x Bangladesh's GDP per capita? Note that in the past 40 years, Singapore's population has quadrupled, whereas Bangladesh's has only tripled. So Singapore started out a lot more crowded than Bangladesh, and today, the margin of crowdedness has actually *widened*.

Swap it around and compare China to Singapore - China's population density is 133 per sq km and Singapore's is 6481 per sq km. (This means that to reach Singapore's population density, China's population would have to reach 60b, from its current 1.3b). In the past 50 years, China's population has doubled, whereas Singapore's has quadrupled. And yet Singapore's GDP per capita is 15 times China's. Given how crowded Singapore is, and how rapidly its population has grown, shouldn't it be China's GDP per capita that should be 15 times Singapore's?

Again, two points - (1) countries with large populations are powerful countries, and no, Buchanan did not invent that concept, any more than he invented other practices that we also share, such as brushing twice a day, showering in the morning, et al and (2) the government doesn't feed the people - the people feed the government, and themselves. This truism is why even someone like Genghis Khan, who viewed people as game or livestock to be slaughtered for his benefit if necessary, refrained from annihilating his subject populations - he understood that they fed him, not the other way around - as long as they were alive, he could tax them, and make much more for him than merely slaughtering them for their loot.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-01-02 17:57|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-01-02 17:57|| Front Page Top

#19 When it hits the fan, what country do we move to?

Nowhere. It's not going to hit the fan here, if I and like-minded people can help it.

Now, I am not advocating going out and shooting your neighbors, but I certainly do advocate fighting back, hard.

I'd settle for shooting the multiculturalists.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2006-01-02 18:14|| 2006-01-02 18:14|| Front Page Top

#20 #18 ZF: "Germany is a major power because it has 80m people."

IF Germany is a major power (I contend it is not, except in its own mind), it's because we let it be.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2006-01-02 19:16|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-01-02 19:16|| Front Page Top

#21 Yet another content-free posting from Rafael.

Better to be content-free than plain wrong, but to each his own I guess.

Population growth by itself did not make Uncle Sam into a superpower. One other reason could be: where do Europe's best scientists conduct their research? Hint: it's not in Europe. But scientific or industrial advances have marginal value if they're not put into use or brought to the marketplace. Where can you find the most favourable conditions for transforming ideas into things people use and want? Hint: USA. And why is this so?

This is just the tip of the iceberg.
You're ignoring far too much history, among other things.

Posted by Rafael 2006-01-02 19:27|| 2006-01-02 19:27|| Front Page Top

#22 Europe accepted the cycle of building and destroying long ago, as seen by the French penchent for revolution/restoration (which Republic are they up to now? Fifth is it, or Sixth?). Anarchy was invented there, and nihilism has unfortunately been a dominant philosophy since the course of the first world war became clear to anyone who looked. And following nihilism came self-indulgence, which includes the indulgence of working really, really hard, but not having children because that requires one to look beyond one's own desires.

However, population growth is falling everywhere; even the Palestinians have been caught short a million in their population counts. One benefit of the global economy is that stuff is cheaper everywhere, and women who feel more prosperous tend to have fewer children. Even sheltered Muslim women. The entire Muslim world is going to have a reverse baby boom problem that will make what we're seeing now in China and Japan look like pikers, and the imams and mullahs are not going to enjoy the result.

In the meantime, though, I think sighting your guns to 200 yards rather than 100 yds isn't a bad idea, or at least stocking up on shoelaces, about whose usefulness on airplanes a certain jarhead posted some years ago. ;-) And that's all I can say before reading the article at issue...

Posted by trailing wife 2006-01-02 19:39|| 2006-01-02 19:39|| Front Page Top

#23 I'm with you on this one, 2b.

If having more babies was as sunny a picture as Mr. Steyn portrays, the birthrate would never have gone down. Although he is right about demographics-the numbers do tell an important story about what we need to think about for survival-women would be having more babies, if there were more pros than cons in doing so. Yes, we don't want Islamists in power. To a much lesser extent, but still, neither do we want Father Knows Best in power.

Posted by jules 2 2006-01-02 19:45|| 2006-01-02 19:45|| Front Page Top

#24 Rafael: Population growth by itself did not make Uncle Sam into a superpower.

Actually it did. Canada has always been roughly as well run as the US. But the US took a major gamble by letting in large numbers of Southern and Eastern Europeans immigrants. The result is that a far smaller percentage of America is of Anglo origin than is Canada. But Uncle Sam, with 10 times the population, thanks to those immigrants, is a superpower, and Canada is not. Note that a century ago, Canadian leaders thought Canada would catch up and surpass the US. But it never happened, because Canada has one-tenth the population.

Gauls, Teutons and Britons started out as a bunch of half-naked savages. But demography meant that they outnumbered the Romans* and slowly shrank the boundaries of the Roman empire. (On the way, they adopted a lot of Roman practices and took on the trappings of civilized society). What history tells us is that your numerically superior enemy won't always be stupid. If you don't maintain your numbers, you will eventually be overwhelmed.

* The Romans contributed to their own demographic problems by practising infanticide. We don't do anything so crude, but we have contraceptives and abortion on demand.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-01-02 21:40|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-01-02 21:40|| Front Page Top

#25 jules 2: If having more babies was as sunny a picture as Mr. Steyn portrays, the birthrate would never have gone down.

If working more hours was so much fun, European work hours would never have come down. What Steyn is saying isn't that having more children is great fun - he's saying that unless Europeans have more children, they're going to be overwhelmed. Children are not fun - they're a lot of work. But if Euros don't have more of them, Europe is going to die out.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-01-02 21:48|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-01-02 21:48|| Front Page Top

#26 What Steyn is indirectly getting to is this - European entitlements plans are Ponzi schemes. Basically working people pay into these Ponzi schemes to finance the retirements of retired people. In effect, by producing and bringing up new generations of working people, folks who have children are subsidizing those who don't. I think it is quite rational for people to not want to subsidize others, or to subsidize others to the minimum extent possible. This is in part why Europeans are having less children - the costs are high, and the benefits go to other people.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-01-02 21:56|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-01-02 21:56|| Front Page Top

#27 Actually it did.

Ok, whatever. And if conditions weren't just right you could take in half the population of the entire world and it wouldn't do squat.

The Soviet Union was considered a superpower, with a (then) similar population* count, but when communism collapsed, it proved itself to be a house of cards. The conditions just weren't there. For this reason I tend to define a superpower by something more than just population size. The underlying conditions must exist, such as they do in the USA.

I'll grant you that population growth is necessary, but I'll add that it's not sufficient.

* a population that was similarly productive, scientifically advanced, etc.

Posted by Rafael 2006-01-02 22:05|| 2006-01-02 22:05|| Front Page Top

#28 ZF - you can throw out all of the facts that you want to but how many kids do you have? Sounds to me like you need to get off the Internet and get down to Walmart's diaper sale so you can practice what you preach. Or is it as I suspect that it is all about some abstract "they" (other than you) that needs to get to work making babies to support you in your old age. Hey, maybe the Mormons were right about polygamy after all. Bring on the surrogates and clones.

Do we just need more babies -or do we need more of the "right" kind of babies. Or perhaps you are saying that we need more babies born into the right kind of culture? And exactly what type of culture would that be? The kind practiced by our liberal elites who are primarily WASPS? (Hmmm, I guess WASP doesn't work so well anymore, should just make the acronym WAS.) At any rate I should think that you would be happy that the WAS couples aren't reproducing more than one or two cause they are so lazy indolent and not producing the right kind of children to fight the WOT or to be willing to wipe your rear when you get old.

Sigh..there are many great comments on this thread and now I don't have time to respond to them - but I do agree that the demographics in the WOT can't be ignored - but the idea that we can win this battle by a baby race is just one of those useless abstract discussions about how people (other than you and me) need to sacrfice for your and my common good.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-02 22:13|| 2006-01-02 22:13|| Front Page Top

#29 ZF-They ARE going to be overwhelmed, which should make Europeans, who have a quiet little gender war raging on right now, BTW, think about offering something besides money as incentive for European women to have babies (which they are doing, in France). Long-term MONOGAMOUS relationships would be a good start, though they are not in themselves the whole answer. Your point and Steyn's point are solid, but they do little to persuade women to birth children. Long-term commitment, sexual fidelity, and the sharing of burdens-now those are persuasive. For every potential mother, everywhere.

Posted by jules 2 2006-01-02 22:26|| 2006-01-02 22:26|| Front Page Top

#30 There is a lot of evidence that Muslim birthrates are about to tank. However, there is a island of opportunity for the next 20-30 years. The Muslims will have a lot of surplus young males and the Europeans will be relatively senescent. All the European guns will be impotent without anyone to man them. And believe me, the ability to soldier goes down very quickly after the age of 30.

If you believe in the Learned Elders of Islam* hypothesis, and believe that there is some method behind all of the Islamist madness then you probably also believe that there are smart, ruthless men in Dar al Islam that understand the demography and are prepared to take advantage of it to further their interests.

I would argue that their interests (especially those of the Arabs and most especially those of the Saudis) are roughly the same as the Soviets post-Stalin. They can't produce anything and once the oil runs out, they are going be S.O.L., whether or not the muslimas keeps cranking out five babies each. So their strategic imperative is to capture someplace that they can exploit for another few generation, namely Europe.**

So they'll keep using the carrot and stick with Europe, while hoping that they can achieve demographic dominance in the next 25 years. They must also win their own culture battles at home. Just as we must stop the Tranzi rot, the LEoI must keep their women uneducated in order to keep birth rates up. Damn history is fun.

* I don't think that the Arabs have the temperment to document things like the Nazis or even the Soviets and I don't think that we'll ever have a high enough ranked defector to spill the beans. So we may never be able to prove it, but I've seen enough circumstantial evidence to believe that there is a conspiracy.

** I always have wondered why the Soviets never attacked in the '74-'80 time frame when our Army was full of drugged out malcontents and the Euros were beginning to lose their will. It just goes to show how weak the Brezhnev clique was. I think that collectively and individually, the LEoI are much better opportunists.

Posted by 11A5S 2006-01-02 23:26|| 2006-01-02 23:26|| Front Page Top

#31 good points jules2.

ZF: PONZI In effect, by producing and bringing up new generations of working people, folks who have children are subsidizing those who don't.

I'm the one who originally brought up the point that it is a PONZI scheme but I think you completely missed my point. Do you know how a PONZI works? It necessitates that the poor saps at the bottom always will LOSE. And that is what this whole baby race idea is advocating - create more saps at the bottom to feed the top. And like any Ponzi scheme, there is a point - as there is in Europe where it fails because the people at the bottom either get wise or don't get enough back to make it worth their while to continue to fund the scam for the bastards at the top.

We need to move forward not backward. This no different than the 70's starving example. It's not a linear argument. Again - I'm not saying anything bad about the idea of having lots of childrern, they are their own reward and the more the merrier as far as I'm concerned - but this isn't the 1800's and demanding that women breed for the survival of the race is just an abstract BS argument unless you or some other rantburger has just read this thread and decided to have 3 more children for the survival of the race. Any takers? I didn't think so.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-02 23:44|| 2006-01-02 23:44|| Front Page Top

#32 interesting post 11A5S.

So they'll keep using the carrot and stick with Europe, while hoping that they can achieve demographic dominance in the next 25 years. They must also win their own culture battles at home. Just as we must stop the Tranzi rot, the LEoI must keep their women uneducated in order to keep birth rates up. Damn history is fun.

I'd also add they must keep their males uneducated as well.

Posted by 2b 2006-01-02 23:49|| 2006-01-02 23:49|| Front Page Top

#33 2b: Again - I'm not saying anything bad about the idea of having lots of childrern, they are their own reward and the more the merrier as far as I'm concerned - but this isn't the 1800's and demanding that women breed for the survival of the race is just an abstract BS argument unless you or some other rantburger has just read this thread and decided to have 3 more children for the survival of the race.

What I'm saying is that people who don't have children are picking up the slack for people who don't. The solution is not for people who already have children to have even more children, which further benefits the childless, but for the childless to be penalized via the tax code for not having kids. A way to do this would be to increase the dependent child tax credit.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-01-02 23:55|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-01-02 23:55|| Front Page Top

00:13 2b
23:58 Rafael
23:55 Zhang Fei
23:49 2b
23:44 2b
23:41 11A5S
23:27 Rafael
23:26 11A5S
23:20 macofromoc
23:11 Zenster
22:47 SR-71
22:42 Redneck Jim
22:39 mom
22:36 Korora
22:26 jules 2
22:20 Frank G
22:15 Rafael
22:13 2b
22:08 Rafael
22:08 Zenster
22:05 Rafael
22:04 Zenster
22:03 3dc
21:56 Zhang Fei