Fertility and demographics sperging from the white genocide nutjobs thread -

systemlord_baal

גם זה יעבור
Jews aren't white.
Some Jews (e.g. those from Eastern or Northern Europe) looks white, some (e.g. from Africa) look blacker than most African-Americans. The Jews were never a race. Hell, the whole concept of race is bullshit anyway.

A euphemism is when you refer to something bad with a less offensive term.

Referring to merely being annoyed by seeing a black person on television as "white genocide" is the opposite of that. It's hyperbole.
So it would be a dysphemism then?
_____________________________
These guys are fucking pathetic. On the one hand, the evel immigrants want to steal your jobs AND be on welfare all the time. They are gonna steal your gf (cause in the eyes of these clowns, every white woman lusts for big black cock) and at the same time rape everyone and everything in proximity, because the white women wouldn't fuck them out of their own free will. And they pull genocide claims out of their ass, despite no-one is killing people systematically for being white (and the racial pseudo-scientific racist category "white" is totally and useless, anyway. Most of the European Jews, for example, have the same complexion as the other Europeans, but are not white according to these clowns. Many Turks and Arabs have more or less the same light skin complexion as Europeans, but are not counted as White... The list goes on). What a load of shit...
 

introman

Great Value™ Portable Pizza Pocket
Retired Staff
The "White" genocide could end any minute if "White" people start having children. Though knowing the originators of " White Genocide" it just means their specific demographic sub-section of "white" is not reproducing . I don't see them trying to imitate or even congratulating the Hasidic/Quiverfull/Mormon/Balkan Wahabist muslim's for keeping the "White" race around, even if those groups are pretty much the only ones reproducing at above replacement levels and are mostly white.
 

AnOminous

there ain't no turning back
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
The more affluent and educated a populace is, the less it reproduces because people rationally choose to have fewer children and devote more resources to each individual child, ensuring more affluence. These morons are basically complaining about the natural results of success. This is one of those social phenomena that is so universal it's akin to a law of nature.
 

autisticdragonkin

Eric Borsheim
True & Honest Fan
The more affluent and educated a populace is, the less it reproduces because people rationally choose to have fewer children and devote more resources to each individual child, ensuring more affluence. These morons are basically complaining about the natural results of success. This is one of those social phenomena that is so universal it's akin to a law of nature.
That does not seem like a rational decision at all. If it were a rational decision then wouldn't it be far more costly to have a large amount of children while poor because they may actually reach a seriously low level of resource investment whereas while rich one can have a child thrive with less of one's total resources and even get economies of scale when one is rich and fertile enough (such as older children helping out with taking care of younger children as well as fixed costs such as hand me downs). There also is the hazard of overparenting where a parent may put resources into a child sufficient that it causes negative returns which can easily be resolved by having more children. It very much is a law of nature that fertility works this way but you have to give more support to it being rational as opposed to irrational
 
The more affluent and educated a populace is, the less it reproduces because people rationally choose to have fewer children and devote more resources to each individual child, ensuring more affluence. These morons are basically complaining about the natural results of success. This is one of those social phenomena that is so universal it's akin to a law of nature.

Throughout history the rich elite classes had proportionally more children, who were healthier, better fed, etc and thus survived the insane child mortality rates of the times better than others. It's still the same in practically every non-western country. Affluence is not a factor, go to any Gulf country and the richest have absolutely massive families. "Education" I get, but when westerners say people need to be "educated" it's nothing more than a way of saying "accept western mores", which is ironically arrogant and ethnocentric. They're certainly not talking about getting STEM degrees, that's for sure. The myth that wealth and affluence must perforce lead to the exact same social values and politics as those of the modern west is disproven by even a cursory examination of the recent past and present.
 
Last edited:

AnOminous

there ain't no turning back
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
Throughout history the rich elite classes had proportionally more children, who were healthier, better fed, etc and thus survived the insane child mortality rates of the times better than others. It's still the same in practically every non-western country. Affluence is not a factor, go to any Gulf country and the richest have absolutely massive families. "Education" I get, but when westerners say people need to be "educated" it's nothing more than a way of saying "accept western mores", which is ironically arrogant and ethnocentric. They're certainly not talking about getting STEM degrees, that's for sure. The myth that wealth and affluence must perforce lead to the exact same social values and politics as those of the modern west is disproven by even a cursory examination of the recent past and present.

We're not living in the primitive shit that is "throughout history" when the rich elites were completely ignorant fucks as well as the poor and you could only tell who was king because he wasn't covered in shit.

We're living now.

highlights13_fertility.PNG
 

autisticdragonkin

Eric Borsheim
True & Honest Fan
We're not living in the primitive shit that is "throughout history" when the rich elites were completely ignorant fucks as well as the poor and you could only tell who was king because he wasn't covered in shit.

We're living now.

View attachment 104554
And what makes you think that this is a positive shift? You are just giving an argumentum ad populum (and possibly an appeal to nature)
 

AnOminous

there ain't no turning back
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
And what makes you think that this is a positive shift? You are just giving an argumentum ad populum (and possibly an appeal to nature)

What makes me think that a higher standard of living with more resources devoted to every person is a good thing?

I mean seriously if you don't fucking understand that there's not much I can say.
 

autisticdragonkin

Eric Borsheim
True & Honest Fan
What makes me think that a higher standard of living with more resources devoted to every person is a good thing?

I mean seriously if you don't fucking understand that there's not much I can say.
Did you even read what I said?
That does not seem like a rational decision at all. If it were a rational decision then wouldn't it be far more costly to have a large amount of children while poor because they may actually reach a seriously low level of resource investment whereas while rich one can have a child thrive with less of one's total resources and even get economies of scale when one is rich and fertile enough (such as older children helping out with taking care of younger children as well as fixed costs such as hand me downs). There also is the hazard of overparenting where a parent may put resources into a child sufficient that it causes negative returns which can easily be resolved by having more children. It very much is a law of nature that fertility works this way but you have to give more support to it being rational as opposed to irrational
I said that specifically it might lower standard of living through not having enough children. More resources devoted to one person is not necessarily a good thing if the resources don't help the person. My point is that you need to parent smarter not harder
 
We're not living in the primitive shit that is "throughout history" when the rich elites were completely ignorant fucks as well as the poor and you could only tell who was king because he wasn't covered in shit.

We're living now.

I agree. The demographic reality of "now" is a result of incredibly recent social developments that exist only on a few places on the planet, wealth having absolutely nothing to do with it (personally I believe the West and Europe in particular having civilizational PTSD from the two WW's is much more of a factor). Calling it something so inevitable it may has well be a natural law is reaching.
 

autisticdragonkin

Eric Borsheim
True & Honest Fan
I agree. The demographic reality of "now" is a result of incredibly recent social developments that exist only on a few places on the planet, wealth having absolutely nothing to do with it (personally I believe the West and Europe in particular having civilizational PTSD from the two WW's is much more of a factor). Calling it something so inevitable it may has well be a natural law is reaching.
I would call it a natural law in the sense that throughout the late 20th century it is near universally observed. A law has no theory behind it it is simply an observation under certain conditions. It is present in asian and arab countries too. I do not believe that it is going to remain this way though.

What these people should really be doing is figuring out the origin of this phenomenon so they can use it against non white races
 

Pikimon

Exceptionally Overachieving Mexican
True & Honest Fan
Back in the old days it wasn't uncommon for poor families to have shitloads of children. Every hand is a commodity that can be used to cultivate the land more efficiently. However a lot of those children often died (disease and famine) and usually out of 10 kids only two or three survived to be 20 years old.

My great grandmother for example was the youngest daughter of 16 children, and was only only one of four children in the family that reached adulthood. She then had her own set of 15 children (my grandmother and my great-aunts and uncles) but due to improvements in agriculture and medicine in the 1950's every single child survived to adulthood.

The generations that followed (my mother, aunts and uncles) all had significantly smaller families compared to the generations before them (to invest more resources on individual children) with around 2-5 children each. My generation in the family is also significantly smaller, with most of my cousins only planning on having 1 child or adopting.

This all happened because we all have had the reassurance of modern medicine and agriculture to feed and treat us, lessening the necessity to have giant broods of children.
 

autisticdragonkin

Eric Borsheim
True & Honest Fan
My generation in the family is also significantly smaller, with most of my cousins only planning on having 1 child or adopting.
That would be nothing to do with it. If one is rationally choosing one's number of children to "put more resources into a single child" one would never go below sub replacement fertility. Adoption and having no children is the result of having so much self loathing due to cultural marxism that they suppress their innate desire for reproduction by putting that effort into a surrogate child from another woman (or in especially atrocious cases another man). These women are no different than men who get off to their wives being impregnated by other men and deserve the title of cuckquean.
 

Pikimon

Exceptionally Overachieving Mexican
True & Honest Fan
Adoption and having no children is the result of having so much self loathing due to cultural marxism that they suppress their innate desire for reproduction by putting that effort into a surrogate child from another woman (or in especially atrocious cases another man). These women are no different than men who get off to their wives being impregnated by other men and deserve the title of cuckquean.

Wow. Just so much Wow. This is by far THE most autistic thing you've said today.
 
Incidentally fertility rates are just one element. If you add the falling mortality (especially child mortality) rates and longer life expectancy the least developped and a lot of developping countries have been and still are experiencing a gigantic baby boom, for decades now. Whereas the developped ones have been below replacement levels for almost as long and can barely hang on to margins by importing much more fertile (for entirely cultural reasons) foreigners and pretending these naturalized 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation peoples are "natives" when it comes to statistics. The actual demographic reality is much more dire. No worries though, I'm sure the mass of often mutually hostile or just plain hostile "minorities" are just as apathetic about their cultural, racial, religious, linguistic etc tribal identifiers and are 100% on board with a utopian future where these things are irrelevant. Merely being exposed to our superior way of life will ensure this, apparently.
 
Top