Iraq, the beggining of the end of islamic terror?

[miko2d]

miko: I am saying that americans as a nation are going extinct

BGBMAW: ???? umm explain further please

 In order for population to stay stable - not decline, there should be 2.1 children born per woman.
 That is not the case in US and Europe - mostly as a result of socialist policies pervading the lives of those nations for the last century.

 The native population is declining in numbers and whatever growth is displayed in government statistics is due to direct immigration and to procreation of the non-assimilated first-generation immigrants.

 The US population is declining and being replaced by people of different ethnicity, history and culture - which in the latest decades are prevented from assimilation into mainstream american culture.

Population Profile of the Unites States: 2000
Birth per woman by age 44
Hispanic women - 2.5
Black women - 2.1
White non-hispanic women - 1.8

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/cb01-170.html
- Women nearing the end of their childbearing years had an average of 1.9 children, which is below the level required for the natural replacement of the population (about 2.1 births per woman).
- About 1 in 5 births in the United States was to a Hispanic women.
- Births to foreign-born women made up 17 percent of all births in 2000.

 Those numbers do not reflect the fact that there is much greater rate of reproduction among the genetic and cultural underclass and much greater rate of decline among the intellectual/professional elite and middle class.

 How long would US be able to maintain it's technological and economic competitiveness? How long would US maintain its cultural/political continuity in the face of such demographic changes?

 It's even worse in European counties where some have 1.4 births per woman - less for white women and much more for muslim women. In a couple of generations most european countries may be muslim-dominated while US will be another Mexico, only more divided and indebted.
 The descendants of ours staying in the same geographical area will live as a minority among a strange nation in a third-rate third-world and/or muslim country. All the wanton destruction we dole on the world now will be just storing trouble and hate for them in the future.

 Same in Israel where arabs will be a majority of voters in forseeable future.
 Japan and Russia are declining but they have no immigration, so they have a chance to preserve their nations' cultural and political identities once the populations stabilise. Their economic significance will certainly diminish. At least russians have the decency of dying in their 50s and not placing burden on their young like japanese do.

 China and India seem to be the raising powers.

 The world militant islamists will win by default against the west - unless they also get corrupted by democracy and socialism.

 I thought they made huge error attacking US instead of just waiting for the western socialism downfall. Apparently they did not - they have caused us to waste much more resources to speed up our downfall while they slowed the process of contamination of their culture by ours.

 miko

[straffo]

Originally posted by miko2d
In order for population to stay stable - not decline, there should be 2.1 children born per woman.
 That is not the case in US and Europe - mostly as a result of socialist policies pervading the lives of those nations for the last century.

Are you sure ?
I remember strong critic of Malthus by Marx.

btw you were perhaps speaking of Neo-malthusianism ?

[miko2d]

straffo: Are you sure ?
I remember strong critic of Malthus by Marx.
btw you were perhaps speaking of Neo-malthusianism ?

 What does Neo-malthusianism have to do with anything I said? Malthusianism and Neo-malthusianism are about the population growth outsripping the growth of food production and slowing down/ceasing to accomodate the food production.

 The western nations go extinct not because they lack food or other resources but because of plain unwillingness to live. They fail to reproduce among the incredible material abundance.

 They can have children - they just do not want to, or more correctly have allowed themselves to be dissuaded from it by the socialist policies and prevailing culture. At the same time the institutions that promoted national biological survival - family, enterprise, parenthood, traditions, natural laws, even religion - have been deliberately dismantled or negated by socialists.

 Only the promiscuously breeding subcidised underclass and minority groups with (sub)cultures different from the mainstream procreate at replacement of growth rate.

 miko

[straffo]

There is perhaps a translation problem by saying : "socialist policies" you mean the politic system (socialism) or something else ?


In french  "politique sociale" (independent of a politic system) is completly different of "politique socialiste" (applied socialism)

[ravells]

I always thought that the reason why westerners were having fewer children was because children are expensive and parents would prefer to give what they consider a high quality of life to fewer children rather than a lower quality of life to more.

Added to this, western parents these days (IMHO) have become more wedded to the consumer culture which means that having children leaves them (the parents) with less money to spend and less time to do the things they want to do.

I am not sure why you think socialism comes into it.

Ravs

[miko2d]

straffo: There is perhaps a translation problem by saying : "socialist policies" you mean the politic system (socialism) or something else?

 I fully appreciate the difference between the terms socialist (socialiste) and social (sociale).

 I ment socialist policies as in Auguste Compte-Seint Simon-Marx-Keynes political philisophy characterised by increased predominance of state in economic and social spheres.

 Economically, the costs of raising good children has been kept mostly private while benefits have been mostly socialised. Also, the economic burden on demographic elite - people most able to raise good children - was disproportionately increased.
 The traditional and natural economic insentives of having and raising good children have been eliminated.

 In social sphere, the increasingly-centralised state took over parenting, education and indoctrination of the children with state-approved culture while opposing the traditional cultural influences and local traditional limits on what children could be exposed to by commertial media.
 Such children grow into adults - and do not care for children of their own.


ravells: westerners were having fewer children was because children are expensive and parents would prefer to give what they consider a high quality of life to fewer children rather than a lower quality of life to more

 That does not make sense. As we get more wealthy due to natural increase in productivity, we should afford more things that we want, not less. In a free market, every innovation is voluntarily adopted because it makes things cheaper and more accessible, not harder. Every investment is made if it is expected to bring profit, not loss. Manufactured stuff (unlike some cases of land and non-replenishable resources) gets cheaper, not more expensive. And children are manufactured with ever-cheaper goods and services used as inputs. At the same time the productive value of children constantly increases - they produce more every year as productivity grows further.

 The most expensive single part of raising children is education - but education is an investment and nobody would be making it if it was not paying off with profit. The more children you raise and educate (with borrowed money), the wealthier your family end up, not poorer - in a non-socialist society where the concept of family is not destroyed.

 It is due to the state intervention that families have to pay much more for their physical security from crime - by living in expensive communities.
 It is due to the state politics that families have less money to invest into expensive education and upbriging of their children. If you have to pay a lot of money to subcidise retirement of some childless drone, you have less money to invest on your children.

Added to this, western parents these days (IMHO) have become more wedded to the consumer culture which means that having children leaves them (the parents) with less money to spend and less time to do the things they want to do.

 And the social policies destructive to family have everything to do with it - from child labor laws to forced schooling. For a common parent, a child is a stranger whom he sees two hours a day, whom he does not understand and who mutually do not respect each other because they cannot work together, over whom he is not allowed to exercise most of traditional parenting methods and who is expected to leave and never look back. Also who is likely to be lost in mid-childhood as a result of divorce that in 99.99% cases assigns children to the mother. As if there can be a viable parenting culture in which a man is not a dominant parent.
 Naturally, who would find pleasure in such "parenting" and consider it worth the effort? Only people with strong cultural beliefs that oppose the prevailing dogma. There are few of those.

 miko

[Monk]

Originally posted by maslo
No.

I realy do not know sutch country.

But i know a lot of country, whitch belive that htey are best of the best.

I know some country, where they call it democracy and they cant even have a beer on the street.
I know some country, where one tit on the TV screen cause bigger problem that thousands of suffering people on the other continent.

Well i saw a lot of country, whitch run as you call it democracy and i saw a lot of diferent countries, whitch run something diferent.

It doesnt matter whats your political system in your country, until it respect its owen people and people respect that system.


Iranian impressed it very well. When i were asking them what do they want about 90% of them said. We need political change badly. But if US will step on out land, we will go and fight them.
Even people whitch hate islam spoke like that. And you can only wonder, what made them think like this.


In fact that every country is very well organized terrorist group, whitch put terror uppon minority, i do not see anything special on your meaning of democracy.

Shadup.......loser

[miko2d]

maslo: But if US will step on out land, we will go and fight them.
Even people whitch hate islam spoke like that. And you can only wonder, what made them think like this.

Monk: Shadup.......loser

 Great and illustrative responce, Monk.
 Maslo, are you still wondering why people hate us?  

 miko:aok

[ravells]

In the case of children becoming more expensive for their parents, I think it is more a case of the child's material expectations having changed radically to what they were, say 20 years and 40 years ago.

My parents were perhaps in the top 10% income bracket when I was growing up, but I didn't have half of the possessions that children even from relatively lower middle class backgrounds have today.

Their parents tell me that there is a class room culture where the children get teased at school if they don't wear 'cool trainers' have the right mobile phone etc etc. To me, it is this that makes children far more expensive to have today than when I was a kid, and even more so whem my parents were kids.

I agree it is unhealthy for parents to be strangers to their children as many are today, because both parents are out working. I think the main reason for this is that maximising income is more important to those parents (whether to spend the money on education of thier children or their next holiday) than spending time with their children.  There is something of a backlash to this which seems to be developing. Many parents are 'downshifting' to lower paid jobs which allow them to spend more time with their children.

I'm not sure how much it has to do with economics, I just think that people these days just want to own more stuff and are prepared to work longer hours to get it.


Ravs

[stiehl]

"genetic underclass"  
  been visiting stormfront?

[Rude]

Originally posted by Dowding
Rude - does Ephesians deal with the return of Christ? I've read the New Testament, but it was a long time ago, when I went to Church.

Miko - unfortunately I don't read Arabic, and if you're going to argue the English translation is edited for PCness or something, I like you to name one religious text that hasn't.

Negative....is relevant to this thread.

[miko2d]

ravells: In the case of children becoming more expensive for their parents, I think it is more a case of the child's material expectations having changed radically to what they were, say 20 years and 40 years ago.

 I thing it's more complex.
 The costs of (good) parenting are much greater than they should be - because of state intervention in education, childcare, healthcare, etc.  So the parents do not have a fortune that is required to have another child but they have plenty left to buy cheap trinkets to the one they have.

 I do not think that it is lavish children's demands that are breaking the family budget - and I bet the statistics woudl agree with me.

Their parents tell me that there is a class room culture where the children get teased at school if they don't wear 'cool trainers' have the right mobile phone etc etc. To me, it is this that makes children far more expensive to have today than when I was a kid, and even more so whem my parents were kids.

 All people strive for status and respect. In real world people are getting it based on actual accomplishments. Children - and prisoners in jails are not allowed to have any accomplishments, so they develop a twisted culture where the main requirement for getting popularity is the ability to get popularity.

 It is very damaging to child's phyche, especially to those smarter ones that are not s motivited to participate in the competition. Sure, they (nerds) got on top when they leave school into real world - while the former "popular" students find out they are worthless. But the damage to both is done.

I agree it is unhealthy for parents to be strangers to their children as many are today, because both parents are out working.

 In all times and culture there was a lot of rapport and respect between children and parents because children saw the work parents did, appreciated the effort and skill that it took. That earns respect.
 At the same time children participating in their father's or other businesses as apprentices/trainees/laborers did real work and earned the respect of the adults and their own self-respect.

 With the child-labor laws, mandatory schooling, etc. it's all gone now.

I think the main reason for this is that maximising income is more important to those parents (whether to spend the money on education of thier children or their next holiday) than spending time with their children.

 All humans strive for status and respect.
 They cannot spend quality time with children. The good family children are no more a badge of status and respect in society. Something has to replace the vaccuum of values. Here comes the sports-car...


I'm not sure how much it has to do with economics, I just think that people these days just want to own more stuff and are prepared to work longer hours to get it.

 Here is a basic economic example. All of us save a lot of money for our returement - via savings plans, taxes, etc.
 That kind of money could be as easily invested to have an extra child or two - a nature's retirement plan.
 Except that it is discouraged. Your childen will not have money to pay for your retirement because they will be forced to pay much of their income for other (childless) people's retirement. And your expenses on children are artificially inflated while your expenses of yourself are often artificially subcidised.
 Costs are private while benefits are socialised.
 General level of wealth has nothing to do with it - or at least no direct and necessary connection.
 Wealthy people in old times had plenty of children.


stiehl: "genetic underclass"
been visiting stormfront?

 Health, intellugence, the trait of phsychoticism - all are highly inheritable (in all species, not just humans) and affect a person's success in life. The highly socially-mobile american society has long ago separated itself socially and geographically into genetic elite and genetic underclass.
 Any smart and motivated individual born to underclass is promptly whisked away to his due rewards - and moves to better community. The least cabable have more children. There is a vicious negative selection going on among the underclass - a so called dysgenic effect.
 What's "stormfront", anyway?

 miko

[stiehl]

Until recently, a lot of people weren't allowed to participate in mainstream culture so they had to create their own subcultures within the main one. Now those cultures are growing and there are problems. I'm 25 so I'll just blame it on you old people:D


Sorry about the stormfront comment but when you post stats on nonwhites outbreeding whites and then claim them to be the genetic underclass....that's something I expect from a stormfront member

[2Slow]

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 2Slow
If I had been President, I would have authorized the use of nukes in the anaconda valley.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Given your post and the ideas expressed therein, you're quite clearly not presidential material. Bush lowered the bar but not by that much. "

What is the point of having irresitable force, if you don't use it and they know you won't?  If you don't want the big dog to bite, then don't screw with him.

I don't give a rat if any citizen of any other nation likes us.  I want them to fear us enough to never screw with us again.  A few well placed nukes will instill that fear.

[maslo]

Originally posted by miko2d

 Great and illustrative responce, Monk.
 Maslo, are you still wondering why people hate us?  

 miko:aok

no mate im not wondering
im only laughing because its very easy to predict, what they gonna  miss in my posts writen in crappy english