Post: #1

I hear a lot of brouhaha about "declining birthrates" requiring large scale immigration to compensate. Has anyone studied WHY the birthrate is declining and simply offering practical incentives to raise them? Seems a lot easier than the alternatives. Just offering a more Father Friendly Family Court would go a LONG way.

The only people I've heard doing anything similar was Singapore. Mandatory social mixers for educated employees (nothing for regular guys). This could be taken to further practical terms, without taking away anything from anyone else, just a few simple benefits given to the guys/girl they want breed more. Doesn't seem like that hard a trick.

Post: #2

Encouraging more births in a proper two parent household would be a repudiation of the current path for women - Go to uni, get a job, ride the carousel and finally get a beta parachute at 35 or a bunch of cats at 40.

Post: #3

Yeah, cultural Marxism / progressivism or whatever you want to call it.
Doesn't like the idea of independent, intelligent folk doing their own thing.
Much better to have short sighted / dim-witted human cattle follow their sinister whims.

Post: #4

Basically, it's the new excuse.

First it was guest workers

Then it was jobs we won't do

Then it was a multicultural experiment

Now it's birth rates.

Just point out that using birth rates as an excuse does in fact mean they are trying to replace the population.

Post: #5

I feel like a broken record because I keep saying this, but there is nothing inherently wrong with a shrinking population, especially in densely populated regions like Europe and much of East Asia. Were the European peoples on the brink of extinction back in 1500 when Europe's population was a fraction of what it is today? Clearly not. Even at today's birth rates, it would take centuries for the current European population to shrink to 15th century levels. If we hit that level and continue to shrink it will be time to start thinking about maybe getting worried. But today, with well over 600m people occupying an area much smaller than the continental United States (pop. 320m) the idea that we must try and cram even more people else risk "going extinct" is ludicrous at face value and insidious as an agenda.


On the other hand, free trade has made a big chunk of the labor force obsolete and we keep hearing how automation will adversely impact much of the rest in the not too distant future. What sense does it make, then, to shill for a continually expanding population? Who exactly is made better off by throwing in another few hundred million people on top of the existing 600m+ that inhabit the EU now? Surely not the people who live here already and are squeezed in like sardines. If anything, we should be happy that automation's coming massacre of the labor market will occur in tandem with the shrinking of said labor market. Welcoming automation while pushing for an ever expanding labor force is an exercise in stupidity of mind numbing proportions. When the agricultural revolution allowed .5% of the population to feed the remaining 99.5%, nobody tried to artificially maintain agriculture's share of the labor pool at the historic 70%. So why are we insisting that our society's natural evolution toward smaller households and smaller but far more productive labor force is a bad thing and must be prevented at all costs?

Let people have 1 kid if they wish. Eventually the population will reach equilibrium and stabilize, as those from larger families naturally become an ever larger percentage of the population and as the decreasing population density makes having kids more affordable for all. For gods sake though, whatever you do, keep the goddamn immigrants out. Nobody needs that shit, whether the population is shrinking, growing, or jetting off to Mars.

Post: #6

Keep the BAD immigrants out, and gladly welcome the GOOD ones.

Incentives should be towards encouraging couples to get kids if they are a proper couple, i.e. married and living together. Bringing more single moms to this world will just contribute to the society collapse that is already going on. When two people are together, live together and have their shit together, now it's time to breed.

Post: #7

(10-04-2015 01:21 AM)Rawmeo Wrote:  Keep the BAD immigrants out, and gladly welcome the GOOD ones.

Why? Why should even the "good" ones be welcomed? What if the "good" ones come and their kids displace the natives' kids from Harvard or medical school, are they still "good" then? And what if the good immigrants become a critical mass at certain institutions that the natives created and begin to engage in nepotism, only hiring their co-ethnics at the expense of the natives? I'm using the word "if" but actually these scenarios are far from hypothetical. It's exactly what has happened with Asian immigration to N.A. and Australia.

And what has been the upside? The population is bigger, woo fucking whoo. Seriously. Unless the immigrant in question is a bona fide superstar of the caliber of a Fermi or an Einstein, there is almost no upside. And those superstars are exceedingly rare. I'm happy with importing all 20 of them a year. But 2 million? Give me a break. Your "good" immigrants for the most part end up displacing natives from lucrative fields (see: medicine, dentistry) or simply making fields less lucrative (IT) by increasing the supply of labor. And of course the more of them come, housing prices increase (making it more expensive for the natives to have kids, since we're on the topic), the traffic gets worse, the public spaces are more crowded. The country becomes less livable. Forget it.

Post: #8

I hadn't heard of this Asian nepotism. I don't doubt it happening but still, never heard of it. In fact, I think there are caps on Asians at university.

Post: #9

There are a lot of these either to throw out, short and logical sounding bullshit excuses like "Declining birth rates->We need immigration" or "Devaluing our currency is good->more exports" that are hard to work and argue against not because they're hard to debunk logically, but because it takes a while to explain and set the proper context for why they are such bad ideas; and most people have the attention span of goldfish so they will ignore you.

For example to debunk the "Let's devalue our currency for more exports!" bullshit you'd have to explain that more exports only help the bottom line of the company, and only the actual stock holders and owners but not the workers, wages won't rise, EVERY person will be poorer because their buying power is diminished and more exports don't even lead to more job creation, and even if it's easier to import some cheap labor instead of giving those jobs to the local population.

To debunk the "Let's import hordes of barely literate immigrants because of declining birth rates!" you'd first need to explain the IQ, racial, genetic, work ethic and cultural differences between people and nations, how groups tend to work for their in-group collective to get gimmedats, that an Indian doctor is not the same substitute to an American doctor, that credentials mean shit from countries with lower college standards, corruption, bribing and outright buying of diplomas. You'd also have to explain statistics of populations and that you're more likely to just import gutter trash and not that sought after potential Science Nobel Prize winner that you think you will.

It all takes time and in our modern times of 140 character twatter hashtag screaming, no one has time for anything else other than shouting these easy to say, easy to digest buzz sentences. It's a sad thing to admit, but the shitlibs and cultural marxists have one thing locked down to an impeccable perfection: creating easy to digest buzzphrases that can be quickly repeated and quickly understood on an emotional level. Conservatives (note: republicans are not conservatives) need to also learn that technique from the enemy if they ever hope to win

(10-04-2015 01:21 AM)Rawmeo Wrote:  Keep the BAD immigrants out, and gladly welcome the GOOD ones.

This for example is the quick and short sounding addendum to that buzzphrase that seems logical at first, unless you explain it further: how DO you even separate the good from the bad? Diplomas? Credentials? Past employment? WHY do we even need the "good" immigrants, why invest in complete strangers instead of working to bring up the local population? Lord knows there's a shit ton of people in the US already as it is, gotta tap into that instead of completely replacing the country with foreign mystery meat

Post: #10

(10-03-2015 11:47 PM)Eskhander Wrote:  Basically, it's the new excuse.

First it was guest workers

Then it was jobs we won't do

Then it was a multicultural experiment

Now it's birth rates.

Just point out that using birth rates as an excuse does in fact mean they are trying to replace the population.

Thats the issue with popular democracy; you just go from one "crisis" to another one, caused with the previous one.

Post: #11

I'm with Eddie. Our immigration standards should be made more stringent. Why do we need all these new people when we have our own unemployed and under employed citizens? I am for high quality immigrants being allowed in but I'm also for fostering our own before we bring in a "substitute."

Post: #12

(10-03-2015 10:35 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  I hear a lot of brouhaha about "declining birthrates" requiring large scale immigration to compensate. Has anyone studied WHY the birthrate is declining and simply offering practical incentives to raise them? Seems a lot easier than the alternatives. Just offering a more Father Friendly Family Court would go a LONG way.

It all pretty obvious why the birthrates are low, its been talked about here ad nauseam. If you put a right-wing regime in power, they'd reverse back over the replacement level in less than 10 years. The people in power don't actually care that much about the birthrate, as they are sociopaths who only care about their own power, and one of the results of the exercise of that power is low birth rates. For the same reason, they don't care about the fact that mass immigration is masochist - sociopaths have no empathy for other people. If someone gave them a button that said "if you press this, everyone except you, your friends, and your family, will die a painful death, but your quality of life will double" they'd press it with the same hesitation as they do pressing their floor button in the elevator.

Post: #13

I have come about a Danish ad to solve the birth rate problem. Not entirely serious





Makes me think of the description given in "Bang Denmark". It seems corporations have realized what the problems are. Much more than most of Denmarks politicians.

Post: #14

Housing need is increased, therefore the prices increase. Landlords benefit.

Post: #15

I'm going to say something a little bit more controversial, but it's in the vein that Eddie talked about.

Declining birthrates are a GOOD thing.

There are many, many indications that this century will not be as resource-rich as the last century was. Look at the drought problems and water scarcity in the southwest. Those problems are going to happen in many areas of the world. Aquifers all over the world are being depleted quite quickly, along with other resource problems.

An indication of this is wage and income stagnation since the 70's. Even among college graduates, wages have been stagnant since 2000.

In other words, the high IQ populations of Europe, Japan, white Americans and Canadians, etc. realize instinctively that something is wrong and are taking the appropriate action - reducing their population in line with future resource supplies.

But the low IQ third world just keeps popping out babies with no end in sight, and to make matters worse, we invite them to come, partly because the elites think growth will last forever (pervasive accounting fraud in the banking system will send such miscalculated signals, in true Hayekian fashion).

So you've got a population in overshoot that keeps on increasing while available resources remain stagnant or decline. This has happened before, but never on this scale.

Bringing in more immigrants and encouraging more third world population growth is at this point a foolish thing to do, especially when more tasks are being automated (for now). Something could always change this equation, but it hasn't happened so far.

Post: #16

(10-04-2015 07:27 AM)Libertas Wrote:  Declining birthrates are a GOOD thing.

Declining birthrates are a good thing in magical world, where there is no such thing as democratic politics or invasions, old chicks are as hot as young chicks, no man older than you is competing for them, and people spontaneously explode at age 70.

Post: #17

(10-04-2015 01:45 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 01:21 AM)Rawmeo Wrote:  Keep the BAD immigrants out, and gladly welcome the GOOD ones.

Why? Why should even the "good" ones be welcomed? What if the "good" ones come and their kids displace the natives' kids from Harvard or medical school, are they still "good" then? And what if the good immigrants become a critical mass at certain institutions that the natives created and begin to engage in nepotism, only hiring their co-ethnics at the expense of the natives?

It's not that simple, you don't know who the 20 geniuses are until they're given a chance with MIT education/whatever.

If you think of the country as an entity beyond exactly who is here now only, and think of its future, you arguably need to keep skimming the cream.

America is what it is because there was selective immigration of risk-takers, I agree that the bar has to be raised now so the truly elite get in, but if you read much medical research for instance, you'll see much of the leading work is done by immigrants that are a lot smarter than you or me.

Post: #18

(10-04-2015 06:41 AM)Karaya Wrote:  I have come about a Danish ad to solve the birth rate problem. Not entirely serious





Makes me think of the description given in "Bang Denmark". It seems corporations have realized what the problems are. Much more than most of Denmarks politicians.

Is this a real ad? European comedy is often lost on me, I only watched half of it, but it looks pretty fake.

Post: #19

(10-04-2015 09:04 AM)eradicator Wrote:  Is this a real ad? European comedy is often lost on me, I only watched half of it, but it looks pretty fake.

Spies company's website in English

I think it is real, if you want to call marketing real.

Post: #20

The idea that the population increase curve can continue indefinitely is impossible. The curve must flatten out or the entire earth will be mined, farmed and flooded with poor, malnourished, uneducated peasants.

What's the limit? 10 billion? 12 billion? I live in China and if the whole world looks like India, China, bangaladesh, Indonesia, then mankinds future is bleak.

A population slowdown is coming, but what leftists and globalists desir is that before that inevitable slowdown due to lack of water food and land is for the west to be flooded and lose all racial cohesiveness and pride. I believe they would love todo it to China and Japan as well but they aren't a bunch of cuck pussies, the East Asians have pride in their countries and ethnicity.

The policies today are the banging of the war drum to end white culture, the only real defense against global governments. It looks like those who hope for the masses to be a group of brown skinned, poor, brainwashed idiots won. Now they wait 20-30 years for the plan to finish and take over.

Post: #21

I really do feel like the political realtalk right could use some of these "easy and quick to say and internalize" buzzphrases that are equally as potent as the left's buzzphrases to plant the seed of a thought in people's minds. There should be some brainstorming thinktank efforts for this issue

Post: #22

You need an age pyramid, or a growing population, to support any kind of cross-generational social security system. When the pyramid is top-heavy (more older/retired people) being supported by fewer workers/contributors the system collapses.

Sure, countries can and should limit population growth, at least eventually, but only when social security is somehow gotten rid of.

The EU maintains the age pyramid with the immigration, but not enough of the immigrants end up giving any kind of return on investment and they take more from the social security/welfare system than they ever put in, even though that is their justification to be there to begin with.

Post: #23

^Most Western countries have this pyramid.

More deaths than births is never a good thing. The system needs things to be the other way around, to be able to keep going. (i.e - pensions)

Canada for the first time in history, has more seniors than children.

Some of you guys are beyond deluded.

Post: #24

(10-03-2015 10:35 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  I hear a lot of brouhaha

I haven't heard that word in years, we need to use this more often.

Post: #25

I have spoken to several Japanese on the ground here to get their opinions on the depopulation issue.

Japan's population is shrinking and yet they are mostly fine with it.

67 year old Japanese guy: "The economy isn't the only thing that matters. We need to preserve our culture too. Who cares if our population goes down a little? Japanese cities are overcrowded anyway. Maybe that's a good thing in the long run."

This man has been great to me, extremely generous and far from being xenophobic. And yet he has no qualms expressing the above sentiment.

35 year old Japanese guy: "Foreign immigrants are OK to an extent, but we don't want to water down the Japanese race. I'd rather have the economy shrink than lose our heritage."

This guy is one of my best friends here. Again, he is not anti-foreigner at all but he's comfortable in telling me that he doesn't like interbreeding on a mass scale.

My other question to him was "How about Japan takes 100,000 Syrians for humanitarian purposes?" He laughed out loud and looked at me like I was crazy.

Sometimes I think I'm living in a parallel universe. The lack of a PC narrative is refreshing in Asia. However, it's depressing how it's OK for them to close borders and preserve their culture but back home we are immediately labelled racist if we even suggest doing the same.