What's really odd, for those who believe in Darwin, is that the Blues want to kill themselves off and the Reds want to save them.

What they are really yelling is "Take me back to 1968 (or 1974)".

However, those years are not bright shining points in American history.

Mr. Judd;

See, that's exactly where you miss the viewpoint of the blue staters. It's not themselves they want to kill off.

This article is typical of Longman on population, completely idiotic and superficial.

In reality in the US, the wrong people are having the kids. Our welfare system encourages people to have children out of wedlock, so our schools are filled with illegitimate children from the underclass with no real parents. If we are all the products of our genes and our environment, the decision to encourage those of us with the poorest genetic material and the worst environment should be ringing alarm bells everywhere. However, our welfare structure and our tax code both discriminate against the frugal, the hardworking, the disciplined, the educated, IOW, the people who should have the children, and are best able to raise them can't afford to have them or raise them. However, for the class of individuals for whom the decision to have a kid is the result of a failure to go to the drug store, or for whom another kid=another check, the story is quite different.

If anything we need fewer people, especially fewer of the wrong kind of people. Fewer of the stupid, the lazy, the profligate, the freeloading, the criminal, the drug-addicted, etc. A little Norplant would go a long way.

Are you the same Bart who was claiming to be a Jewish libertarian?

David - No. He's the guy who posted previously that an increasing black population in parts of the South automatically means more people seeking handouts. He's confusing culture with genetics.

>If anything we need fewer people, especially
>fewer of the wrong kind of people... A little
>Norplant would go a long way.

And if Norplant fails, will you fall back to Zyklon B?

David,

Not to worry. The issue is a simple one. If we as a society want to have some kind of social safety net, we have to limit the number of potential recipients. One way is that when someone goes on public assistance, she must use Norplant. I don't really object greatly to paying for someone to be on welfare along with her existing kids, but I strenuously object to letting her have more kids on my dollar while she's on welfare. The pathologies of the welfare underclass are self-evident. They are also not my fault so I shouldn't have to pay for them, other than as absolutely needed to purchase my peace.

If it sounds contradictory with other things I have said, it is emphatically not. My concern is with not getting stuck with the bill. When two gays are having sex in their house on their money, ain't my problem. When a rock star making $50000/wk spends $15000/wk on cocaine, ain't my problem. When someone on welfare has 6 kids while she's on the dole, and gets additional money for each of them, that is my problem. And when those kids are raised in the cultural morass of the American underclass to become little sociopaths, that I get to pay for, or who feel free to hit me over the head because I have money, that again is my problem.

YV,

If you haven't noticed that Black voters give about 95% of their votes to the Democrats and that some of the biggest Socialists in Congress are Black Democratic congressmen from the South, I can't help you. Do the names Cynthia McKinney, Bennie Thompson, Melvin Watt, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Corinne Brown and Bobby Scott ring any bells? As the underclass becomes a greater part of our population, regardless of what race it is, the Republicans are doomed to lose. Our tax code and welfare system discourage the successful from breeding and encourage the worst of us to breed. That is demographic disaster.

Ken,

So you're equating a temporary measure to deal with people on welfare to prevent them from bearing additional children which can then be discontinued when they are off welfare with genocide? Reverend Al, is that you?

Dear OJ,

I picture you kicked back on the barcolounger, legs up, cheesecorn flying, celebrating the imminent arrival of all those God fearin, liberal loathing, Darwin hating, new citizens headed are way :-)

Extending the franchise are you? I doubt it. Take a trip to the grocery store these days and you will see springer mom's (young, obese, husbandless, skillless, etc...) pretty much everywhere, with little kids in tow, (many), charting your demographic horror movie and making anything let alone a christian utopia - impossible.

Woah, who let the eugenicists in?

Eugenicis you say? Hardly. Blame this one purely on the culture

I'm just not smart enough to be a libertarian.

Bart:

Please go somewhere else where your views are more welcome. We don't believe in "the wrong people" here.

OJ,

Anybody who has ever studied biology understands that genotypical variation + environmental variation=phenotypical variation. As a nation, we must discourage the people who have lousy genetics and lousy environment from breeding, otherwise we're going to produce a whole bunch of people who can't function in civilized society.

The current welfare structure does the exact opposite, encouraging crack addicts to make babies so they can get another check. The children are then raised in an environment not altogether different from the worst jungle. Just ask anyone who teaches elementary school in the inner cities.

This is not racist. I don't believe in the concept of race. However, it is culturally imperialist, as there are cultures which are dead ends and which must be eliminated or changed at all cost. The culture of Black America is a dead end, as is that of Islam and that of Tibetan Buddhism. This is not to say that all Blacks, Tibetans or Arabs are genetically inferior. It is instead to say that some cultures lead to failure, while others lead to success, that not all cultures are equal.

Isn't fertility declining rapidly in the "wrong" groups?

If the trouble is culture, then we work to change the culture, not to prevent "undesirables" from procreating.