PDA

View Full Version : Means of Population & Immigration Control: Should Sterilization be encouraged?



Ĉmeric
Friday, November 7th, 2008, 05:18 PM
1. Should abortion be encourage among some groups & discouraged among others? Should taxpayers in Western countries subsidize abortion in certain countries, e.g. the US in Latin America, the EU in Africa & the Middle East?

2. Should sterilization be encouraged? Compensate members of certain racial groups already resident in the West, to have themselves sterilized. And promote the same in the Third-World? For example, during the next famine crisis in Africa, pay men & women to have themselves sterilized, allowing them to buy food with their compensation payment, rather then givng them fre aid & the ability to procreate to even greater numbers.

Excess population is the primary reason for emigration from nations such as Turkey or Mexico. Which is more morally offensive, aborting the unborn of the Third-World or allowing them to dispossess our children & grandchildren? Is encouraging voluntary sterilization morally justified in averting the racial upheaval that will inevitably result from the population exposion in places such as Africa?

SouthernBoy
Friday, November 7th, 2008, 05:50 PM
Should abortion be encourage among some groups & discouraged among others? Should taxpayers in Western countries subsidize abortion in certain countries, e.g. the US in Latin America, the EU in Africa & the Middle East? No, killing the innocent should never be encouraged.
Should sterilization be encouraged? Compensate members of certain racial groups already resident in the West, to have themselves sterilized. And promote the same in the Third-World? For example, during the next famine crisis in Africa, pay men & women to have themselves sterilized, allowing them to buy food with their compensation payment, rather then givng them fre aid & the ability to procreate to even greater numbers.Yes, you have some good ideas here. :)
Which is more morally offensive, aborting the unborn of the Third-World or allowing them to dispossess our children & grandchildren? The former should be the obvious answer. Murdering the unborn, no matter their ethnicity, is much worse than a shift in demographics.
Is encouraging voluntary sterilization morally justified in averting the racial upheaval that will inevitably result from the population exposion in places such as Africa? I'm opposed to neither voluntary sterilization nor involuntary sterilization. It would be a fine punishment for violent offenders for instance.

Pino
Friday, November 7th, 2008, 05:52 PM
David Duke in my opinion had a brilliant idea for population control that when a single parent went onto welfare they would by law have to take some sort of birth control untill they found work because children being born into welfare families in the majority of cases dont grow up into anything productive! I think this is a brilliant means to stop crime rates and having the lowest forms of people such as parasites from mass breeding.

I think that if we did get into forms of power that all none-whites should be steralised untill we can find a way to remove them from the country and send them else where, this is obviously not an over night fix! In the mean time they should not be allowed to breed or perform miscegnation, anybody who is gulity of miscegnation will also be steralizd for population control as they cannot be trusted to use there sexual organs properly (in an ideal world they would be put to death but I dont think thats realistic)

I dont think we should encourage sterlization in Africa as I think we should pull out of that place entirely and leave them too it, however Whites in South Africa and other small African settlements of Whites we will give our support too.

volantary sterilization will not slove the emigration problems, closing the borers will.

DanseMacabre
Friday, November 7th, 2008, 06:40 PM
[LEFT]1. Should abortion be encourage among some groups & discouraged among others? Should taxpayers in Western countries subsidize abortion in certain countries, e.g. the US in Latin America, the EU in Africa & the Middle East?

Yes that's one solution. But an easier method of population control in the Third World would be to cut off all First World aid. Alot of excess population would die off.


2. Should sterilization be encouraged? Compensate members of certain racial groups already resident in the West, to have themselves sterilized. And promote the same in the Third-World? For example, during the next famine crisis in Africa, pay men & women to have themselves sterilized, allowing them to buy food with their compensation payment, rather then givng them fre aid & the ability to procreate to even greater numbers.

Again, denial of aid from first world nations would be easier. Many Third World nations are completely dependent on First World medicine, food, etc. donated to them. If that were cut off nature would thin the herd considerably through famine and disease.


Excess population is the primary reason for emigration from nations such as Turkey or Mexico. Which is more morally offensive, aborting the unborn of the Third-World or allowing them to dispossess our children & grandchildren? Is encouraging voluntary sterilization morally justified in averting the racial upheaval that will inevitably result from the population exposion in places such as Africa?

It is justified not only for racial reasons but also environmental. Overpopulation is not only the primary reason for emigration but also environmental destruction. China and India are two of the worlds most populated nations and they are also two of the worlds biggest polluters.

Stormraaf
Friday, November 7th, 2008, 06:54 PM
1. Should abortion be encourage among some groups & discouraged among others? Should taxpayers in Western countries subsidize abortion in certain countries, e.g. the US in Latin America, the EU in Africa & the Middle East?

2. Should sterilization be encouraged? Compensate members of certain racial groups already resident in the West, to have themselves sterilized. And promote the same in the Third-World? For example, during the next famine crisis in Africa, pay men & women to have themselves sterilized, allowing them to buy food with their compensation payment, rather then givng them fre aid & the ability to procreate to even greater numbers.

Both seem like really good ideas to me, especially since it can be done in the name of alleviating food crises in the third world. The "nay-sayers" to ethnic preservation can't complain about that.


The former should be the obvious answer. Murdering the unborn, no matter their ethnicity, is much worse than a shift in demographics.

Abortion in this context is a lesser evil. The explosion in foreign ethnic populations is a threat to Germanics and should be dealt with accordingly. That "shift in demographics" can ultimately mean our end. Stepping aside for them for the sake of morality is no more justified than granting immigrants other liberties with which to trample over Europe, because the end result is the same. Admittedly, sterilization would be preferable.

Exactly when a fetus becomes a "life" is open to discussion anyway, so that morality is a subjective morality.


volantary sterilization will not slove the emigration problems, closing the borers will.

A single final solution (no pun intended) like closing the borders is a bit idealistic. We can't isolate Africa from the rest of the world, and stopping immigration at both the source and the "gates" are not mutually exclusive, so we might as well entertain these ideas.

Morning Wolf
Friday, November 7th, 2008, 07:33 PM
Abortion is a great idea. I don't like it but I'm looking at whats pragmatic, not what makes me feel all warm and special inside, as I and a lot of others will feel even worse if the mass reproduction of the inferior masses isn't curtailed. For the 'innocence' argument, the flaws of their breeders is upon them financially socially and most importantly genetically. It is difficult to escape the consequences of ones ancestry when that ancestry is so direly flawed.

The third world nations and the ghettos within the civilized world are doomed to implode. They already are, just look at Rwanda, the Watts riots, etc. Many parts of Los Angeles have become the garbage heaps of human genetics. While they destroy themselves, Europeans should also look at it as a chance to prune the white trash from our people as well. I judge people by the content of their character, inferior people are all the same to me in the end, and I admire people of virtue even if they are different from me. The question is will the the trash in the process of imploding drag down civilization with them?

Actually having the guts to control immigration for once would also be a great idea.

But here's an even scarier scenario, as not only are they increasing in quantity but also decreasing in quality. Is there a chance that they will split off from the human races from which they came entirely, like those monsters in the Time Machine but to a lesser extent? And will they in their degradation be more susceptible to cults, such as Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, or something completely different? Here's some interesting facts from the election in California: almost all blacks voted for Obama, despite him having rather 'white' qualities. Yet they did a complete 180 degree turn on proposition 8 (a gay marriage ban) and voted for it despite Obama's disapproval of it, in a 7 to 3 ratio. This is because of their religiosity, their pastors apparently reign over their hoods like Iranian clerics. A huge and quickly growing population of devolved peoples whom are susceptible to indoctrination is a dangerous thing to democracy.

Maelstrom
Friday, November 7th, 2008, 08:04 PM
In both my Twentieth Century History and International Politics papers this year this topic arose.

Even at university with it's PC outlook it was established that there are two significant factors that are increasing population and immigration on a global scale.

1) Aid. Essentially it's giving people a means to live that they wouldn't be able to create of their own accord. Heck, if someone was going to supply me with my livlihood and ensure that I was fed and I didn't believe in protection... There'd probably be a great population increase! No job, no technology, nothing to stop me passing on my genes. Lots.

2) Immigration release valve. Many people in empoverished countries/regions know they are having more children than anyone can support. There's an expectation that some of their countrymen will be able to emigrate abroad to a better life, thus increasing the resources available in the first country (per capita).

To be humane, a stop an influx or 'boat people' (assylum seekers) it's important that aid decreased steadily, not dramatically overnight. "It won't happen overnight, but it will happen"

At the same time immigration can be completely cut off. This will result in people having fewer children in these Third World or 'Developing' countries because they realise there is no release valve for their excess population.

I would be interested in seeing some statistics from Britain during the time that Asutralia was set up as a penal colony. Theoretically, getting rid of those undesirable elements of the population should have resulted in a relative population boom back in Britain the increase the numbers to what they were before the colony was established. :)

Morning Wolf
Friday, November 7th, 2008, 10:04 PM
Here's some evidence that's almost as indisputable as one can get, from the book 'Governing California' by Lubenow;

General Fund Appropriations, by Major Program Area As Provided in Budget Act 2005-06 Dollars in Billions

K-12 Education $35.0
Higher Education 10.2
Health 17.9
Social Services 9.3
Criminal Justice 9.7
Other 7.9

As you can see, the amount that my state is paying to coddle devolved criminals, many of whom are illegals or the progeny of illegals, is almost as much as what the state pays to fund an internationally renowned college system. How many of the people who are getting social services contribute nothing to society but use a lot of resources? How much of health is spent on illegals immigrants and their children as our prop 187 was disastrously struck down by the courts? How many 'English as a Second Language' students are wasting money, as they are totally lacking is motivation? The inferiority of ESL students I can personally vouch for as not too long ago, I was in high school, and believe me they are lazy, stupid, REFUSE to speak English at all (I knew more Spanish than they did English), and make it very clear that their loyalties are to a foreign country, not America.

Dreyrithoka
Friday, November 7th, 2008, 10:54 PM
I shalt not endavour to postulate 'pon the latter side of the argument, but instead shalt attempt to confront the population problem with what little knowledge I hath 'pon the matter.

To begin with, methinks the main problem is that...


not only are they increasing in quantity but also decreasing in quality.

...ergo the most logical course of action to mine own mind is to first cull those without talents. This may seem like an odd notion, to be possessed of no talents, and this shouldst not either be taken to mean skills that art useful in finding employment, either. Talent is not intelligence, nor creativity. Talent is natural aptitude in a certain discipline, whatever it may be. If someone is a good physicist, that is good. If someone is a great dancer, or a good scholar, or a good cleaner, that is also good. However, if one hath no aptitude for anything, if one may never attain an esoteric understanding of anything, then one may be without talent.

The advent of computerisation, and the subsequent accumulation of incalculable data, hath given rise to a new system of memory and thought, parallel to our own. Given the rate at which scientific knowledge et ergo implementation is also accelerating, one couldst be forgiven for wondering just how long menial labour shalt be the province of humanity, and what shalt become of the "neo-Luddites" whom doth oppose such changes. Still, with necessities becoming more and amenities less expensive, perhaps 'tis not such a wonder. I merely hope that we find a way to integrate technology with ecology ere 'tis too late, and I feel once that goal hath been attained we shalt be in an excellent position to start disposing of chaff using more ecologically expedient terms than munitions or chemicals supply.

SouthernBoy
Saturday, November 8th, 2008, 05:23 AM
Abortion in this context is a lesser evil. The explosion in foreign ethnic populations is a threat to Germanics and should be dealt with accordingly. That "shift in demographics" can ultimately mean our end. I'm not interested in any sort of evil. That you admit it is evil and still support it is telling.
Stepping aside for them for the sake of morality is no more justified than granting immigrants other liberties with which to trample over Europe, because the end result is the same.Calling not propounding the murder of the innocent unborn "stepping aside" is misrepresentative.
Exactly when a fetus becomes a "life" is open to discussion anyway...A fetus doesn't "become" a life. It is a life.
...so that morality is a subjective morality. Morality is necessarily subjective.

lei.talk
Saturday, November 8th, 2008, 12:02 PM
http://i35.tinypic.com/160xyll.gif

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GZAZ_enUS281US281&q=%22serpent%27s+walk%22+randolph+calver hall

Ĉmeric
Saturday, November 8th, 2008, 05:36 PM
The main reason I'm currently opposed to a prohibition on elective abortions in the US is because minority women account for a disproportionately number of them. I don't care if China uses it as a means of birthcontrol, there are too many of them anyway. As for sterilization: I think the trillion dollars spent on the war in Iraq could have been put to better use in a population/eugenics project. For $10,000 each we could have gotten 100 million women in the Caribbean & Latin America to volunteer for permanent sterilization. And there are currently some very inexpensive & less intrusive (and irreversible) methods to sterilize women other then tubal ligation.

SouthernBoy
Saturday, November 8th, 2008, 05:49 PM
The main reason I'm currently opposed to a prohibition on elective abortions in the US is because minority women account for a disproportionately number of them. The blood of every murdered Germanic unborn child is on your hands.

Ĉmeric
Saturday, November 8th, 2008, 07:35 PM
If not for abortion there would be 60 million Negroes instead of 40 million in the US. 50% more then we currently have. Probably more then that, because after 36-years many of those aborted Negroes would be parents or even grandparents. Imagine how much more crime there would be, more failing integrated schools, more middleclass White communities transformed into unliveable (for decent Germanics) ghettos. And what about all the Germanic babies that never would have been born, because their would-be paraents made the choice, consciously or subconsciously, not to bring a child into that kind of world. In the messed up world we live in you have to pick your battles. Outlawing abortion is not at the top of my list. And if it does more harm to other groups that are currently crowding us out of our living space then it is a viable weapon in our struggle.

Grimm
Saturday, November 8th, 2008, 07:41 PM
I'm not interested in any sort of evil. That you admit it is evil and still support it is telling.Calling not propounding the murder of the innocent unborn "stepping aside" is misrepresentative.A fetus doesn't "become" a life. It is a life. Morality is necessarily subjective.

Of course the fetus is innocent, but when you try to stop people from torturing their own flesh and blood to death via abortion they get very upset. They'll paint you as the close-minded zealot because you have the audacity to care about their unborn children. They'll villify you as hateful and ignorant though it is their offspring that you want to protect.

All I try to do is make sure people know what an abortion is. I try to make sure they know that it has been confirmed that the fetuses actively avoid the doctors' instruments in an effort of self-preservation. I try to make sure they know that it has been confirmed by analyzing the sounds that come from the fetuses during abortions that they are first in fear and then in pain. I try to paint as clear a picture as possible. Then if a woman still wants to allow a vaccuum in her body to rip her offspring apart limb by limb, what can I do? What can any of us do?