PDA

View Full Version : Licence to Breed?



Hama
Friday, November 3rd, 2017, 08:33 AM
My apologies if this is in the wrong forum - modifiers, feel free to move it.

Overpopulation is a problem. Countries are becoming too full, resources are under strain and the problem is getting worse. I have an idea on how to stop this. Let me know what you think.

Before being allowed to have children, prospective parents should apply for a licence. Unsuitable parents would be refused. This way, population is controlled.


Those with genetic conditions would not be granted a licence. That way, those conditions could be all but eradicated.
Those who are infertile should not be helped to have children. It's expensive and allows people nature has decreed cannot breed to do so.
Those who cannot financially support their children would be refused a licence. The strain on our benefit systems would be cut dramatically.
Those who have abused or beaten children would be refused a licence.
Those guilty of certain crimes would be refused a licence.


How to punish those who breed without a licence? Well, we could imprison them, sterilise them or take their children away (have them adopted by the state).

I know that this is controversial. Whenever I've raised it before I've been branded a 'fascist' but I think it is a great way to control overpopulation and the makeup of society in a civilised manner.

I'd be very interested in hearing what you all think. Many thanks in advance.

SpearBrave
Friday, November 3rd, 2017, 12:16 PM
The problem is not just that we are getting overpopulated, it is that we are getting overpopulated by the wrong peoples. Birth rates of Indo-Europeans is very low, in fact so low that we are not even at replacement levels in most cases. While at the same time racial others are often outbreeding us by five and six times.

The big lie we are being told is that "we have to help these third world people", I say BS they need to learn to feed themselves with the resources they in their lands and not over populate and invade our lands and use up our resources.

Norman Pride
Friday, November 3rd, 2017, 01:39 PM
And how exactly do you plan to implement this? You do realize that Germanic countries especially are already below replacement level? People are already discouraged from breeding by the multiple obstacles to have children, social, financial, racial and discriminatory, etc. If you also ask them to get a licence to breed as well - which I assume also costs something and needs to be approved by specialists, so it takes a while - many won't bother. Compare with organ donation, the lowest donation numbers are from countries where you have to register as an organ donor, while those where you are one by default and have to opt out if you don't wish to have the highest successful transplant rates. Getting a document is tedious, modern people are unlikely to do it...

What we'd ideally need are incentives to breed, not the other way around. Besides, this system would be draconian and a violation of human rights.

Nachtengel
Friday, November 3rd, 2017, 03:08 PM
Overpopulation is a problem, whether we like to admit it or not. I don't subscribe to the theory that European and Germanic people should breed like rabbits as a solution to outnumber the aliens. This will never happen the way some think it will, even if every fertile Germanic woman had 5 children, we would still not outnumber them.

If we want to be responsible we want to preserve the environment and resources. The future belongs to eugenics. When you have 50 and 60 year old women being artificially inseminated, something is very rotten with society.

Bärin
Friday, November 3rd, 2017, 10:58 PM
I agree that people are too lazy and getting a license to breed would be too much hassle and tedious for people who are already used to decadence and laziness. So we'd need more incentives to breed. Instead give everyone a license by default but revoke it in those special cases like faulty genetic conditions, malformations, sex offenders and the like.

Ahnenerbe
Saturday, November 4th, 2017, 04:18 AM
A License to Breed (LTB) would be the solution for most of society's problems. The problem of the West is not dwindling numbers, but the constant lowering of the quality of the people. All the discussions about the "replacement level" do not take this into account at all.

Today we are so low intellectually and spiritually that people thing being White is just enough and that all Whites should breed. Otmar von Verscher and Eugen Fischer would have totally rejected that.

Yet this was very much the topic in the first half of the 20th century. Everybody was White back then, but the highest scientific authorities recognized the problem of degenerescence of the population.

For example, Taiwan also has a demographic growth that is slightly lower than the replacement level. But since they have a sane society and do not allow Brown immigration, they will be perfectly fine, with a slightly lower population. And if needed, they can allow selective, quality immigration of ethnic Chinese from elsewhere - if numbers are really an obsession (just like Singapore does - they don't need to breed).

Also, who said we have to replace all those who are dying? It is just something people assume without any research or rational thinking. What if Taiwan's population goes down from 23 million today to 20 million in 20 years, then maybe 15 million? It doesn't matter at all.

And it's still way more than in 1950! Every country that has now a slightly diminishing population still has way more inhabitants than after WWII! So quantity is a non-issue. It all comes from irrational fear, existential anxiety.

https://forums.skadi.info/attachment.php?attachmentid=111615&stc=1&d=1462959127



If you also ask them to get a licence to breed as well - which I assume also costs something and needs to be approved by specialists, so it takes a while - many won't bother.

Then only the most motivated ones will do it, which will increase the quality of the population. That's the whole point of a license - to put a barrier to entry ;)

Again, it depends if you are looking at increasing the quality or the quantity of the population.



Besides, this system would be draconian and a violation of human rights.:D

Hama
Saturday, November 4th, 2017, 08:14 AM
And how exactly do you plan to implement this?
In the same way that if someone wants a gun, for example - no licence, no gun.


You do realize that Germanic countries especially are already below replacement level? People are already discouraged from breeding by the multiple obstacles to have children, social, financial, racial and discriminatory, etc. If you also ask them to get a licence to breed as well - which I assume also costs something and needs to be approved by specialists, so it takes a while - many won't bother.

I think they will. Most people want to have children, and the cost of a licence should be very low. All you would need is a certificate from a doctor saying that you have no genetic conditions, a letter from your employer/bank manager saying that you are financially secure, and access to your criminal record. I think it would be much the same as applying for a passport and the vast majority of us have those.


Compare with organ donation, the lowest donation numbers are from countries where you have to register as an organ donor, while those where you are one by default and have to opt out if you don't wish to have the highest successful transplant rates. Getting a document is tedious, modern people are unlikely to do it...
If they want a child (and most families do) then it would be no more trouble than getting a marriage licence or getting a passport - both small hurdles that people overcome.


What we'd ideally need are incentives to breed, not the other way around.
I disagree - overpopulation is the biggest threat to mankind.


Besides, this system would be draconian and a violation of human rights.
That's the trouble isn't it - Human Rights. Well, human rights have led (in my country at least) families on benefits having as many as 12 children while those of us who work only having one. A licence system would turn that around. Human Rights are over-rated. Sure, there should be a right not to be tortured or not to be executed without a fair trial. But, a right to have children should be earned.

Schmetterling
Saturday, November 4th, 2017, 08:23 AM
Well, human rights have led (in my country at least) families on benefits having as many as 12 children while those of us who work only having one. A licence system would turn that around.
How so? While removing some of the benefits or limiting the number of children from those who are genetically or financially unstable would indeed decrease, I don't see how a licence system would encourage the working family to have more than one child. Unless of course, like NP said, they receive some incentive to have more.

Chlodovech
Saturday, November 4th, 2017, 08:05 PM
Today we are so low intellectually and spiritually that people thing being White is just enough and that all Whites should breed.

In theory being Germanic is enough, since intelligence is largely a matter of inheriting genes. The lack of spirituality and intelligent thought is due to social and political developments. If people are fed rubbish, rubbish is all that is going to come out of them.

It's the lack of quality that is a non-issue, it's mostly due to environmental influences, we were not born dumb.


Also, who said we have to replace all those who are dying? It is just something people assume without any research or rational thinking. What if Taiwan's population goes down from 23 million today to 20 million in 20 years, then maybe 15 million? It doesn't matter at all.

That's one in three Taiwanese who will be gone within the lifetime of a single person, the population decline happens too quickly. A shrinking work force, less taxes, less recruits for the army to prevent a Chinese invasion, neglected elderly, ... all of this spells disaster for Taiwan.

A country can do without philosophers, but it can't do without nurses, cops, firefighters ... if there are not enough around of those the government will be forced to draft them - but none of them generate wealth - so Taiwan's economy will be less productive and less competitive. Taiwan will also produce less great thinkers and art because the country will have to focus on survival, hence there will be less liberty as well.


And it's still way more than in 1950! Every country that has now a slightly diminishing population still has way more inhabitants than after WWII! So quantity is a non-issue. It all comes from irrational fear, existential anxiety.

That we'll experience a massive population implosion in the coming decades is a given, that we'll become minorities in our own countries in twenty years from now is also a fact, even the mainstream press recognises this. It's a rational fear and a bigger issue than the lack of quality. Our current numbers are still relatively high because there are so many old people around, and they will die within twenty years. And when they die, Ahnenerbe, we ourselves are gonna be old. If our generation dies without making babies there are simply not going to be enough Germanics left to maintain the nation-states we know. Our birth rate is so ridiculously low that the babyboomers and gen X will never be replaced. Soon our population figures will be at pre-WW2 levels, then it will be pre-WW1, und so weiter und so fort. Even if we succeed in fortifying our borders, we'll still be poor as dirt, weak and totally irrelevant as long as the birthrate doesn't increase.

Will we sit around a campfire in a cave patting ourselves on the back because of how smart and qualitative we are then?

And not all of us are in favor of importing Iranian babies and learning Sanskrit (for some obscure reason) so a new "Indo-European" nation - a backward Third World, Islamic, post-European nation rather - can emerge (for another obscure reason).

Quantity is more important than quality, in the sense that a nation needs far more do-ers than thinkers. And there's a strength in numbers. Our countries are overrun through the strength of the numbers of the invaders - the Third World has a population surplus, we don't. The more there are of us, the better, as long as there's work and Lebensraum for everyone.

Blod og Jord
Sunday, November 5th, 2017, 01:13 AM
I agree that not everyone should breed for the sake of breeding.
However, many Germanic nations need children.

Negative population growth isn't harmful, as long as the population stays balanced.
If the population is too young or too old, we lack an active part of the population. This is especially important if we have a large number of immigration, which is already drastically affecting Europe.

saxonbrit
Sunday, November 5th, 2017, 06:20 AM
Definitely revoke the breeding licenses of nonwhite people. Permanently.

Idis
Wednesday, November 8th, 2017, 05:09 AM
Sorry, but this is incredibly draconian and intrusive! Who are we to decide on who breeds and who doesn't? That is a personal choice. I do not like interfering with other people's decisions, that is violating a basic human right, their freedom of choice. This is the 21st century, such dictatorial systems have no place in our world, I'm afraid. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that your concerns are invalid, but I don't agree with forcing people into doing something just because you think it is the right thing. I will agree with those who said incentives. Incentives, along with education and respecting others' free will are the way to achieve things in the future.

Gareth Lee Hunter
Wednesday, November 8th, 2017, 01:30 PM
Considering the fact that an increasing number of individuals lack a developed moral conscience these days,'freedom' has become a double-edged sword. And society is paying a heavy price for this state of moral degeneration.

My wife and I legally and morally joined together as a married couple in our early thirties. But we decided against procreating due to the probability that our progeny would be mentally or physically abnormal.

When I see, hear and read about the high percentage of illegitimate and deformed babies being produced by those who should not even have been born themselves, is it any wonder I see red.

Any observant individual who has ever shopped at Walmart knows exactly what I mean.

Along with euthanasia, I am a proponent of eugenics. If society is to move ahead, it needs to produce people who are worthy and capable of achieving a state of progressive excellence, and not continue producing future generations of stagnating welfare dependent mutants who will never even be able to achieve a state of mediocrity.

Ahnenerbe
Thursday, November 9th, 2017, 04:08 AM
Who are we to decide on who breeds and who doesn't?

The exact principles and methodology have been laid out by already in the 1940s by the the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics and by the Race and Settlement Main Office (https://forums.skadi.info/showthread.php?t=101016) (RuSHA), both institutions of the highest standard.

You can also read Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene, by Eugen Fischer (co-written by Erwin Baur and Fritz Lenz) which explains the basics.

Juthunge
Thursday, November 9th, 2017, 06:04 PM
The exact principles and methodology have been laid out by already in the 1940s by the the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics and by the Race and Settlement Main Office (https://forums.skadi.info/showthread.php?t=101016) (RuSHA), both institutions of the highest standard.

You can also read Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene, by Eugen Fischer (co-written by Erwin Baur and Fritz Lenz) which explains the basics.

Because relying on 70 year old works from before modern genetics, is, of course, the right way to decide the future of a whole gene pool.

Sigurd
Friday, November 10th, 2017, 02:30 AM
I'm not entirely sure how one would execute and/or sanction such a system anyway. Countries that have outlawed private gun ownership aren't gun-free countries, they've just taken the guns from sane and law abiding people and leave the illegally owned guns with the wicked. :|

It'd be the same with breeding licences. Those one should be most concerned about not breeding from a perspective of "national health" will also be those that'll be least likely to care whether there's a law demanding that their licence be revoked and might even consider it some form of revolutionary deed of disobedience if children born to them are taken from them and cared by taxpayers' money. :P


Those who are infertile should not be helped to have children. It's expensive and allows people nature has decreed cannot breed to do so.

People can be temporarily infertile and people's infertility has been misdiagnosed before. How do you sanction people who are classed as infertile but still have children?


Those who cannot financially support their children would be refused a licence. The strain on our benefit systems would be cut dramatically.

So, all a leftist, pro-multicultural government would have to do to stop preservationists from breeding is to also pass a law that effectively puts the bunch of us out of work. No work, no financial support, no financial support, no kids.

And if we then did have kids, they'd be state-adopted and be completely subjected to their open propaganda. Yay! :-O


A License to Breed (LTB) would be the solution for most of society's problems. The problem of the West is not dwindling numbers, but the constant lowering of the quality of the people.

The problem of the West isn't an either/or question. It's not dwindling numbers and ageing population OR being outbred by racial others on our own soil OR a lowering of the quality of people breeding. It's all of these things at the same time, which is why the situation has become so dire so quickly.

Sure it sounds bad if 'being White' is good enough as the minimal concensus. It is bad. But when the choice is otherwise having kids that are completely spoilt by a venomous ideology or well, not 'being White' or a combination thereof, we're not exactly in a position to be picky.

That's not to say we should be encouraging people with Trisomy-21 to be fruitful and multiply NOR that we should be discouraging the best of our folk to do so, but we should be happy with what we've got. You can only work with what you've got, and times are dire enough for us to need to notice that we've only got the state of our people that we have. We have no other. :shrug

Norman Pride
Saturday, November 11th, 2017, 12:14 PM
A License to Breed (LTB) would be the solution for most of society's problems.
How would making it even more difficult to have children would solve the problem of too few children? Europe especially has an aging population, and you get people having families later and later in life. Even if you take out all the immigrants and somehow revoke their license to breed, you still get a very low number of young and fertile people, at the peak of their biological function.


The problem of the West is not dwindling numbers, but the constant lowering of the quality of the people. All the discussions about the "replacement level" do not take this into account at all.
This doesn't follow. How does reducing the genepool even more contribute to having more quality? The bigger and more varied the genepool is, the more chances you have to find quality people. The less people you have, the more the possibility of inbreeding, genetic defects being transmitted, etc. I don't think pushing all whites to breed like rabbits is the best idea either, but introducing a license to breed is the other extreme. Average people would find this ridiculous.


Also, who said we have to replace all those who are dying? It is just something people assume without any research or rational thinking. What if Taiwan's population goes down from 23 million today to 20 million in 20 years, then maybe 15 million? It doesn't matter at all.
A negative population growth affects reproduction levels. The less young and fertile people you have, the less are going to have children. The less children you have, the more chances that your population will rapidly dwindle. The older population is unlikely to produce a baby boom.


Then only the most motivated ones will do it, which will increase the quality of the population. That's the whole point of a license - to put a barrier to entry ;)
The most motivated =/= the best genetic quality. We have many intelligent people nowadays who don't wish to have children, for various reasons.

Secondly, we are not living in some nazi fantasy world. Thanks to nepotism and corruption, the first to have such licenses would be the politicians, bank owners, rich people, government employees and their families/friends. Then would come the celebrities and socialites. High quality genetic material?


In the same way that if someone wants a gun, for example - no licence, no gun.
Right, because all these criminals who use guns to commit crimes care about such licenses.


I think they will. Most people want to have children, and the cost of a licence should be very low. All you would need is a certificate from a doctor saying that you have no genetic conditions, a letter from your employer/bank manager saying that you are financially secure, and access to your criminal record. I think it would be much the same as applying for a passport and the vast majority of us have those.
From where do you get that most people want to have children? Many people nowadays do not marry and have children late in life or never. It's a combination of economics, materialism and politics.

I don't think I even need to expand on what would happen if such power fell into the wrong hands. Draconian systems can quickly turn against those who orchester them. So all you need is for the power to fall into the hands of anti-Germanics, and Germanics have their right to breed revoked. Plus they get their genetic history, financial records and so on scrutinized by the government.


If they want a child (and most families do) then it would be no more trouble than getting a marriage licence or getting a passport - both small hurdles that people overcome.
I am actually against marriage licenses, marriage is a private union between individuals. But people usually get marriage licenses and passports only if they need them - they need to travel or get married. I know many people who don't have one, or have their passport expired. They usually only go through the trouble of making one if they have to travel somewhere. Same with this breeding license, most won't bother to make one if they're not already seriously planning to have a child.


That's the trouble isn't it - Human Rights. Well, human rights have led (in my country at least) families on benefits having as many as 12 children while those of us who work only having one. A licence system would turn that around. Human Rights are over-rated. Sure, there should be a right not to be tortured or not to be executed without a fair trial. But, a right to have children should be earned.
Yes, human rights are important because if you trample on them, the tables can turn on you. Angry population, revolts, coups d'etat and that's discounting the fact that human rights organizations would impose sanctions on the country that implemented such a license. You could face an economic blockade or even military invasion. Reproduction ensures the survival of our species. Making people "earn" it and requiring a license to reproduce is against nature and what used to be people's basic purpose in life.

I am not saying that everyone should breed and eugenics should be discounted, but I am firmly against totalitarian measures.

Wuotans Krieger
Monday, November 26th, 2018, 12:04 PM
My apologies if this is in the wrong forum - modifiers, feel free to move it.

Overpopulation is a problem. Countries are becoming too full, resources are under strain and the problem is getting worse. I have an idea on how to stop this. Let me know what you think.

Before being allowed to have children, prospective parents should apply for a licence. Unsuitable parents would be refused. This way, population is controlled.


Those with genetic conditions would not be granted a licence. That way, those conditions could be all but eradicated.
Those who are infertile should not be helped to have children. It's expensive and allows people nature has decreed cannot breed to do so.
Those who cannot financially support their children would be refused a licence. The strain on our benefit systems would be cut dramatically.
Those who have abused or beaten children would be refused a licence.
Those guilty of certain crimes would be refused a licence.


How to punish those who breed without a licence? Well, we could imprison them, sterilise them or take their children away (have them adopted by the state).

I know that this is controversial. Whenever I've raised it before I've been branded a 'fascist' but I think it is a great way to control overpopulation and the makeup of society in a civilised manner.

I'd be very interested in hearing what you all think. Many thanks in advance.

I am sorry but this sounds like fascism. I do not wish to live in 1930s Italy! We do not live in a country which cares about the quality of breeding or the indigenous peoples of the land so all of this is entirely pointless to speculate on. However leaving that aside the vast majority of parents in the United Kingdom receive some form of benefit for raising children which include Child Benefit and/or Child Tax Credit, the latter of which will be replaced by Universal Credit. So unless wages were to substantially improve people will always need to draw some kind of benefit from the State if they have children. Not only that but I thought you would have been in favour of increasing the native birth rate?Do you also not think that prisons are too full already without cramming even more people into them?

Norman Pride-I agree with you. Unions between men and women should be a private matter and that is one reason why I reject the institution of legal marriage.

Gareth Lee Hunter
Monday, November 26th, 2018, 04:35 PM
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/c2/dc/b7/c2dcb72621368cb31035135e49483476.jpg

I don't care what race or ethnicity people are when it comes to procreation. If you breed them, you feed them. My tax dollars should only be used to fund the necessary infrastructure.

Herr Rentz
Monday, November 26th, 2018, 04:47 PM
The Nürnberg Laws should be adapted to the US and the minorities found here.

Wuotans Krieger
Monday, November 26th, 2018, 04:59 PM
The Nürnberg Laws should be adapted to the US and the minorities found here.

This is sheer fantasy! White European descended people in the USA in 2012 were reduced to just 63% of the national population (US Census Bureau). Bearing in mind that was 6 years ago it will now be below that figure, possibly below 60%. 60% of the population cannot enforce racial laws on everybody else. It is way too late-you have gone past the tipping point. What awaits you now is further decline where you will just be another minority. Apart from that there is no political will for such extreme measures, nevermind the capacity to bring your fantasies to fulfilment. Daydreaming about another country (Germany) in another age (1933-1945) will not go anywhere to solving your problems in 21st century USA.

Herr Rentz
Monday, November 26th, 2018, 05:07 PM
This is sheer fantasy!

No shit Sherlock. Think I don't know that? We are way past the point of no return with issues such as this. I'm glad I won't be around for the latter part of this century to see how this mess plays out.

Wuotans Krieger
Monday, November 26th, 2018, 05:16 PM
No shit Sherlock. Think I don't know that? We are way past the point of no return with issues such as this. I'm glad I won't be around for the latter part of this century to see how this mess plays out.

Then perhaps you need to pull your socks up, shake off your obvious depressive mood and do something positive in your life because you project an extremely negative persona which accomplishes absolutely nothing.