The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Chetty Does Actually Have Critics: In the NYT Comments Section
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Yesterday I posted an NYT column by Nicholas Kristof praising Harvard-Stanford economist Raj Chetty’s latest experiment: moving single mother of 6 Jackie Rath, who claims to have been sexualy assaulted four times by age 16, and her brood to a nice suburb with average home prices over $460k. (I called it “Raj Chetty and the Rapes of Rath.”)

Because I’m just about the only pundit who has reflected skeptically on Chetty’s much hyped work over the last half dozen years, I was struck reading the most admired comments by New York Times readers on Kristof’s column. Interestingly, many of the NYT readers’ comments are slightly to the right of Kipling’s poem about “When the Saxon began to hate.” For example:

Phyliss Dalmatian
Wichita, KansasAug. 3
Yes, this sounds promising. But here’s the first step: Stop having so many Children that you can’t afford or support. There is absolutely no GOOD reason to have more than two children. This is not the 1800’s or even the 1950’s. The more kids, the less each individual one will get, and the less their chances for success. Success as defined by avoiding early pregnancy, attending and graduation from College, and fairly stable employment. For the record : We had one child. Only.

12 Replies 214 Recommend

Rita Rousseau
Chicago Aug. 3
Sounds like a good idea, but it suffers from the same problem as the idea behind charter schools: Help the younger generation by allowing a few of them to “escape” their surroundings.

There shouldn’t BE neighborhoods with bad schools, few jobs, blighted housing, no parks, few community resources, and bad policing (too much, too little or just based on the wrong policies and hiring practices).

Decouple public schools and other public services from property taxes and other local taxes. The state and federal governments need to pick up the cost of supporting schools and neighborhoods. Don’t just fund neighborhoods equally–invest more resources and do pilot programs in areas that are struggling.

There are countries where all public schools are good schools. Why don’t we aim for that?

8 Replies 208 Recommend

Margaret Layman commented August 3
Seattle Aug. 3
I’m from Seattle. Not sure where the subject of this article moved from in the area, but her children are unlikely to escape much by moving to Renton.
Having six fatherless children presents a difficult to move to a better life no matter where you go. I hope the mother is being encouraged to concentrate on her current children and not more go nowhere relationships and more children.

1 Reply 174 Recommend

Margie Goetz
Bellingham WaAug. 3
Life is what you make it to some degree especially choosing to have children. I’m appalled by women who can barely take care of themselves financially and then have several children. I find it very irresponsible. Society needs to foster prevention of poverty by educating women against this kind of lifestyle instead of “feel good” programs in aftermath.

5 Replies 149 Recommend

Beatrix
Southern CaliforniaAug. 3
I long bought into the idea that geography was destiny. Then I moved from the US to London and witnessed geographical social engineering failing spectacularly and completely changed my mind. Council homes (government housing) are not confined to siloed projects – there are also many peppered throughout each borough, including “posh” and upmarket areas. What I saw was poverty and its ills continue to replicate itself in spite of being next door to “better” or more well-to-do neighbours. Teenage pregnancy, smoking, obesity, joblessness, antisocial behaviour, drug use (and dealing), littering, and bringing way too many children into the world was what I saw, next door to the lawyers and other professionals who made their way to work each day as we passed some in social housing order their McDonald’s breakfast via Deliveroo. It was shocking, appalling, and above all depressing. I had to let go of every idea I had ever had about how to deal with poverty, and admit that I had been wrong about it all. Bad culture, bad values, and bad behaviour replicate poverty. In spite of what these studies say, success does not rub off to neighbours or transmit itself through the ether. Change must come from within. I would challenge anyone who disagrees with me to spend a few years in central London and get back to me then. I hate that this is what I now think, but I cannot unsee or go back to how I saw the world before.

2 Replies 133 RecommendShareFlag …

Thomas Martin
West LafayetteAug. 4
“Rath, now 38, was the third generation in her family to endure a traumatized childhood that led to poverty, and now she is a single mom with six children of her own who might also be at risk.”

Lady Bracknell would say that to have one unplanned pregnancy may be regarded as misfortune, but that having six unplanned pregnancies looks like carelessness.

129 Recommended

A F
Connecticut Aug. 4
My husband works for a low income, urban school district.

a) all of these districts – at least in Connecticut – ALREADY get the majority of their funding from the state, NOT property taxes. It is not lack of funding that is hurting these schools. It is that they are full of students who don’t want to, or in many cases can’t, learn or fully function behaviorally in a classroom.

b) what makes neighborhoods and schools “good” or “bad” is the people living in them.

My husband grew up in a “ghetto” with immigrant parents who spoke no English and had almost no formal education. Within 10 years they had a house in the suburbs, purely from the fruit of their hard work at multiple jobs and savings. His parents stayed married. They were frugal and hardworking. They used birth control to only have two kids, both who grew up to earn graduate degrees and become professionals.

No matter where you live, if you make smart choices, you can find your way up. And no matter where you live, if you make bad choices – unwed parenthood, wasting money, not showing up regularly to work, cursing out your teachers, breaking the law – you are going to fail.

Putting people from bad neighborhoods in good ones does nothing to address the conditions that created the “bad” neighborhood to begin with.

We will not come close to dealing with poverty in this country until we can honestly acknowledge that there are serious cultural problems in many low income communities, both black and white.

1 Reply 113 Recommend …

Vicki
Boca Raton, FlAug. 4
Well, I will probably be roundly attacked for this, but (and I am a life long liberal and Democrat), why does a poor woman of 38 years have 6 children? Too often when I read a story about poverty in the US, one (in my opinion) too frequent fact that shows up is women – sometimes still in the early or mid-20’s, with many children. Is it because they do not have access to good contraceptives or is it something else? I don’t know the answer, but I do know that especially in the child-unfriendly US, having lots of kids when you don’t also have lots of money is a fast track into poverty.

1 Reply 93 Recommend

RLS
California/Mexico/ParisAug. 4
Single mother with six kids and no money. The new neighbors must be overjoyed. I mean what could possibly go wrong?

93 Recommended

TxConservationist
Gulf Coast, TXAug. 4
If Ms. Rath was truly determined to break the cycle of poverty, she wouldn’t have had six illegitimate children.

89 Recommended

marian
PhiladelphiaAug. 4
The first step to a more financially secure and overall successful life for yourself and your children is to start by having fewer children.
Regardless of the neighborhood a person lives in, practicing responsible family planning will be the major factor in the quality of life for you and your children.
Having 6 children as a single parent or even as a married parent in this day and age is not responsible- even if you could afford to have so many children.
In future, I would opine that government programs for welfare and better housing need to be coupled with a limit to the number of children and free birth control.
You can have as many children as you want to- but don’t expect the taxpayers to subsidize them.

3 Replies 88 Recommend

John J.
Orlean, VirginiaAug. 4
Interesting – but not surprising – that Mr. Kristof fails to mention what other benefits Ms. Rath is receiving from the government. There is no mention of Ms. Rath having a job or receiving child support from any of the fathers of her children so I assume they are all on Medicaid, the SNAP program (food stamps), the WIC program, Section 8 housing payments to pay her rent, etc. etc. Judging by the photograph it seems one would need a car to live in Renton. Who is paying for that? Here’s wishing Ms. Rath well in this social engineering experiment but as a taxpayer footing her bill it would be nice to know how much that bill is annually.

78 Recommended

CNNNNC
CTAug. 4
‘And she thinks her move to a new neighborhood with a history of good outcomes will make all the difference for Amina and her other children.’
If her children’s fathers don’t show up and make trouble.
If she doesn’t go onto to more boyfriends and more babies.
If she assimilates the values of the high opportunity community.
If there is not a critical mass of people from similar backgrounds and circumstances who make staying in that culture comfortable in the high opportunity area.
And of course why would we ever talk about how these programs effect the people in high opportunity areas?
I wish her well but I don’t see how this is scalable even if it works on a limited basis. And that’s a big if.

76 Recommend

Ian Maitland
MinneapolisAug. 4
In my time, I have seen many beautiful theories killed by ugly facts, so before we rush into another ill-thought-out solution, let’s hold the hallelujahs!

It all sounds so obvious. “Congress should move poor families to healthy neighborhoods.” Why didn’t I think of that?

But neighborhoods are not just physical structures — homes, schools and hospitals and so on. Neighborhoods are people. So when poor families move to “healthy” neighborhoods, effectively poor neighborhoods are moving to healthy neighborhoods. Success depends on the poor families assimilating to the “healthy” neighborhoods’ “white” middle class values. For that to happen, presumably the number of poor must families must be limited, or the newcomers will simply recreate the the dysfunctional neighborhoods they came from, resulting in “white flight” and the decline of healthy neighborhoods.

So even if the results hold up, there are likely to be limits to scaling up the experiments. We may run out of healthy neighborhoods to effect this transformation.

Even if there are some gains, there will never be enough. Expect complaints about the lack of diversity in the “healthy” neighborhood, lack of teachers who “look like” the children of the poor families, and so on. The cycle of racial name-calling will begin all over again. It will be even shriller if the strategy proves to be a failure. Count on Kristof to tell us that the failures are more evidence that whites just don’t get it.

74 Recommend

PF59
NJAug. 4
Question: if this program “helps families move to neighborhoods with a proven record of helping kids do better”, who is left living in the neighborhoods with a proven record of not helping kids? Are those neighborhoods abandoned and then bulldozed?

70 Recommended

publicitus
CaliforniaAug. 4
So Jackie Rath is “determined to break the cycle of poverty” of which she is the third generation? Really?

Even though she has no less than six children with apparently no father around? Really?

Despite the fact that she had the last child at age 35-36, Mr. Kristof expects me to believe Ms. Rath sincerely desires to make life better for herself and her children.

Mr. Kristof is a warm and compassionate soul who need not be taken seriously.

68 Recommend

Travelers
All Over The U.S.Aug. 4
Left unsaid is the inescapable fact that some cultures may be toxic. And that to do well in this world people need to escape, and not embrace, those cultures.

For as is also unsaid, nobody from those “high-opportunity” neighborhoods wants to move to Rath’s old neighborhood.

These experiments are a good use of public funds. But they have a fatal flaw: at what point, with how many families moving to “high opportunity” neighborhoods, does the toxic culture muscle out the effective one?

These programs can also be accused of being racist, because also left unsaid in this article is that Rath moved from a black neighborhood to a white one.

But unless we can acknowledge these “unsaid” things, we will continually be dancing around the problem instead of confronting it and giving all children, black and white, the best start. Some cultures do that. Some don’t.

1 Reply66 Recommend

Don Juan
WashingtonAug. 4
The woman mentioned here has six children. Six! Who can afford to raise and educate six children these days? No one but those very, very well to do. But here people bring children into this world without being able to take care of them. To expect society to pay for the care of these children. Mind you, children remember how they were brought up. It has become part of their live, one that they will always remember.
Yes, you can put people into a better area but unless they are willing to change things themselves, a better address alone won’t be the answer.

1 Reply 66 Recommend

Ronald Giteck
CaliforniaAug. 4
The impoverished woman chose to have eight children and is then rewarded with an uptown address for herself and her brood. This is about stupidity more than anything else. It does not consider the brutal nuisance of having them section 8-ed next door. I sound like a Republican monster, but I’m left of Bernie. So why does this story bother me so?

62 Recommended

David
El Dorado, CaliforniaAug. 3
Even granting the accuracy of the statistics, the gains seem so meagre balanced against the slow-but-sure destruction of a previously functioning neighborhood full of blameless people.

1 Reply 62 Recommend

 

 
Hide 258 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. How long before they’re purged?

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
    It's been years since I read the NYT and frankly I'm amazed that they still have sensible people among their readership.

    Having six fatherless children...
     


    I’m appalled by women who can barely take care of themselves financially and then have several children. I find it very irresponsible.
     

    Bad culture, bad values, and bad behaviour replicate poverty.
     

    If Ms. Rath was truly determined to break the cycle of poverty, she wouldn’t have had six illegitimate children.
     
    Every one of these--and these are just a sample--are the sort of remarks that get you banned from many major news-oriented websites, not to mention deplatformed, blocked on social media, and drummed out of polite society.

    There's still a lot of good, solid common sense abroad in the society, but we now have 'gatekeepers' who increasingly prohibit anything of the kind, if and when it conflicts with their favored 'narratives'--and it almost invariably does. It won't end well.

    , @Kronos
    Yeah, they’re gonna get doxed real soon.
  2. Anonymous[143] • Disclaimer says:

    Raphael Richman
    New York City Aug. 4

    Nicholas – Great article. Ties totally to recommendations in “The Color of Law” (2017) by Richard Rothstein. An eye-opening book on the history of racism in the USA. Rothstein documents how Federal law (from Social Security to the GI Bill to the (Un-)Fair Housing Act, to Tax Law on deductions for single family homes etc.) has unconstitutionally favored whites (like me) and hugely disadvantaged minorities over the generations. And, how our history textbooks skip over it.

    America has a blindspot on this. That helps a bigot like Trump motivate voters (likely unaware of this history), disparage communities like Baltimore, that have suffered under it, as he stifles ideas that could ameliorate the situation. Trump’s father profited greatly from racism in real estate and taught Donald how to keep it going. Too poorly-read and too selfish to know it, Trump is day by day perpetuating the harm Seattle’s Experiment is trying to undo.

    Let’s hope the Seattle Experiment prevails.
    28 Recommend

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Anonymous[143]:

    Now that's more like the usual bleating of NYT commentators that we've all come to know and love!
    , @Colin Wright
    'Nicholas – Great article...'

    Can we have an 'idiot' button?
    , @Hypnotoad666
    If Trump was sponsoring the Seattle program, this same commenter would have said it was a racist atrocity.
    , @Moses
    has unconstitutionally favored whites (like me)

    I think Mr. Richman means "Fellow Whites (like me)"
    , @Tired of Not Winning
    I always wonder why people like this right-minded commenter, or Raj Chetty or Nicholas Kristof don't just pack up and move into black neighborhoods, teach those poor black folks the right way to live as they do. If all the bleeding heart liberals like them do that, there wouldn't be any bad neighborhoods left. Why elevate one family at a time when they can elevate an entire neighborhood?
  3. It’s not encouraging for the future that white commenters are notably disgusted by the idea of anyone reproducing above replacement level. They mention the woman’s particular situation but this seems only an intensifier for their consistent distaste for large families generally.

    • Agree: peterike
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Large families were good when there was a wide open frontier. Whites don't outbreed their habitat, negroes, mesos and abbos of all types will.
    , @Colin Wright
    'It’s not encouraging for the future that white commenters are notably disgusted by the idea of anyone reproducing above replacement level. They mention the woman’s particular situation but this seems only an intensifier for their consistent distaste for large families generally.'

    I think large families are fine. They're particularly fine if they're white, but they're okay if they're brown or yellow, too.

    However, I assume the parents are paying for it all -- or at least aren't on public assistance.

    , @Hypnotoad666
    I imagine that most commenters were urban professionals who expended huge amounts of emotional energy, money, career sacrifices, and stress to raise just one kid up to the exacting current standards of white middle class parenting.

    Some of them may even be bitter about foregoing children because they didn't want to make the sacrifices.

    To hear of a 38-year old mindlessly popping out six kids and living at government expense in a nice "opportunity community," thus really struck a personal nerve with these otherwise PC readers.
    , @animalogic
    "notably disgusted" is a bit strong. Angry & incredulous is perhaps closer.
    Six children is now, in the West, seen as anomalous. Six children to a single mother, seemingly permanently lacking in the material means to care for those kids is not an appealing look.
    The commentators in the article are NOT stupid -- they know that six kids is an incredible responsibility, for anyone, never mind the mother in question.
    One commentator notes the elementary fact that smart choices will tend to succeed, stupid choices tend to end in failure. Too true. But --Unfortunately there are many who are not smart -- who are badly equipped for a world as abstract & complex as ours. You can criticize them, but ultimately there's the danger of blaming someone for having a birth defect. ( & yes, there's the other side of the coin - over looking people who should know better, but simply don't give a fuck.)
    , @S. Anonyia
    Why not? It means these people have common sense even if they are liberal. They sacrificed to make a good life for their 1 or 2, why should this irresponsible woman’s 6 children get access to special programs to lift them out of poverty?

    Also, there are over 7 billion people. How many more do you want? Our highways are already straining under the increase in population over the past couple of decades.

    I’m all for large families- if we have the living conditions of 1900. But infant mortality is low, lifespans are longer than ever and there are (thankfully) no major wars to cull the population.
    , @AnotherDad

    It’s not encouraging for the future that white commenters are notably disgusted by the idea of anyone reproducing above replacement level. They mention the woman’s particular situation but this seems only an intensifier for their consistent distaste for large families generally.
     
    Disagree Anonymousee. I think it is very encouraging.

    Don't get me wrong, ultimately we need to turn around white fertility--a bit. Basically in a healthy nation married couples who are smart, healthy, financial secure--basically have their stuff together--would target, be encouraged to have 3 or 4 kids. They make up for the non-marrieds, the late starters, the fertility issues, the don't-feel-like-its. And at the other end, if you end up on welfare, or in prison or the mental hospital you agree to sterilization in return for state support. But this is a sane eugenic culture you can pretty easily build once you've thrown off minoritarianism, stopped immigration and anti-white, anti-national insanity.

    What is encouraging about these reactions is that a bunch of white people are disgusted by a poor minority rapidly reproducing at their expense. Even a lot of white people who consider themselves "liberals", find this abusive. This awarness and concern for demographic reality is exactly the sort of thing that we whites who want to save America--keep it as a white nation, part of Western civilization--can use to raise awareness of the anti-white animus (and abject insanity) of "nation of immigrants" and get those whites on-side with a moratorium.

    Basically "people who can't afford it--i.e. minorities--having lots of children" is a crack in the coalition of the fringes that separates the breeder minorities from good whites. We need those cracks and should work to stick wedges in them and widen them.
  4. Liberals are generally dingbats but one thing they usually get right is family planning. Of course, these are the same people who think it’s perfectly reasonable for 3 or 4 billion high-fertility pre-Americans to apply for asylum, so go figure.

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara

    one thing they usually get right is family planning.
     
    No, they do not. The problem isn't multiple pregnancies, or teenage pregnancies, the problem is what Christianity preached against:

    Unmarried parents and fatherless children.

    In the 1950s you could have 5+ kids from a young woman and few people thought it weird, so long as you were married and dad was working. We have an economic and social problem where our earning power has diminished such that a one-income couple can no longer afford a house, a new car, and 5+ children in a safe neighborhood with no debt as they could in the 1950s and 60s.

    Family planning is something imposed on the West by people who hate Western civilization and have used specious arguments to support it since the beginning.
    , @guest
    If they get family planning right, why do they consistently throw away years of fertility on frivolity then wake up on their 40th birthdays surprised their wombs are dry?
    , @bomag

    ...the same people who think it’s perfectly reasonable for 3 or 4 billion high-fertility pre-Americans to apply for asylum
     
    It's partly a proselytizing effort: they imagine the newcomers will adopt the Liberal belief in raising cats for one's posterity.
  5. @TWS
    How long before they're purged?

    It’s been years since I read the NYT and frankly I’m amazed that they still have sensible people among their readership.

    Having six fatherless children…

    I’m appalled by women who can barely take care of themselves financially and then have several children. I find it very irresponsible.

    Bad culture, bad values, and bad behaviour replicate poverty.

    If Ms. Rath was truly determined to break the cycle of poverty, she wouldn’t have had six illegitimate children.

    Every one of these–and these are just a sample–are the sort of remarks that get you banned from many major news-oriented websites, not to mention deplatformed, blocked on social media, and drummed out of polite society.

    There’s still a lot of good, solid common sense abroad in the society, but we now have ‘gatekeepers’ who increasingly prohibit anything of the kind, if and when it conflicts with their favored ‘narratives’–and it almost invariably does. It won’t end well.

    • Replies: @Days of Broken Arrows
    If you remember the old day of the 1980s and early '90s, we also had gatekeepers. They were called newspaper editors and publishers.

    Their influence plummeted when people took to the Web en masse to get their information.

    But now these people have been reincarnated in the form of speech enforcers on tech platforms. More and more, it's looking like the years 1994-2016 were a golden era for free speech and we've gone back to corporations dictating what we can and can't read.

    Wonder if a return to something like the old (pre-Google) Usenet is in order at this point?
    , @G. Poulin
    There's a lot of common sense out there. None of it is employed by the New York Times.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Every one of these–and these are just a sample–are the sort of remarks that get you banned from many major news-oriented websites, not to mention deplatformed, blocked on social media, and drummed out of polite society.
     
    The Purge Khalifa!

    http://fanthefiremagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Mission-Impossible-Ghost-Protocol-3.jpg


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0JioZmFdTKs
  6. @Anonymous

    Raphael Richman
    New York City Aug. 4

    Nicholas - Great article. Ties totally to recommendations in "The Color of Law" (2017) by Richard Rothstein. An eye-opening book on the history of racism in the USA. Rothstein documents how Federal law (from Social Security to the GI Bill to the (Un-)Fair Housing Act, to Tax Law on deductions for single family homes etc.) has unconstitutionally favored whites (like me) and hugely disadvantaged minorities over the generations. And, how our history textbooks skip over it.

    America has a blindspot on this. That helps a bigot like Trump motivate voters (likely unaware of this history), disparage communities like Baltimore, that have suffered under it, as he stifles ideas that could ameliorate the situation. Trump's father profited greatly from racism in real estate and taught Donald how to keep it going. Too poorly-read and too selfish to know it, Trump is day by day perpetuating the harm Seattle's Experiment is trying to undo.

    Let's hope the Seattle Experiment prevails.
    28 Recommend
     

    Anonymous[143]:

    Now that’s more like the usual bleating of NYT commentators that we’ve all come to know and love!

  7. People invested enough in an online publication to post comments are probably also invested enough to read the whole article they’re commenting on. Perhaps NYT’s commenters have disproportionately absorbed the latter paragraphs of the paper’s articles over time.

  8. • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    Yep, that's the constant drumbeat: Ageing Europe needs immigration. German "conservative ="Christian Democratic...") big man Wolfgang Schäuble put it this way in 2016: We need immigration to prevent us from - fasten your seatbelts, ladies & gentlemen! - "degenerating".
    , @S. Anonyia
    Only in the short term. You cannot have perpetual growth without an ecological or military catastrophe. There are ways to manage negative population growth without short term fixes like importing foreign low wage workers.
    , @Forbes
    Immigration (population growth) is needed to fund their Ponzi scheme of social welfare benefits as an aging population, combined with less-than-replacement fertility, has caused an inverted family tree, namely: 4 grandparents have 2 children who have 1 grandchild. Top-heavy, old-age social benefit schemes don't survive these demographics.

    Unfortunately, immigrants arrive, attracted by welfare benefits, add to social welfare liabilities.

    Additionally, jobs are fewer due to automation, productivity gains in industry, with mix changing to less-labor intensive, information-based economy requiring educated, language-literate skill-set incompatible with third world immigration.

    Stumping for immigration to address low birthrates is kicking the can down the road regarding unsustainable, unfunded social benefit schemes. It's adding irresponsibility on top of already existing fiscal irresponsibility.
  9. NIMBY rides to the rescue. I wonder if the topic of immigration came up….

  10. @Bragadocious
    Liberals are generally dingbats but one thing they usually get right is family planning. Of course, these are the same people who think it's perfectly reasonable for 3 or 4 billion high-fertility pre-Americans to apply for asylum, so go figure.

    one thing they usually get right is family planning.

    No, they do not. The problem isn’t multiple pregnancies, or teenage pregnancies, the problem is what Christianity preached against:

    Unmarried parents and fatherless children.

    In the 1950s you could have 5+ kids from a young woman and few people thought it weird, so long as you were married and dad was working. We have an economic and social problem where our earning power has diminished such that a one-income couple can no longer afford a house, a new car, and 5+ children in a safe neighborhood with no debt as they could in the 1950s and 60s.

    Family planning is something imposed on the West by people who hate Western civilization and have used specious arguments to support it since the beginning.

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    I hate to interrupt with facts, but those people in the 50s had debt. Mortgage, usually one or two household items, sometimes car payments. A lot of people have confused saving a down payment with saving up the entire cost of an item.
    Or benefited from an inheritance, since a major, but unmentionable, factor in the flatness of working class Americans' income and lifestyle has been increased lifespans.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    You have a good point, Mr. Camara, but first keep in mind that Americans lived more frugally in a lot of ways in the 1950's. They took car trips for vacations, often had just one car, lived in much smaller houses, and most importantly, were not perpetually in the kind of debt (6-year term car loans, student loans, and credit cards) as our most people now.

    Secondly, it's easy for the jobs to pay quite a bit more on the bottom line (take-home pay), when the big taxes aren't taken out for the Socialism to support the "families" like that of Miss Rath in the article. That's even before she would get paid to move into Renton and screw up the neighborhood.

    I do get that wages have not moved since the 1970's adjusted for inflation*. That's not good, but shouldn't make things harder, were it not for American's spending habits and muh Socialism.

    Lastly, families ought to read Squaw Warren's 20-year-old book, The Two-Income trap before it gets "cancelled".

    .

    * The thing is, I also don't believe those inflation numbers. I do think an average low-wage hour's pay can't buy nearly what a low-wage hour's pay could buy in the 1970's.
  11. TGGP says: • Website

    I recall Steve writing many times that birth/population control used to be a popular cause among east coast elites but now is regarded as somewhat unseemly. Should this be taken as evidence that many liberal NYT readers are still believers in the progressivism of the past?

    On an only slightly related note, some recent mass-shooters have written manifestos combining “green” ideas about restricting population growth to preserve nature alongside immigration restriction. The person who comes to my mind as the opposite of that perspective would be Lyman Stone, a pro-life/pro-natalist pro-immigration conservative Lutheran from Kentucky. I know some here might take that as a reason to dismiss him, but I think his writings on “workism” might be interesting to folks as another take on “affordable family formation”. It would help if you’ve also been reading Spotted Toad on the economy vs the family.

    • Replies: @guest
    Obviously, they still believe in population control. It's just argued for in terms of "women's rights" and sexual pleasure on the one hand , and drowning out Whitey's vote on the other. Which results in endless torrents of abortions--admittedly heavy on the dark side--sub-replacement level reproduction in Heritage America, AND zombie hordes of invading Catholics*.

    None of which works together, but this is modern U.S. politics not utopia.

    *Old Progressivism was a malady indulged in by WASPs, many of whom were frightened by the velocity spontaneous reproduction amongst lower classes. A big one being adherents to the Catholic faith, which takes the Bible's command to multiply seriously.

    , @R.G. Camara
    One of the worst things the environmental movement did to itself was go hard-left, which, combined with libertarianism getting big on the right, utterly destroyed a lot of possible pro-environmental right-wing politics.

    The National Parks are a gift not just for hippies and hipsters and mountain climbers, but for a lot of hunters and trackers and nuclear families trying to bond and get back to nature. The cross-country road trip to a national park was once a staple vacation idea for most middle-class , Eisenhower and Nixon-voting families.

    As Steve has pointed out, the Sierra Club stopped talking strong borders and anti-littering campaigns when those were seen to be anti-diversity, which meant anti-Left, which is all the Sierra Club was.

    , @dvorak

    Should this be taken as evidence that many liberal NYT readers are still believers in the progressivism of the past?
     
    NYT commenters are 100% baby boomers or older. Yes they believe in the progressivism of the past; they are the past.
  12. It’s overproduced elite aspirants that virtue signal more, because they have to distinguish themselves from the deplorables as much as they possibly can, since otherwise little separates them. As you head up into genuine upper middle class haunting grounds, people are more willing to share their genuine opinions, which are still liberal but less liberal than the saccharine pure globohomo of the QUANGO bureaucrat set. The average NYT reader makes about $200k, as opposed to a mere $75k for WaPo. WaPo readers are more virulently leftists because they know they’re also commoners deep down.

    The middle class conforms, the upper middle class tries to epater le bourgeois.

    Plus, the ravening Outer Party has an additional incentive to virtue signal and form twitterati mobs because if they can knock one of the real Party members out, they might get in.

    We send too many people to college. It’s unhealthy for society.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    “The average NYT reader makes about $200k, as opposed to a mere $75k for WaPo. WaPo readers are more virulently leftists because they know they’re also commoners deep down.”

    Are those numbers for real? I’ve always been curious about the demographic makeup of NYT subscribers. Sailer often points out the writer quality between the physical paper and online version. (That the former is more sophisticated than the latter.) Any idea what the main age brackets are? There are only 250,000 subscribers right?
    , @Dissident
    Having been binge-listening for several months now to archived MP3 recordings of Luke Ford's YouTube livestream, my first thought upon seeing the handle Monsieur le Baron was, Might this, perchance, be the "MON-ZJHUR" / "Angry Chinaman" character who has appeared regularly on the aforementioned podcast? I had only begun to read the first sentence of the comment when, based on the vocabulary alone, I thought, "This has to be him." Any remaining doubt was then removed when, hovering over the hyper-linked Website field, I recognized the URL as none other than the one that I heard MON-ZJHUR provide as that of his blog.

    Hello Monsieur, nice to see you here. Thank you for, along with Kevin Michael Grace and many of the other guests who appear on the show, providing much informative, stimulating, highly enjoyable content.

    , @Dissident

    We send too many people to college. It’s unhealthy for society.
     
    John Derbyshire has made that argument in some detail.

    The Dream Palace of Educational Theorists

    Towering over all these lesser scams is the college racket, a vast money-swollen credentialing machine for lower-middle-class worker bees. American parents are now all resigned to the fact that they must beggar themselves to purchase college diplomas for their offspring, so that said offspring can get low-paid outsource-able office jobs, instead of having to descend to high-paid, un-outsource-able work like plumbing, carpentry, or electrical installation.
     
    The Importance of a College Education
    (A review of Crazy U: One Dad's Crash Course in Getting His Kid Into College, by Andrew Ferguson
    and In the Basement of the Ivory Tower: Confessions of an Accidental Academic, by Professor X)

    One of the strongest pieces of evidence that our civilization has descended into madness was offered by National Public Radio in April 2007. NPR's Robert Siegel was interviewing Melinda Gates, wife of Bill Gates and custodian of a new $60 million education reform initiative the Gates Foundation was launching. "Can we reasonably expect 100% of high school students to become college students?" asked Siegel. To which Mrs. Gates replied, "Yes, I think we can."
     
    From Radio Derb:

    The college racket takes a hit (September 2018)
    When will the college bubble pop? (April 2014)
    College follies (February 2012)
  13. Thumbs up for occasionally reviewing the NYT letters. The usual chorus of zombies is intolerable, however grammatically competent, but it’s heartening when the comments run against instruction. Steve’s selections, I note, are unencumbered by the word “Trump.” How encouraging for the possibility of liberated thought. Maureen Dowd, the other day, wrote about Once in Hollywood and Pitt and DiCaprio and…and…you guessed it, and her commentariat copied through with the rants. Sorry Mo, to put it like this, but one dog barks and they all bark.

  14. Heartening to see so many critics of anti-natalism in Steve’s comments.

  15. @R.G. Camara

    one thing they usually get right is family planning.
     
    No, they do not. The problem isn't multiple pregnancies, or teenage pregnancies, the problem is what Christianity preached against:

    Unmarried parents and fatherless children.

    In the 1950s you could have 5+ kids from a young woman and few people thought it weird, so long as you were married and dad was working. We have an economic and social problem where our earning power has diminished such that a one-income couple can no longer afford a house, a new car, and 5+ children in a safe neighborhood with no debt as they could in the 1950s and 60s.

    Family planning is something imposed on the West by people who hate Western civilization and have used specious arguments to support it since the beginning.

    I hate to interrupt with facts, but those people in the 50s had debt. Mortgage, usually one or two household items, sometimes car payments. A lot of people have confused saving a down payment with saving up the entire cost of an item.
    Or benefited from an inheritance, since a major, but unmentionable, factor in the flatness of working class Americans’ income and lifestyle has been increased lifespans.

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    The mortgage I'll concede, the inheritance not without more. But it still stands that an average man in his 20s could have an income for a mortgage (for a new house in a safe suburb), a new (American-made) car, and and care for himself, his wife, and 5+ children.

    And he'd be working a job where 8 hours a day was standard, and work was not taken home. Vacation and weekends were assured.

    I don't know how you can say inheritance was a major factor. It's not like people from the 1930s and 1940s had huge stockpiles of money and land given to their kids. Most of the 1950s and 1960s places were bought on your income without inheritance. The 1930s wiped out a lot of any inheritance the 1950s kids might have had, and the first half of the 1940s had the belt-tightening from WW2, and was not known as a time of blissful inheritance-making, unless you were a 1%er already.

    Perhaps the ROckefellers and the Hiltons and the Kennedys have been hurt by the family heads living much longer lives, but not below them.

  16. Good time to be in the hedge, fence and wall business in Renton. How far is it from Microsoft?

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    5 or 10 miles up the road to the north, on the east side of the lake. Bill Gates doesn't need to worry. That Medina place, if he still has it, is big enough to give the guard dogs room to get up some speed.
  17. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymousse
    It’s not encouraging for the future that white commenters are notably disgusted by the idea of anyone reproducing above replacement level. They mention the woman’s particular situation but this seems only an intensifier for their consistent distaste for large families generally.

    Large families were good when there was a wide open frontier. Whites don’t outbreed their habitat, negroes, mesos and abbos of all types will.

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara

    Whites don’t outbreed their habitat
     
    Jonathan Swift and some Irishmen from the 1840s might have a few words in opposition to that statement.
  18. “There are countries where all public schools are good schools. Why don’t we aim for that?”

    Because the “secret sauce” in that recipe is ethnic homogeneity and 100+ median IQ. It’s probably a crime against humanity at this point to try and replicate that here.

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    Man, crime, bad schools, bad neighborhoods, "food deserts" (lol), drugs, and high HIV rates seem to follow blacks around wherever they go. Why are these poor people so cursed?

    It's like how (((another group))) keeps getting kicked out of country after country, for centuries, and hated so mercilessly by the native populations after moving in. These (((poor people)))---such injustice!
  19. Anon[938] • Disclaimer says:

    Fun reading.

    At least some of the comments seem to imply the heretical notion that having six kids may be something that should be disincentivized … how might you do that? Cut social services and welfare! Cancelled!

    The people saying things like this:

    Stop having so many Children that you can’t afford or support. There is absolutely no GOOD reason to have more than two children. This is not the 1800’s or even the 1950’s. The more kids, the less each individual one will get, and the less their chances for success.

    What is she saying? “Give” to children in the way of leaving money to them? That sounds like reparations and wealth gap talk.

    I think a relatively normal family with two parents at least one of whom has a full-time job and who are not living in an expensive urban area can “give” six or ten kids all they need in terms of time, love, and attention, and assuming the genomic human capital is right, they will turn out fine. Make sure from an early age that they understand that they will be on their own when they graduate from high school.

    Potential problems: Are there really no jobs these days? And do you have to live a play-date, helicopter lifestyle to avoid busybodies reporting you to CPS?

    On the whole the best strategy is to convert to Mormonism and move to Utah.

    • Replies: @Alden
    You either don’t have children or you’re a welfare mamma. Or you’re single and your take home, not gross income is between 100 and 200 K a year depending on where you live. . Don’t you have winter heat bills and property taxes even if your house is paid for?

    Children need more than time, love and attention. They need the necessities food $30 a week per person is cheap. 5 kids, 2 parents that’s $210 a week almost $11,000 a year $900 a month. $30 a week per person is a dirt cheap food budget rice dried not canned beans cooked cereal noodles tortillas carbs carbs carbs.

    Housing you’d need at least 4 rooms, a kitchen living all purpose room and 3 bedrooms. Utility bills and laundry. If you do it at home for 7 people you need a washer and dryer and the water bill will be high. Do it in a laundromat what? $15 worth of quarters a week?

    Unless you live in the slums of Detroit where 3 bedroom single family homes can be bought for $14,000 most of anyone’s budget goes for the mortgage & property taxes or rent.

    Car I suppose it’s possible to wrangle 5 kids groceries for 7 people and laundry to the laundromat on public transportation. Groceries for 7 people week after week would need daily shopping if you didn’t have a car. Even walking distance to a supermarket would entail endless daily trips as you can’t get food and household supplies for 7 people into those little metal grocery carts.

    So you’d need a car.

    We haven’t covered basic clothes furniture cooking implements household supplies yet.

    Children’s activities cost a lot, like $125. For typical sports team plus the shoes and uniforms etc School trips birthday parties where the guests are expected to bring presents.

    Love and attention cost nothing Time depends on work and commuting schedule. If you have 5 kids, better hope you and spouse work in jobs with lots of paid overtime.

    I won’t even go into loss of privacy sibling squabbles because of so many kids and different ages, difficulty of coordinating family and other activities because the kids range from 14 to 2.

    Cooking and cleaning up after meals for 7 people. Oh, by the way, to feed 7 people you’ll need a decent size dining table and a place to put it. A lot of modernist even “ luxury” homes and condos don’t have a place for a big dining table. They have these huge kitchens but people are supposed to eat on stools at the kitchen counter or on the coffee table spilling food on the couch chairs and rug,

    Good luck. Hope your big family works out.
  20. @Bragadocious
    Liberals are generally dingbats but one thing they usually get right is family planning. Of course, these are the same people who think it's perfectly reasonable for 3 or 4 billion high-fertility pre-Americans to apply for asylum, so go figure.

    If they get family planning right, why do they consistently throw away years of fertility on frivolity then wake up on their 40th birthdays surprised their wombs are dry?

  21. @TGGP
    I recall Steve writing many times that birth/population control used to be a popular cause among east coast elites but now is regarded as somewhat unseemly. Should this be taken as evidence that many liberal NYT readers are still believers in the progressivism of the past?

    On an only slightly related note, some recent mass-shooters have written manifestos combining "green" ideas about restricting population growth to preserve nature alongside immigration restriction. The person who comes to my mind as the opposite of that perspective would be Lyman Stone, a pro-life/pro-natalist pro-immigration conservative Lutheran from Kentucky. I know some here might take that as a reason to dismiss him, but I think his writings on "workism" might be interesting to folks as another take on "affordable family formation". It would help if you've also been reading Spotted Toad on the economy vs the family.

    Obviously, they still believe in population control. It’s just argued for in terms of “women’s rights” and sexual pleasure on the one hand , and drowning out Whitey’s vote on the other. Which results in endless torrents of abortions–admittedly heavy on the dark side–sub-replacement level reproduction in Heritage America, AND zombie hordes of invading Catholics*.

    None of which works together, but this is modern U.S. politics not utopia.

    *Old Progressivism was a malady indulged in by WASPs, many of whom were frightened by the velocity spontaneous reproduction amongst lower classes. A big one being adherents to the Catholic faith, which takes the Bible’s command to multiply seriously.

  22. @Anonymous

    Raphael Richman
    New York City Aug. 4

    Nicholas - Great article. Ties totally to recommendations in "The Color of Law" (2017) by Richard Rothstein. An eye-opening book on the history of racism in the USA. Rothstein documents how Federal law (from Social Security to the GI Bill to the (Un-)Fair Housing Act, to Tax Law on deductions for single family homes etc.) has unconstitutionally favored whites (like me) and hugely disadvantaged minorities over the generations. And, how our history textbooks skip over it.

    America has a blindspot on this. That helps a bigot like Trump motivate voters (likely unaware of this history), disparage communities like Baltimore, that have suffered under it, as he stifles ideas that could ameliorate the situation. Trump's father profited greatly from racism in real estate and taught Donald how to keep it going. Too poorly-read and too selfish to know it, Trump is day by day perpetuating the harm Seattle's Experiment is trying to undo.

    Let's hope the Seattle Experiment prevails.
    28 Recommend
     

    ‘Nicholas – Great article…’

    Can we have an ‘idiot’ button?

  23. @Anonymousse
    It’s not encouraging for the future that white commenters are notably disgusted by the idea of anyone reproducing above replacement level. They mention the woman’s particular situation but this seems only an intensifier for their consistent distaste for large families generally.

    ‘It’s not encouraging for the future that white commenters are notably disgusted by the idea of anyone reproducing above replacement level. They mention the woman’s particular situation but this seems only an intensifier for their consistent distaste for large families generally.’

    I think large families are fine. They’re particularly fine if they’re white, but they’re okay if they’re brown or yellow, too.

    However, I assume the parents are paying for it all — or at least aren’t on public assistance.

    • Replies: @Tired of Not Winning
    An extended family member has 5 children and another in the oven. They are married and in their 30's. They live in a poor rural neighborhood and choose to homeschool rather than send their kids to the horrible neighborhood school. They are religious so go to church weekly. The children are all adorable and very well behaved. The husband works hard (self-employed) to take care of the family. They don't have much but they are happy and self supporting, do not live on public assistance or ask for help even from family. That is the difference between poor whites and poor blacks.
  24. Someday, a ton of shit is going to come out about the negative effects of The Pill. We’re talking cancer risk increases, ovarian damage, personality changes, mental health effects, broken marriages etc. I firmly believe The Pill is going to one day be revealed to be right up there with treating people with mercury and doctors not washing their hands as one of the big “they were literally destroying people’s health and lives, those idiots!” events in medical history.

    For example, the correlation between women who use The Pill and women on some sort of other drug for their mental health has to be something like 90% — I’ve never known a girl using birth control who didn’t also need another pharmaceutical to get through the week. Yet the studies aren’t out there, or aren’t well publicized.

    To my knowledge, there’s really not ANY widely known long-term studies of The Pill on any of these subjects, or at least not a lot of them. Likely the few that have been have been junk science; but you don’t need to have a study to see that chemically screwing with the most important natural function of a large number of human females is going to have some true negative outcomes that are measurable and quantifiable.

    The Catholic Church would’ve been the prime mover on all those studies from the get go, but suspiciously Vatican II happened right as The Pill came to market. The Church failed to back up its faith-based moral teachings with a lot of science, which would’ve helped a lot of lukewarm Catholics to reject The Pill. Sad, but hopefully purging the commies and homos one day (as well as the entire Jesuit order) will get them back on track.

    People forget that one reason the Catholic Church had a monopoly in Europe was it offered a lot of worldly truth. Science in the Middle Ages was protected and sponsored by the Church, the Church was the only literate safe keeper of records, the CHurch educated men vastly superior to secular society, monks taught people self-sufficiency and improved growing techniques, etc. The Church’s moral teachings would’ve not been so widely accepted if they hadn’t proven quite useful in their scientific rigor.

    • Replies: @Jesse
    There have been a LOT of said studies.

    However:

    (1) It's become so associated with the Catholic Church that no one wants to know. If you object to the Pill, you first have to spend an eternity reassuring them that you're not some screeching Papist trying to make them have 10 kids they don't want and can't afford.

    Believe it or not, the Catholic church getting more involved wouldn't be an improvement.

    (2) The logical extension of the harms of the Pill would be for men to take responsibility and start wearing condoms. That never seems to impinge, even though it's logical, no one needs surgery and hormones and it solves all problems. The idea of men taking responsibility draws a level of aggression.
    , @Moses

    Someday, a ton of shit is going to come out about the negative effects of The Pill. We’re talking cancer risk increases, ovarian damage, personality changes, mental health effects, broken marriages etc. I firmly believe The Pill is going to one day be revealed to be right up there with treating people with mercury and doctors not washing their hands as one of the big “they were literally destroying people’s health and lives, those idiots!” events in medical history.
     
    Agreed.

    The second and third order effects for screwing around with the endocrine system are unknown but certainly are there. There ain't no free lunch.

    One thing I've learned over my life is disrupting the body's natural mechanisms which evolved over millions of years generally is a bad idea without an uber-compelling medical reason.

    For example, it used to be conventional medical wisdom to use drugs to reduce fevers. Now evidence shows that fever (unless crazy high) is beneficial and helps the immune system destroy invaders faster.

    Another example is how Western medicine thought infant formula was superior to breast milk. Incredible idiocy.

    My hunch is science eventually will show the pill had monstrous negative biological effects on women.
    , @Steve from Detroit
    Great post. Agree x 1000
    , @S. Anonyia
    I’m all for lower birth rates but you are right about the pill. It’s very dangerous. Contributes to mood disorders, obesity and strokes. Wouldn’t be surprised if it also increases chances of certain types of cancer.

    However I don’t see it going anywhere. You’d be surprised how many upper middle class women (like myself) don’t take the pill but still manage to completely control our fertility. The problem is middle, lower middle class women need the pill, because the bottom 50 percent of men are either too stupid or too aggressive to use condoms or other methods like rhythm, pull out etc correctly. So a lack of the pill would just lead to even more dysgenic breeding than currently. As an aside the pill really has no impact on the poorest women because they either don’t have access or are usually too stupid to use the pill correctly...they need depo provera, which may be even more more dangerous than the pill.
    , @Hypnotoad666

    Someday, a ton of shit is going to come out about the negative effects of The Pill.
     
    I am not so sure.

    The Pill works, of course, by releasing enough estrogen and progesterone to reproduce the hormonal effect of pregnancy, thus shutting down ovulation. But being pregnant is by no means an "unnatural" state for women. In fact, it's probably their most natural state when they are healthiest and at their most "female."

    The Pill has some bad side effects to be sure, such as an increased risk of breast cancer. But these risks seem to be more than compensated by the positive side effects such as protecting against ovarian cancer, reducing PMS, etc. See e.g., https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323199.php; https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/08/estrogen-and-female-anxiety/

    A certain strain of feminism is anti-Pill on ideological grounds because it's the woman's obligation to take it. They'd rather see all men get vasectomies.
  25. Best stick family ever!

    • Agree: Bill Jones
    • Replies: @Tired of Not Winning
    And also a stick family with one man, 10 women, 14 kids. That's your typical NFL/NBA player.
  26. @Redneck farmer
    I hate to interrupt with facts, but those people in the 50s had debt. Mortgage, usually one or two household items, sometimes car payments. A lot of people have confused saving a down payment with saving up the entire cost of an item.
    Or benefited from an inheritance, since a major, but unmentionable, factor in the flatness of working class Americans' income and lifestyle has been increased lifespans.

    The mortgage I’ll concede, the inheritance not without more. But it still stands that an average man in his 20s could have an income for a mortgage (for a new house in a safe suburb), a new (American-made) car, and and care for himself, his wife, and 5+ children.

    And he’d be working a job where 8 hours a day was standard, and work was not taken home. Vacation and weekends were assured.

    I don’t know how you can say inheritance was a major factor. It’s not like people from the 1930s and 1940s had huge stockpiles of money and land given to their kids. Most of the 1950s and 1960s places were bought on your income without inheritance. The 1930s wiped out a lot of any inheritance the 1950s kids might have had, and the first half of the 1940s had the belt-tightening from WW2, and was not known as a time of blissful inheritance-making, unless you were a 1%er already.

    Perhaps the ROckefellers and the Hiltons and the Kennedys have been hurt by the family heads living much longer lives, but not below them.

    • Replies: @Jesse
    Good GOD let the 1950s go. They were a tiny portion of history that had nothing whatsoever to do with Western history before or since.
  27. @TWS
    How long before they're purged?

    Yeah, they’re gonna get doxed real soon.

  28. @Anonymous

    Raphael Richman
    New York City Aug. 4

    Nicholas - Great article. Ties totally to recommendations in "The Color of Law" (2017) by Richard Rothstein. An eye-opening book on the history of racism in the USA. Rothstein documents how Federal law (from Social Security to the GI Bill to the (Un-)Fair Housing Act, to Tax Law on deductions for single family homes etc.) has unconstitutionally favored whites (like me) and hugely disadvantaged minorities over the generations. And, how our history textbooks skip over it.

    America has a blindspot on this. That helps a bigot like Trump motivate voters (likely unaware of this history), disparage communities like Baltimore, that have suffered under it, as he stifles ideas that could ameliorate the situation. Trump's father profited greatly from racism in real estate and taught Donald how to keep it going. Too poorly-read and too selfish to know it, Trump is day by day perpetuating the harm Seattle's Experiment is trying to undo.

    Let's hope the Seattle Experiment prevails.
    28 Recommend
     

    If Trump was sponsoring the Seattle program, this same commenter would have said it was a racist atrocity.

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    Trump could cure cancer and the corporate commies would complain that he was putting cancer doctors out of business.
    , @Autochthon
    If he were....
  29. @TGGP
    I recall Steve writing many times that birth/population control used to be a popular cause among east coast elites but now is regarded as somewhat unseemly. Should this be taken as evidence that many liberal NYT readers are still believers in the progressivism of the past?

    On an only slightly related note, some recent mass-shooters have written manifestos combining "green" ideas about restricting population growth to preserve nature alongside immigration restriction. The person who comes to my mind as the opposite of that perspective would be Lyman Stone, a pro-life/pro-natalist pro-immigration conservative Lutheran from Kentucky. I know some here might take that as a reason to dismiss him, but I think his writings on "workism" might be interesting to folks as another take on "affordable family formation". It would help if you've also been reading Spotted Toad on the economy vs the family.

    One of the worst things the environmental movement did to itself was go hard-left, which, combined with libertarianism getting big on the right, utterly destroyed a lot of possible pro-environmental right-wing politics.

    The National Parks are a gift not just for hippies and hipsters and mountain climbers, but for a lot of hunters and trackers and nuclear families trying to bond and get back to nature. The cross-country road trip to a national park was once a staple vacation idea for most middle-class , Eisenhower and Nixon-voting families.

    As Steve has pointed out, the Sierra Club stopped talking strong borders and anti-littering campaigns when those were seen to be anti-diversity, which meant anti-Left, which is all the Sierra Club was.

    • Replies: @Kronos
    “The National Parks are a gift not just for hippies and hipsters and mountain climbers, but for a lot of hunters and trackers and nuclear families trying to bond and get back to nature. The cross-country road trip to a national park was once a staple vacation idea for most middle-class , Eisenhower and Nixon-voting families.”

    It’s been one of the biggest political “fools gold” alliances of the last 50 years. Hunters and Hippies should seem to create a natural alliance to protect nature. But hunters are generally conservationists while “hippies” are preservationists. One wants to use the land in some way (the former) while (the latter) wants strict no-go zones where nature is completely left alone.

    Keep in mind the political undercurrents of both. Lefty preservationist organizations are heavily funded/directed by real estate interests. The prevention of increased housing keeps up the value of existing houses. (Helps keep out the riffraff.) Hunters well, I can’t think of any nefarious plans they have. But (most) hunters actually use the land responsibly while most urban preservationists love nature as a abstraction. That’s why they fell so hard for green energy economics.
  30. @Anonymous
    Large families were good when there was a wide open frontier. Whites don't outbreed their habitat, negroes, mesos and abbos of all types will.

    Whites don’t outbreed their habitat

    Jonathan Swift and some Irishmen from the 1840s might have a few words in opposition to that statement.

    • Replies: @Jesse
    Take it from an Irish American with strong ties to the original country: Ireland has traditionally been massively overbred. It caused the Famine. It caused a huge amount of misery that, because the Papists managed to keep birth control away from people, is within livig memory.
  31. @guest
    "There are countries where all public schools are good schools. Why don't we aim for that?"

    Because the "secret sauce" in that recipe is ethnic homogeneity and 100+ median IQ. It's probably a crime against humanity at this point to try and replicate that here.

    Man, crime, bad schools, bad neighborhoods, “food deserts” (lol), drugs, and high HIV rates seem to follow blacks around wherever they go. Why are these poor people so cursed?

    It’s like how (((another group))) keeps getting kicked out of country after country, for centuries, and hated so mercilessly by the native populations after moving in. These (((poor people)))—such injustice!

    • Replies: @animalogic
    "It’s like how (((another group))) keeps getting kicked out of country after country, for centuries, and hated so mercilessly by the native populations after moving in."
    Yes, that is a strange one isn't it? Must be a conspiracy -- over thousands of years & hundreds of separate cultures (pagan, christian, white, brown, hot, cold, inland, coastal etc)
  32. @Hypnotoad666
    If Trump was sponsoring the Seattle program, this same commenter would have said it was a racist atrocity.

    Trump could cure cancer and the corporate commies would complain that he was putting cancer doctors out of business.

  33. @Anonymousse
    It’s not encouraging for the future that white commenters are notably disgusted by the idea of anyone reproducing above replacement level. They mention the woman’s particular situation but this seems only an intensifier for their consistent distaste for large families generally.

    I imagine that most commenters were urban professionals who expended huge amounts of emotional energy, money, career sacrifices, and stress to raise just one kid up to the exacting current standards of white middle class parenting.

    Some of them may even be bitter about foregoing children because they didn’t want to make the sacrifices.

    To hear of a 38-year old mindlessly popping out six kids and living at government expense in a nice “opportunity community,” thus really struck a personal nerve with these otherwise PC readers.

    • Agree: TomSchmidt
    • Replies: @Jesse
    There are plenty of white moderates and progressives who wanted big families but forwent/delayed them because they simply couldn't afford them.

    (1) They deeply resent people who then went out and had kids they then needed govt/charity support for. You'd be astonished as to how popular policies like restricting benefits to the first 2 kids are.

    (2) Pricing these people out of famlly life, then mocking them for being barren or outbred, is obnoxious and a perfect way to ensure that they never vote GOP or conservative.
    , @Alden
    Most of the comments seemed....I don’t want to seem like a snob, but insecure financially and socially?

    Whites scrimp and save and borrow money for the down payment and then have to deal with mortgage property taxes maintenance repairs.

    And this welfare pig gets for free what they probably delayed having the first child and worked for years just to get the down payment. Now probably half or more take home income is spent on the house. And she gets it for free as well as a big welfare check, Medicaid etc

    She had her kids and paid nothing. People with insurance pay 10 to 18 K for childbirth. Think how much insurance costs a year.

    Christmas is a big expense if you have kids. She probably signs up with the cops firemen Salvation Army several churches and other charities for free Christmas presents the first of November

    She can supplement her food stamp card by making the rounds of all the food pantries every week. In most cities they’re open 7 days a week. If she doesn’t have a car you can bet one of the baby daddies has a car and lends it to her or drives her around.

    No wonder all the commenters are jealous.

    Another thing most commenters don’t realize. Anyone whose worked in law enforcement social work or any other form of wrangling the underclass knows that welfare mammas are a magnet for the worst type of black underclass men; the losers who can’t get a job and don’t have a place to live or steady income.

    At least one will move in soon. Then there’s her thug brothers and other relatives.

    6 kids the oldest must be at least 14 and nasty vicious and hateful. Her brats will start fights with neighbor children her men roommates will come out screeching.

    Same thing at school. She’ll be called in for a conference. Pretty soon NAACP will be suing the school district for requesting her thugs to behave like normal children

    About school. 3rd generation blacks average 70s IQ. But they’ll be in class with 100 t0 120 White kids working at grade level. A lot of black bad behavior in school is due to genetics. A lot of it is due to boredom.

    How’d you like to go to China and sit through 6 hours a day, every day, classes in Mandarin not understanding a word said or in the books.

    That’s what it’s like for a 75 IQ black. It gets worse as the blacks get into third or 4th grade. They can’t get their reading past 3rd grade or multiplication and division. Any further education is just a blur to them.
  34. @Anonymous

    Raphael Richman
    New York City Aug. 4

    Nicholas - Great article. Ties totally to recommendations in "The Color of Law" (2017) by Richard Rothstein. An eye-opening book on the history of racism in the USA. Rothstein documents how Federal law (from Social Security to the GI Bill to the (Un-)Fair Housing Act, to Tax Law on deductions for single family homes etc.) has unconstitutionally favored whites (like me) and hugely disadvantaged minorities over the generations. And, how our history textbooks skip over it.

    America has a blindspot on this. That helps a bigot like Trump motivate voters (likely unaware of this history), disparage communities like Baltimore, that have suffered under it, as he stifles ideas that could ameliorate the situation. Trump's father profited greatly from racism in real estate and taught Donald how to keep it going. Too poorly-read and too selfish to know it, Trump is day by day perpetuating the harm Seattle's Experiment is trying to undo.

    Let's hope the Seattle Experiment prevails.
    28 Recommend
     

    has unconstitutionally favored whites (like me)

    I think Mr. Richman means “Fellow Whites (like me)”

  35. Ian Maitland
    Minneapolis Aug. 4…

    But neighborhoods are not just physical structures — homes, schools and hospitals and so on. Neighborhoods are people. So when poor families move to “healthy” neighborhoods, effectively poor neighborhoods are moving to healthy neighborhoods. Success depends on the poor families assimilating to the “healthy” neighborhoods’ “white” middle class values.

    I lived in Ian’s neighborhood. (In St Paul. He’s probably writing from work.) I even campaigned for him in his three hopeless runs for Congress. (Don’t run in an Irish district with an English accent.)

    Saint Anthony Park was a hidden gem with crooked streets and slopes and century-old houses. (This was 30 years ago.) There was a trashier part, but that was the student ghetto across from the state ag school. Lots of white frat boys from farm country. So it was manageable trash.

    You didn’t have to be rich to live there. But it made you feel rich to live there.

  36. These experiments are a good use of public funds. But they have a fatal flaw: at what point, with how many families moving to “high opportunity” neighborhoods, does the toxic culture muscle out the effective one?

    Yes.

    It’s nice that SJW NYT readers can put 2 and 2 together here. But that’s because this Rath Section 8 program threatens to move dysfunctional Section 8 families next door to them in Newtown MA, Bethesda MD and Marin Country CA. It’s personal.

    Don’t expect them to draw the same conclusion re: importing millions of people from toxic culture, sh*thole countries. As long as Somalis and Guatemalans move to poor White neighborhoods instead of theirs, everything is hunky-dory.

    Kinda like the White and Jewish wailing about integrating Blacks into well-to-do Manhattan public schools. Their SJW-ism goes right out the door.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite

    Section 8 program threatens to move dysfunctional Section 8 families next door to them in Newtown MA, Bethesda MD and Marin Country CA. It’s personal.
     
    We should bypass Section 8 in order to speed up this much-needed integration. I'd like to find a charity whose mission is purchasing nice upper middle class homes in places like Marin CA, Bethesda MD, Arlington VA, Menlo Park CA, etc and then re-locate the most dysfunctional ghetto "families" they can possibly find to these homes. The Raths would be a good starter family.

    An important part of this mission would include closely monitoring how these new families are treated, ensuring that none of their neighbors racistly call the police on them for just going about their lives, i.e. "living while black".

  37. Anon[237] • Disclaimer says:

    The tenor of these comments is remarkable for the New York Times comment section, and I wondered why? Perhaps the gradual spread of Section 8 has reached a critical mass of upper middle class neighborhoods, and upper middle class liberals are having a come-to-Jesus moment (or whatever the Jewish equivalent is).

    Property values are not forever. All neighborhoods have a life cycle, but will this ghetto relocation shit accelerate things? And they wonder if they will be able to live out their golden years in their own neighborhood, or is it Florida after all? Reading about this husbandless six-kid rapee was the straw that broke the camel’s back for them. Six fatherless raping kids moving in next door.

    Actually, if she’s 38, and only one kid is a preschooler, how many kids would still be in the house? The first she probably had at 13, with the fifth at 17, so the second youngest could be 21 already. The oldest five could already be in jail now. The preschooler might just be a recent whoopsie.

  38. Conservatives need to end this fertility cult, especially as it relates to the long 1950s (1947 – ~ 1962).

    (1) It was a tiny, wildly unrepresentative period in history. If you read your Gregory Clark, there has been no period in Western history where anything close to 95% of people were having babies.

    And that’s a good thing. Look at the crime rates and social pathologies of the Boomers. Hear the stories of all the people who didn’t want kids, or as many kids as they had. It was not a fun childhood, growing up under them.

    (2) If the 50s weren’t hell on earth, you need to explain why women of all creeds took the Pill like smarties when it came out. It’s a powerful, unproven drug, and women will fight to the death for it because the alternative is so bad.

    (3) If you really want white women having litters, then the solution is economic, rather than mocking people for being barren. Think Sweden. And you need to stop talking abort ‘getting five kids off one woman’, because it’s obnoxious. At some point you’re actually going to have to make alliances with your own race.

    (4) If you got the system you claim to want, there’d be no need for huge families. You could subsidize a birthrate of between 2 and 3, and it would be fine. A stable population, in both numbers and ethnic identity.

    Instead, you get a population of conservatives who seem to enjoy the idea of the hordes of Muslims and Africans, because it’s a way of trying to put a gun to white folk’s heads and order to them to tty to outbreed said hordes. They seem stunned when it doesn’t work, and they clearly don’t want to actually solve the problem.

    • Replies: @Pericles

    If you really want white women having litters, then the solution is economic, rather than mocking people for being barren. Think Sweden.

     

    As an Ur-Swede, I have to register my confusion at this point. I don't know anyone (white) who is having litters of kids. It's uniformly two kids or less, in particular for those with good jerbs. It was basically a unique event when a younger couple at work decided to start having kids in their 20s. (More power to them.)
    , @Almost Missouri

    "If you really want white women having litters, then the solution is economic, rather than mocking people for being barren. Think Sweden."
     
    And what is the fertility rate in Sweden? How about the native white fertility rate in Sweden?

    "you get a population of conservatives who seem to enjoy the idea of the hordes of Muslims and Africans"
     
    Not sure who these supposed "conservatives" are. Are you referring to someone like David French, the "conservative" Ethiope-importer who teamed up with "fellow" "conservative" Bill Kristol to mount a spoiler presidential campaign against Trump's nomination?
  39. But, but! Noah Smith has just proved (https://mobile.twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1156232359424843779) that poverty doesn’t cause bad behavior! Because Japan! When you put Chetty and Smith together, the conclusion is ineluctable: bad behavior is caused solely by racism.

    Of course, this is the same Noah Smith who famously said that the vast majority of what one needs to know about Japan is that it’s a collection of rocks with some human beings on it, so YMMV /sarc

  40. @TGGP
    I recall Steve writing many times that birth/population control used to be a popular cause among east coast elites but now is regarded as somewhat unseemly. Should this be taken as evidence that many liberal NYT readers are still believers in the progressivism of the past?

    On an only slightly related note, some recent mass-shooters have written manifestos combining "green" ideas about restricting population growth to preserve nature alongside immigration restriction. The person who comes to my mind as the opposite of that perspective would be Lyman Stone, a pro-life/pro-natalist pro-immigration conservative Lutheran from Kentucky. I know some here might take that as a reason to dismiss him, but I think his writings on "workism" might be interesting to folks as another take on "affordable family formation". It would help if you've also been reading Spotted Toad on the economy vs the family.

    Should this be taken as evidence that many liberal NYT readers are still believers in the progressivism of the past?

    NYT commenters are 100% baby boomers or older. Yes they believe in the progressivism of the past; they are the past.

  41. The NYT’s comment section is surprisingly sane. They are usually the ones tearing articles about trans identified males wanting to barge into women’s bathrooms to shreds.

    There was a planned series of articles about each murder victim in a particularly violent area of NYC. (Murder in the 4-1, I think). They closed and eventually deleted the comment sections, and eventually scuttled the series itself, because the comment section became full of furious commenters yelling that those fuckers had it coming.

    It was glorious. If Conservatives weren’t so busy virtue signalling about stooopit liberals, and engaging in necrophilia with Reagan, there’d be alliances to be made.

    • Replies: @Monsieur le Baron
    Just because the people living in these nice communities like Malibu understand that NAMs bring down property values doesn't mean they want to befriend the deplorables. They're sane and not blind to the dangers, but they're indifferent to the fates of poor and even middle class whites. Until the NYT set can be forced to show noblesse oblige again, this country will continue to decline.
  42. anon[782] • Disclaimer says:

    You see a similar phenomenon on Nature’s Facebook page. Occasionally, they’ll misrepresent or politicize a study only for readers to then rip them apart for it.

    Ex:

    >Study examines socioeconomic trend impacting families.
    >Nature: Women are suffering.
    >Readers: That wasn’t the focus of the study, so why did you mention that one thing in your headline? Seems inflammatory.

    OR

    >Nature: Anecdote proves anti-women discrimination in science hiring.
    >Reader 1: Uh, there’s not a shred of statistical evidence in this claim. Shameful.
    >Reader 2: Here’s a link to a report stating that, due to affirmative action bias, women are nearly 3x as a likely to get certain academic appointments when compared to male competitors.
    >Reader 3: Here’s a link to a study showing men in science are biased in their hiring practices … against other men. They often favor women over men.

    OR

    >Nature: Extreme ethnic diversity is always good and this fact is “proved” by this one anecdote from a guy whom we interviewed and this study about laboratory graduate students.
    >Readers: Did you miss the Putnam work showing the opposite is true? Besides, the idea that people work together better just because they have different skin tones seems a bit absurd on the face of it.
    >Nature: It’s totally true and that dumb story we just posted proves it.
    >Readers: Maybe your “study” doesn’t show what you think it does.

    OR

    >Nature: We need more take your daughter to work things because this one area of science employment is underrepresented in some respect or something.
    >Female Commenter: Wouldn’t it be less divisive to advocate more child science learning regardless of gender?

  43. anon[394] • Disclaimer says:

    You see a similar phenomenon on Nature’s Facebook page. Occasionally, they’ll misrepresent or politicize a study only for readers to then rip them apart for it.

    Ex:

    >Study examines socioeconomic trend impacting families.
    >Nature: Women are suffering.
    >Readers: That wasn’t the focus of the study, so why did you mention that one thing in your headline? Seems inflammatory.

    OR

    >Nature: Anecdote proves anti-women discrimination in science hiring.
    >Reader 1: Uh, there’s not a shred of statistical evidence in this claim. Shameful.
    >Reader 2: Here’s a link to a report stating that, due to affirmative action bias, women are nearly 3x as a likely to get certain academic appointments when compared to male competitors.
    >Reader 3: Here’s a link to a study showing men in science are biased in their hiring practices … against other men. They often favor women over men.

    OR

    >Nature: Extreme ethnic diversity is always good and this fact is “proved” by this one anecdote from a guy whom we interviewed and this study about laboratory graduate students.
    >Readers: Did you miss the Putnam work showing the opposite is true? Besides, the idea that people work together better just because they have different skin tones seems a bit absurd on the face of it.
    >Nature: It’s totally true and that dumb story we just posted proves it.
    >Readers: Maybe your “study” doesn’t show what you think it does.

    OR

    >Nature: We need more take your daughter to work things because this one area of science employment is underrepresented in some respect or something.
    >Female Commenter: Wouldn’t it be less divisive to advocate more child science learning regardless of gender?

    • Replies: @Alden
    I looked through nature a few times at the local library, just liberal propaganda. Gag. Also Serena Williams seems to be on every other cover of Vogue and Harpers.
  44. Jackie Rath brings to mind the saying about traffic: “You’re not in traffic; you are traffic.”.

    I think of that when liberal pundits talk about Central Americans “fleeing violence and poverty” too.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    Central Americans flee the violence created by Central Americans,
    Politicians want more Central Americans coming to your town soon.
  45. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Yep, that’s the constant drumbeat: Ageing Europe needs immigration. German “conservative =”Christian Democratic…”) big man Wolfgang Schäuble put it this way in 2016: We need immigration to prevent us from – fasten your seatbelts, ladies & gentlemen! – “degenerating”.

  46. anon[208] • Disclaimer says:

    A lot of this is the result of left-wing logic coming full circle upon the purveyors. Rich, socially upstanding liberals in the media promoted having fewer children, so when those same hypocritical liberals promote stories featuring people having multiple kids, the liberal audience calls foul – perhaps rightly. Apparently, NYT commenters didn’t get the subtext that this rhetoric was simply virtue signalling, like so much of what the upperclass does these days. It wasn’t meant to be taken literally unless it negatively impacted prole conservative whites.

  47. @Hypnotoad666
    I imagine that most commenters were urban professionals who expended huge amounts of emotional energy, money, career sacrifices, and stress to raise just one kid up to the exacting current standards of white middle class parenting.

    Some of them may even be bitter about foregoing children because they didn't want to make the sacrifices.

    To hear of a 38-year old mindlessly popping out six kids and living at government expense in a nice "opportunity community," thus really struck a personal nerve with these otherwise PC readers.

    There are plenty of white moderates and progressives who wanted big families but forwent/delayed them because they simply couldn’t afford them.

    (1) They deeply resent people who then went out and had kids they then needed govt/charity support for. You’d be astonished as to how popular policies like restricting benefits to the first 2 kids are.

    (2) Pricing these people out of famlly life, then mocking them for being barren or outbred, is obnoxious and a perfect way to ensure that they never vote GOP or conservative.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    There are plenty of white moderates and progressives who wanted big families but forwent/delayed them because they simply couldn’t afford them.
     
    No one ever seems to treat this demographic as a separate category worthy of study: Aging people who forewent children altogether. Perhaps they could be called "Never Nesters" to contrast with "Empty Nesters."

    Do they tend to get more conservative with age? Do they form deeper friendships to compensate for lack of immediate family? What do they do with all the extra resources they didn't have to spend on their children?

    There's going to be a lot of these (mostly white) people in the future.
    , @Alden
    I’d like to see a survey of all the UNZ commenters constantly preaching that Whites should have big families and ask how many of them have more than 2 children.

    We had 4. I suspect we’re one of the biggest families on UNZ.
  48. @Monsieur le Baron
    It's overproduced elite aspirants that virtue signal more, because they have to distinguish themselves from the deplorables as much as they possibly can, since otherwise little separates them. As you head up into genuine upper middle class haunting grounds, people are more willing to share their genuine opinions, which are still liberal but less liberal than the saccharine pure globohomo of the QUANGO bureaucrat set. The average NYT reader makes about $200k, as opposed to a mere $75k for WaPo. WaPo readers are more virulently leftists because they know they're also commoners deep down.

    The middle class conforms, the upper middle class tries to epater le bourgeois.

    Plus, the ravening Outer Party has an additional incentive to virtue signal and form twitterati mobs because if they can knock one of the real Party members out, they might get in.

    We send too many people to college. It's unhealthy for society.

    “The average NYT reader makes about $200k, as opposed to a mere $75k for WaPo. WaPo readers are more virulently leftists because they know they’re also commoners deep down.”

    Are those numbers for real? I’ve always been curious about the demographic makeup of NYT subscribers. Sailer often points out the writer quality between the physical paper and online version. (That the former is more sophisticated than the latter.) Any idea what the main age brackets are? There are only 250,000 subscribers right?

    • Replies: @Monsieur le Baron
    Their media kit for advertisers claims 4.6mm subscribers who make a median of about 200k. Back in 2016 or so, they also listed a yachts per capita stat, but they dropped that in the 2019 media kit. I don't know how many are digital only, though. I suspect a lot. Paper is outdated.
    , @Alden
    If you want to know the income of readers of anything, just look at the ADs. NYTimes ADs are aimed at the very rich, not upper middle.
  49. They allowed comments for that?

    BTW, the next story on this will be how the six kids display their inner-city entrepreneurial smarts by cutting into local street-drug pricing by taking out the middle-man.

  50. @Jesse
    The NYT's comment section is surprisingly sane. They are usually the ones tearing articles about trans identified males wanting to barge into women's bathrooms to shreds.

    There was a planned series of articles about each murder victim in a particularly violent area of NYC. (Murder in the 4-1, I think). They closed and eventually deleted the comment sections, and eventually scuttled the series itself, because the comment section became full of furious commenters yelling that those fuckers had it coming.

    It was glorious. If Conservatives weren't so busy virtue signalling about stooopit liberals, and engaging in necrophilia with Reagan, there'd be alliances to be made.

    Just because the people living in these nice communities like Malibu understand that NAMs bring down property values doesn’t mean they want to befriend the deplorables. They’re sane and not blind to the dangers, but they’re indifferent to the fates of poor and even middle class whites. Until the NYT set can be forced to show noblesse oblige again, this country will continue to decline.

  51. @Kronos
    “The average NYT reader makes about $200k, as opposed to a mere $75k for WaPo. WaPo readers are more virulently leftists because they know they’re also commoners deep down.”

    Are those numbers for real? I’ve always been curious about the demographic makeup of NYT subscribers. Sailer often points out the writer quality between the physical paper and online version. (That the former is more sophisticated than the latter.) Any idea what the main age brackets are? There are only 250,000 subscribers right?

    Their media kit for advertisers claims 4.6mm subscribers who make a median of about 200k. Back in 2016 or so, they also listed a yachts per capita stat, but they dropped that in the 2019 media kit. I don’t know how many are digital only, though. I suspect a lot. Paper is outdated.

  52. @R.G. Camara

    Whites don’t outbreed their habitat
     
    Jonathan Swift and some Irishmen from the 1840s might have a few words in opposition to that statement.

    Take it from an Irish American with strong ties to the original country: Ireland has traditionally been massively overbred. It caused the Famine. It caused a huge amount of misery that, because the Papists managed to keep birth control away from people, is within livig memory.

    • Replies: @Ed
    The famine was caused by potato blight and exasperated by English indifference. It wasn’t caused by large families. Ireland’s population has never recovered from the famine and the emigration that followed.
    , @R.G. Camara
    LMAO.

    No, little liar, it was the Potato Blight and the British extreme regulation ---disallowing the sale of all non-Irish food in Ireland, and taking most Irish food themselves--that killed them. That's why in Irish the time is called The Great Hunger and not the Great Famine.

    But nice try on blaming the church, little girl. Your calumny against God and his followers is noted.
    , @Alden
    There was plenty of food in Ireland but the Irish raised it on the English estates. Irish Catholics were not allowed to own more than 2 cows or I think 3 pigs and only 1 horse of low value. So they couldn’t breed livestock. Only reason they were allowed 2.cows is because cows alternate pregnancy birth milk producing and pregnancy. The Catholic Irish were forbidden to own bulls and had to pay a big fee to the English to breed their cows.

    They were forbidden to rent enough land even if they had the money to raise cash crops or varied food crops. They were allowed to fish in the sea but not in rivers lakes and ponds. 3 acres of land could produce enough potatoes to feed a family for a year. They weren’t allowed to hunt.

    It was a conscious genocide or ethnic clearance program pursued by the English for centuries. The Irish were starved out of Britain.

    Some Scots were forcibly removed when sheep able to survive in cold damp Scotland were finally bred. They were marched to the harbors loaded on ships and sold as indentured servants in Colonial America. It’s called the Highland Clearances

    One thing most people don’t realize is that the big 1948 potato famine was widespread all over Northern Europe, France Germany Belgium Austria Netherlands Scandinavia Poland etc

    But no one starved and there was no famine BECAUSE there was other food to eat and the governments especially the city governments were prepared.

    Since early medieval times city and local governments kept track of the harvest and had stores of grain, dried fish dried fruit and vegetables to feed the population in bad times.

    When. news of the blight came in May those cities and national governments ordered rice from S Carolina Louisiana and S America. The warehoused rice arrived quickly. That years harvest arrived in the fall. Grain was ordered from Russia, Argentina and the USA. Dried fish was preserved stored and ordered from Portugual and Spain. Dried fruit was bought from S Europe and the Arab countries.

    That hoarding supplies had been ongoing from early medieval times. It was already organized.

    But most important, there was other food than potatoes to eat in the rest of Europe for even the poorest. In Ireland the Catholic Irish were legally prevented from fishing hunting breeding livestock and raising either cash crops or much of a varied diet.

    Many countries sent food to the starving Irish. But the English didn’t allow the ships to land in Ireland. The ships were forced to land in English ports.and charged much higher than usual harbor fees . Then the ships were unloaded very, very slowly to English ships and after further delay went tonIreland after a month 6 weeks delay in England.

    The potato blight was widespread all over Europe. But the famine was only in Catholic Ireland because:

    1 there was food other than potatoes to eat in other countries.
    2 The other countries kept track of crops. So when the harvest failed in September is wasn’t a surprise. Supplementary food was already ordered and ready for distribution according to a thousand year custom.

    The food grown on the Protestant Ascendancy estates was not sold in Ireland. It was sent to England.

    And with all that, by 1900 the average working class English man had shrunk from 5’6 in the 1640s to to 5’3 in 1900 due to malnutrition hard physical at age 8 or 10 and using more calories in hard labor than their bodies took in. Working class women shrunk as well, Even in the 1930s many working class girls didn’t mature enough to start menstruating till 17 or 18 a sure sign of starvation.
    By 1900 middle class English men were 5 inches taller than working class men.

    Potatoes are a lot more nutritious than bread bacon grease and strong tea and sugar. By 1900 despite periodic famines for 300 years the Irish poor were the same size they were in 1600 due to better food less child labor and peat home heating while the English poor expended more calories trying to keep warm in cold homes in winter.

    No matter how much the English hated the Irish for their catholic religion, England treated its own Anglo Saxon English working class far worse by child labor, malnutrition long hours of hard physical labor with too little to eat.

    And the Irish Catholics did practice birth control. They delayed marriage because of poverty.While the average age of marriage in England was about 22 for women and 28 or 30 for men, the Irish Catholic women married at 28 or 29 men early to mid thirties.

    And few used birth control till the 1930s. The Anglican and most Protestant churches forbade birth control as much as the Catholics did till the early mid 20th century. It was illegal to sell birth control devices in the Puritan state of Connecticut till the 1960s.
    , @Alden
    You may have strong ties to the old country but you don’t know the history of how the English upper and middle classes treated the working classes of both islands.

    And you don’t know that the 1840s potato blight was all over Europe but only the Catholic Irish starved to death because of English genocidal policy.

    I understand that many Irish are anti catholic for good reason. But it’s unbelievably ignorant to claim that the Catholic Church was responsible for the fact that there was no semi reliable birth control until the 1920’s Dutch Cap diaphragm thing.

    All over the world Asia Africa Muslim Puritan Europe Anglican Europe catholic Europe there really wasn’t women’s birth control until the 1920s and you can’t blame the Catholic Church for that.

    If you believe that reliable women’s birth control was developed a thousand years ago and the Catholic Church suppressed it in every culture all over the world feel free to do so.
  53. [OT] World War T – latest insane development: Capital One hacker Paige Thompson (formerly Trevor) has birth name ENTIRELY erased from all media reports except the WSJ. https://twitter.com/AnechoicMedia_/status/1157091194062671877 Bowing to transgenderism now trumps investigative journalism and positively identifying someone or linking to other crimes

  54. @R.G. Camara
    The mortgage I'll concede, the inheritance not without more. But it still stands that an average man in his 20s could have an income for a mortgage (for a new house in a safe suburb), a new (American-made) car, and and care for himself, his wife, and 5+ children.

    And he'd be working a job where 8 hours a day was standard, and work was not taken home. Vacation and weekends were assured.

    I don't know how you can say inheritance was a major factor. It's not like people from the 1930s and 1940s had huge stockpiles of money and land given to their kids. Most of the 1950s and 1960s places were bought on your income without inheritance. The 1930s wiped out a lot of any inheritance the 1950s kids might have had, and the first half of the 1940s had the belt-tightening from WW2, and was not known as a time of blissful inheritance-making, unless you were a 1%er already.

    Perhaps the ROckefellers and the Hiltons and the Kennedys have been hurt by the family heads living much longer lives, but not below them.

    Good GOD let the 1950s go. They were a tiny portion of history that had nothing whatsoever to do with Western history before or since.

  55. @R.G. Camara
    Someday, a ton of shit is going to come out about the negative effects of The Pill. We're talking cancer risk increases, ovarian damage, personality changes, mental health effects, broken marriages etc. I firmly believe The Pill is going to one day be revealed to be right up there with treating people with mercury and doctors not washing their hands as one of the big "they were literally destroying people's health and lives, those idiots!" events in medical history.

    For example, the correlation between women who use The Pill and women on some sort of other drug for their mental health has to be something like 90% -- I've never known a girl using birth control who didn't also need another pharmaceutical to get through the week. Yet the studies aren't out there, or aren't well publicized.

    To my knowledge, there's really not ANY widely known long-term studies of The Pill on any of these subjects, or at least not a lot of them. Likely the few that have been have been junk science; but you don't need to have a study to see that chemically screwing with the most important natural function of a large number of human females is going to have some true negative outcomes that are measurable and quantifiable.

    The Catholic Church would've been the prime mover on all those studies from the get go, but suspiciously Vatican II happened right as The Pill came to market. The Church failed to back up its faith-based moral teachings with a lot of science, which would've helped a lot of lukewarm Catholics to reject The Pill. Sad, but hopefully purging the commies and homos one day (as well as the entire Jesuit order) will get them back on track.

    People forget that one reason the Catholic Church had a monopoly in Europe was it offered a lot of worldly truth. Science in the Middle Ages was protected and sponsored by the Church, the Church was the only literate safe keeper of records, the CHurch educated men vastly superior to secular society, monks taught people self-sufficiency and improved growing techniques, etc. The Church's moral teachings would've not been so widely accepted if they hadn't proven quite useful in their scientific rigor.

    There have been a LOT of said studies.

    However:

    (1) It’s become so associated with the Catholic Church that no one wants to know. If you object to the Pill, you first have to spend an eternity reassuring them that you’re not some screeching Papist trying to make them have 10 kids they don’t want and can’t afford.

    Believe it or not, the Catholic church getting more involved wouldn’t be an improvement.

    (2) The logical extension of the harms of the Pill would be for men to take responsibility and start wearing condoms. That never seems to impinge, even though it’s logical, no one needs surgery and hormones and it solves all problems. The idea of men taking responsibility draws a level of aggression.

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted

    men to take responsibility and start wearing condoms. That never seems to impinge, even though it’s logical, no one needs surgery and hormones and it solves all problems. The idea of men taking responsibility draws a level of aggression.
     
    because the poor poor subjugated wahmens have literally no choice but to spread 'em, when casually approached in public by a rampaging stiffy on legs.
    Or is their seemingly uncontrollable dopamine addiction/orgasm habit not permitted for the men equally?

    I'm getting "Jessy", rather than "Jesse" here.
    , @R.G. Camara
    lmao. So many commie lies, its amazing.

    The logical extension of the harms of The Pill would be for women to stop taking The Pill. Trying to put this on men is an amusing dodge and non sequitur , little liar. But then again, women like you never were good at logic.
    , @Alden
    Women can get the Fallopian tubes clipped or knotted together so the ovum don’t come down and the spermatozoon can’t swim up.

    Then get the procedure undone and have a baby.

    The pills been around for 60 years and no ones gotten a disease from it yet. I remember when the PI attorneys were justa hopin’ and a prayin’ that the pill was dangerous and they could make fortunes .

    The men on this site are strange. Most seem to not be married or have children or own homes. Yet they are extremely opinionated about birth control, abortion other people having big families and men not supporting their children if divorced or unmarried.

    They’re also completely unaware of cooking a meal, having a table to sit and eat the meal, the constant large and small repairs a house needs or normal family life at all.

    That’s why there’s very few women on this site. After a few blasts from the sad old bachelors about the evils of birth control and that every White woman should have several kids and raise them on $30,000 a year with no help from the father either in conception, finance, child care or household maintenance most women never look at UNZ again.
  56. @Jesse
    Conservatives need to end this fertility cult, especially as it relates to the long 1950s (1947 - ~ 1962).

    (1) It was a tiny, wildly unrepresentative period in history. If you read your Gregory Clark, there has been no period in Western history where anything close to 95% of people were having babies.

    And that's a good thing. Look at the crime rates and social pathologies of the Boomers. Hear the stories of all the people who didn't want kids, or as many kids as they had. It was not a fun childhood, growing up under them.

    (2) If the 50s weren't hell on earth, you need to explain why women of all creeds took the Pill like smarties when it came out. It's a powerful, unproven drug, and women will fight to the death for it because the alternative is so bad.

    (3) If you really want white women having litters, then the solution is economic, rather than mocking people for being barren. Think Sweden. And you need to stop talking abort 'getting five kids off one woman', because it's obnoxious. At some point you're actually going to have to make alliances with your own race.

    (4) If you got the system you claim to want, there'd be no need for huge families. You could subsidize a birthrate of between 2 and 3, and it would be fine. A stable population, in both numbers and ethnic identity.

    Instead, you get a population of conservatives who seem to enjoy the idea of the hordes of Muslims and Africans, because it's a way of trying to put a gun to white folk's heads and order to them to tty to outbreed said hordes. They seem stunned when it doesn't work, and they clearly don't want to actually solve the problem.

    If you really want white women having litters, then the solution is economic, rather than mocking people for being barren. Think Sweden.

    As an Ur-Swede, I have to register my confusion at this point. I don’t know anyone (white) who is having litters of kids. It’s uniformly two kids or less, in particular for those with good jerbs. It was basically a unique event when a younger couple at work decided to start having kids in their 20s. (More power to them.)

  57. @Mr McKenna
    It's been years since I read the NYT and frankly I'm amazed that they still have sensible people among their readership.

    Having six fatherless children...
     


    I’m appalled by women who can barely take care of themselves financially and then have several children. I find it very irresponsible.
     

    Bad culture, bad values, and bad behaviour replicate poverty.
     

    If Ms. Rath was truly determined to break the cycle of poverty, she wouldn’t have had six illegitimate children.
     
    Every one of these--and these are just a sample--are the sort of remarks that get you banned from many major news-oriented websites, not to mention deplatformed, blocked on social media, and drummed out of polite society.

    There's still a lot of good, solid common sense abroad in the society, but we now have 'gatekeepers' who increasingly prohibit anything of the kind, if and when it conflicts with their favored 'narratives'--and it almost invariably does. It won't end well.

    If you remember the old day of the 1980s and early ’90s, we also had gatekeepers. They were called newspaper editors and publishers.

    Their influence plummeted when people took to the Web en masse to get their information.

    But now these people have been reincarnated in the form of speech enforcers on tech platforms. More and more, it’s looking like the years 1994-2016 were a golden era for free speech and we’ve gone back to corporations dictating what we can and can’t read.

    Wonder if a return to something like the old (pre-Google) Usenet is in order at this point?

    • Agree: HammerJack
    • Replies: @Lot
    "we’ve gone back to corporations dictating what we can and can’t read."

    The issue with censorship is that it requires you to both hire censors, remove free user-generated content, discourage the creation of additional free content, and annoys people.

    If twitter really were that censorious, GAB would be doing better rather than a wasteland of low audience nazi cosplayers.

    Facebook censorship isn't generally by facebook, but self-censorship or external actors punishing people for what they say on facebook.
  58. @R.G. Camara
    Someday, a ton of shit is going to come out about the negative effects of The Pill. We're talking cancer risk increases, ovarian damage, personality changes, mental health effects, broken marriages etc. I firmly believe The Pill is going to one day be revealed to be right up there with treating people with mercury and doctors not washing their hands as one of the big "they were literally destroying people's health and lives, those idiots!" events in medical history.

    For example, the correlation between women who use The Pill and women on some sort of other drug for their mental health has to be something like 90% -- I've never known a girl using birth control who didn't also need another pharmaceutical to get through the week. Yet the studies aren't out there, or aren't well publicized.

    To my knowledge, there's really not ANY widely known long-term studies of The Pill on any of these subjects, or at least not a lot of them. Likely the few that have been have been junk science; but you don't need to have a study to see that chemically screwing with the most important natural function of a large number of human females is going to have some true negative outcomes that are measurable and quantifiable.

    The Catholic Church would've been the prime mover on all those studies from the get go, but suspiciously Vatican II happened right as The Pill came to market. The Church failed to back up its faith-based moral teachings with a lot of science, which would've helped a lot of lukewarm Catholics to reject The Pill. Sad, but hopefully purging the commies and homos one day (as well as the entire Jesuit order) will get them back on track.

    People forget that one reason the Catholic Church had a monopoly in Europe was it offered a lot of worldly truth. Science in the Middle Ages was protected and sponsored by the Church, the Church was the only literate safe keeper of records, the CHurch educated men vastly superior to secular society, monks taught people self-sufficiency and improved growing techniques, etc. The Church's moral teachings would've not been so widely accepted if they hadn't proven quite useful in their scientific rigor.

    Someday, a ton of shit is going to come out about the negative effects of The Pill. We’re talking cancer risk increases, ovarian damage, personality changes, mental health effects, broken marriages etc. I firmly believe The Pill is going to one day be revealed to be right up there with treating people with mercury and doctors not washing their hands as one of the big “they were literally destroying people’s health and lives, those idiots!” events in medical history.

    Agreed.

    The second and third order effects for screwing around with the endocrine system are unknown but certainly are there. There ain’t no free lunch.

    One thing I’ve learned over my life is disrupting the body’s natural mechanisms which evolved over millions of years generally is a bad idea without an uber-compelling medical reason.

    For example, it used to be conventional medical wisdom to use drugs to reduce fevers. Now evidence shows that fever (unless crazy high) is beneficial and helps the immune system destroy invaders faster.

    Another example is how Western medicine thought infant formula was superior to breast milk. Incredible idiocy.

    My hunch is science eventually will show the pill had monstrous negative biological effects on women.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Additionally, when these white women decide to have their kids when they come off the Pill is as important.

    That was reinforced Sunday evening when the girlfriend and I were tailgating with friends before the Queen concert. Many late-50/early 60ish couples with children, and there were a measurable percentage of these kids were what we used to call "slow".

    The Pill and ancient eggs. This ain't good.

    , @Alden
    You’re a man. You’re not in medicine, not even an EMT.

    You have no sex life is obvious because you are unaware that condoms and diaphragms are cumbersome and unreliable, IUDS are messy and implants are the same hormones as the pill.

    The pill’s been widely used for 60 years and no one has caught cancer or any other disease from it.

    The pill or the implant is the best birth control from a man’s point of view. It’s very reliable the man has nothing to do and it’s not messy like IUDs

    Yet you who have no sex life pontificate against the pill. Why? You who have no medical knowledge other than some internet ignorance pontificate against the pill Why?

    While preaching against the pill you probably preach against divorced men or unmarried men having to support their children.

    The pill prevents the conception of children UNZ men think it’s not their obligation to support.

    I already know why you can’t get married and have children. Every woman within 100 miles of where you live is covered with tattoos, weighs 300 pounds has an ugly face and dyes her hair green.

    Another sad old bachelor telling other people to have lots of children and not use birth control.
  59. @Jesse
    Conservatives need to end this fertility cult, especially as it relates to the long 1950s (1947 - ~ 1962).

    (1) It was a tiny, wildly unrepresentative period in history. If you read your Gregory Clark, there has been no period in Western history where anything close to 95% of people were having babies.

    And that's a good thing. Look at the crime rates and social pathologies of the Boomers. Hear the stories of all the people who didn't want kids, or as many kids as they had. It was not a fun childhood, growing up under them.

    (2) If the 50s weren't hell on earth, you need to explain why women of all creeds took the Pill like smarties when it came out. It's a powerful, unproven drug, and women will fight to the death for it because the alternative is so bad.

    (3) If you really want white women having litters, then the solution is economic, rather than mocking people for being barren. Think Sweden. And you need to stop talking abort 'getting five kids off one woman', because it's obnoxious. At some point you're actually going to have to make alliances with your own race.

    (4) If you got the system you claim to want, there'd be no need for huge families. You could subsidize a birthrate of between 2 and 3, and it would be fine. A stable population, in both numbers and ethnic identity.

    Instead, you get a population of conservatives who seem to enjoy the idea of the hordes of Muslims and Africans, because it's a way of trying to put a gun to white folk's heads and order to them to tty to outbreed said hordes. They seem stunned when it doesn't work, and they clearly don't want to actually solve the problem.

    “If you really want white women having litters, then the solution is economic, rather than mocking people for being barren. Think Sweden.”

    And what is the fertility rate in Sweden? How about the native white fertility rate in Sweden?

    “you get a population of conservatives who seem to enjoy the idea of the hordes of Muslims and Africans”

    Not sure who these supposed “conservatives” are. Are you referring to someone like David French, the “conservative” Ethiope-importer who teamed up with “fellow” “conservative” Bill Kristol to mount a spoiler presidential campaign against Trump’s nomination?

    • Replies: @Lot
    "How about the native white fertility rate in Sweden?"

    Unclear, but the relatively spared-from-vibrancy Norway and Denmark have among the highest fertility in Europe, though still below replacement. White Sweden is probably similar.
  60. @R.G. Camara
    One of the worst things the environmental movement did to itself was go hard-left, which, combined with libertarianism getting big on the right, utterly destroyed a lot of possible pro-environmental right-wing politics.

    The National Parks are a gift not just for hippies and hipsters and mountain climbers, but for a lot of hunters and trackers and nuclear families trying to bond and get back to nature. The cross-country road trip to a national park was once a staple vacation idea for most middle-class , Eisenhower and Nixon-voting families.

    As Steve has pointed out, the Sierra Club stopped talking strong borders and anti-littering campaigns when those were seen to be anti-diversity, which meant anti-Left, which is all the Sierra Club was.

    “The National Parks are a gift not just for hippies and hipsters and mountain climbers, but for a lot of hunters and trackers and nuclear families trying to bond and get back to nature. The cross-country road trip to a national park was once a staple vacation idea for most middle-class , Eisenhower and Nixon-voting families.”

    It’s been one of the biggest political “fools gold” alliances of the last 50 years. Hunters and Hippies should seem to create a natural alliance to protect nature. But hunters are generally conservationists while “hippies” are preservationists. One wants to use the land in some way (the former) while (the latter) wants strict no-go zones where nature is completely left alone.

    Keep in mind the political undercurrents of both. Lefty preservationist organizations are heavily funded/directed by real estate interests. The prevention of increased housing keeps up the value of existing houses. (Helps keep out the riffraff.) Hunters well, I can’t think of any nefarious plans they have. But (most) hunters actually use the land responsibly while most urban preservationists love nature as a abstraction. That’s why they fell so hard for green energy economics.

  61. @Days of Broken Arrows
    If you remember the old day of the 1980s and early '90s, we also had gatekeepers. They were called newspaper editors and publishers.

    Their influence plummeted when people took to the Web en masse to get their information.

    But now these people have been reincarnated in the form of speech enforcers on tech platforms. More and more, it's looking like the years 1994-2016 were a golden era for free speech and we've gone back to corporations dictating what we can and can't read.

    Wonder if a return to something like the old (pre-Google) Usenet is in order at this point?

    “we’ve gone back to corporations dictating what we can and can’t read.”

    The issue with censorship is that it requires you to both hire censors, remove free user-generated content, discourage the creation of additional free content, and annoys people.

    If twitter really were that censorious, GAB would be doing better rather than a wasteland of low audience nazi cosplayers.

    Facebook censorship isn’t generally by facebook, but self-censorship or external actors punishing people for what they say on facebook.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Twitter is censorious enough to hurt the right but not enough to hurt Twitter.
    , @Jack D
    There's no question that left to its own devices, Facebook and the rest would rather not censor - censorship is expensive. Facebook is now paying thousands and thousands of people (albeit at third world wages) to implement their censorship plan. They didn't choose this - they were forced into it by (Leftist) pressure.

    Corporations don't like censorship but (modern) Leftists do and Leftists have a lot of power. The Left used to have the monopoly on the megaphone. The Internet threatened to take this way and they didn't like the competition. Most people are creatures of habit and would rather live with their customary Facebook (now censored by the Left) than switch to some other uncensored platform. The Chinese showed the Left that the Internet CAN be controlled - it just requires a lot of effort and $ to tame it. Luckily, Facebook HAS a lot of money and all the Leftists need to do is force them to spend some of it on censorship.
  62. Property values are not forever.

    Oh yes indeed. A nation, a border is an abstract thing to middle-class liberals – it’s far away, has no immediate effect on them so virtue signalling is cost-free. When they we single mothers with six kids moving in next door it’s a different story.

  63. @Almost Missouri

    "If you really want white women having litters, then the solution is economic, rather than mocking people for being barren. Think Sweden."
     
    And what is the fertility rate in Sweden? How about the native white fertility rate in Sweden?

    "you get a population of conservatives who seem to enjoy the idea of the hordes of Muslims and Africans"
     
    Not sure who these supposed "conservatives" are. Are you referring to someone like David French, the "conservative" Ethiope-importer who teamed up with "fellow" "conservative" Bill Kristol to mount a spoiler presidential campaign against Trump's nomination?

    “How about the native white fertility rate in Sweden?”

    Unclear, but the relatively spared-from-vibrancy Norway and Denmark have among the highest fertility in Europe, though still below replacement. White Sweden is probably similar.

  64. @Bragadocious
    Liberals are generally dingbats but one thing they usually get right is family planning. Of course, these are the same people who think it's perfectly reasonable for 3 or 4 billion high-fertility pre-Americans to apply for asylum, so go figure.

    …the same people who think it’s perfectly reasonable for 3 or 4 billion high-fertility pre-Americans to apply for asylum

    It’s partly a proselytizing effort: they imagine the newcomers will adopt the Liberal belief in raising cats for one’s posterity.

  65. I’ve often said all Somali “refugees” should be settled in Santa Monica and Chappaqua

  66. @Lot
    "we’ve gone back to corporations dictating what we can and can’t read."

    The issue with censorship is that it requires you to both hire censors, remove free user-generated content, discourage the creation of additional free content, and annoys people.

    If twitter really were that censorious, GAB would be doing better rather than a wasteland of low audience nazi cosplayers.

    Facebook censorship isn't generally by facebook, but self-censorship or external actors punishing people for what they say on facebook.

    Twitter is censorious enough to hurt the right but not enough to hurt Twitter.

  67. Anon[136] • Disclaimer says:

    I ran across this story in an expat site for France:

    Did you know? The perks and prizes for French parents with lots of kids.

    https://www.thelocal.fr/20190213/did-you-know-parents-in-france-who-have-more-than-two-kids-get-perks-and-prizes

    President Jacques Chirac pinning a gold medal on Martine Baumann, mother of ten:

    Big families get train and Metro discounts and other decreased prices. In addition, mom gets a medal, which looks like something de Gaulle would have worn.

    The Wikipedia page is out of date. There are no longer three classes of medals, so no more gold medal for 10 kids.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Médaille_de_la_Famille_française

    This wouldn’t work in the U.S. First of all, most of the candidates for medals would be teenaged black girls. But then none of them would pass the “raised in a dignified manner and provided with proper care” investigation. You’d end up with a few white Catholics and Mormons. Disparate impact! Racism!

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    This wouldn’t work in the U.S. First of all, most of the candidates for medals would be teenaged black girls. But then none of them would pass the “raised in a dignified manner and provided with proper care” investigation. You’d end up with a few white Catholics and Mormons. Disparate impact! Racism!
     
    Here's an interesting (to me) idea that I'd like to see Steve address at some point: Could the Democrat's dingbat "free college for all" plan actually end up working as a Trojan Horse pro-white eugenics program?

    The idea is that college-educated whites defer childbearing because of the anticipated cost of putting their progeny through college. If they know the government will be picking up that particular tab, they will be inclined to have more (white) kids. And since this incentive only applies to those who assume their kids will be college-bound in the first place, it probably won't affect the fertility of poor blacks and Hispanics.

    If nothing else, it would be fun to troll Elizabeth Warren for advocating a white supremacist eugenics plan.
  68. Anon[713] • Disclaimer says:

    One reason people used to have lots of kids is because so many kids died in childhood. You had to improve your odds of getting two or three into adulthood.

    Now you can just have one or two, and they will all survive into adulthood. But on the other hand, with so few kids, if one is in an accident and dies, or if one goes adult-onset schitzo, or if one is just an asshole of a kid, it is more of a hit on the parent. Had the parent had five or six kids, not that there isn’t grief at one of the kids dying or turning out bad, but it’s less of a tragedy. The average kid is average; half of kids are below average.

    What reasons are there not to have kids:

    — Mom doesn’t want to blow out her tummy and birth canal and carry babies all the time. Can’t argue with that, I suppose.

    — Cost of feeding and housing them: This seems to somehow mysteriously take care of itself. You feed them what you can feed them and they sleep where there is space. Malnutrition is absent in modern life; obesity is the problem, not scurvy, rickets, and beri-beri.

    — Cost of educating them: Don’t educate them — that is, college. College is a waste and a decreasingly valuable human capital quality signal to employers. Let them take the SAT and show that directly to employers. If the score isn’t so great, college wouldn’t help them. Let them get in the workforce fast and not waste four years. A kid who really wants college can figure out how to get it, and if you’re from a big family I reckon financial aid is easier.

    — Costs of mobile phones: Wah ha ha! None for you, kids. By the way, we cannot afford a television either.

    — Modern problems like child protective services and other ways government regulation may want to prevent you from raising your kids the way you want. Will leaving a responsible teen to take care of a younger sibling cause problems? Is it child abuse not to give a kid a mobile phone these days?

    • Replies: @Known Fact
    Cost of Educating Them -- don't forget you have to pay big-time to live in a neighborhood with good safe schools, or pay big-time for private school.
    , @Spangel
    Come on. Child protective services barely has the resources to intercede with parents who are failing to feed their kids or beating them till their bones break. They are certainly not going to come after you for teaching your kids non normative values.
    , @Alden
    So, Anon 713, how many White children have you fathered supported and raised?

    We raised 4. What about you, you sad old bachelor? From your post, anyone whose maintained a home and raised kids can see you have no children.
  69. @Mr McKenna
    It's been years since I read the NYT and frankly I'm amazed that they still have sensible people among their readership.

    Having six fatherless children...
     


    I’m appalled by women who can barely take care of themselves financially and then have several children. I find it very irresponsible.
     

    Bad culture, bad values, and bad behaviour replicate poverty.
     

    If Ms. Rath was truly determined to break the cycle of poverty, she wouldn’t have had six illegitimate children.
     
    Every one of these--and these are just a sample--are the sort of remarks that get you banned from many major news-oriented websites, not to mention deplatformed, blocked on social media, and drummed out of polite society.

    There's still a lot of good, solid common sense abroad in the society, but we now have 'gatekeepers' who increasingly prohibit anything of the kind, if and when it conflicts with their favored 'narratives'--and it almost invariably does. It won't end well.

    There’s a lot of common sense out there. None of it is employed by the New York Times.

  70. @Jesse
    Take it from an Irish American with strong ties to the original country: Ireland has traditionally been massively overbred. It caused the Famine. It caused a huge amount of misery that, because the Papists managed to keep birth control away from people, is within livig memory.

    The famine was caused by potato blight and exasperated by English indifference. It wasn’t caused by large families. Ireland’s population has never recovered from the famine and the emigration that followed.

    • Agree: animalogic
    • Replies: @Jesse
    Yes, and who could possibly have foretold that having all your poor dependent on one crop could backfire?

    Frankly, if the same thing happened in Africa right now you'd have no problem blaming the Africans for having more kids than they knew how to feed.

    And the Irish emigration was, like South Korean baby selling, a way of avoiding solving their own problems. Not to mention what a catastrophe it was for the countries on the receiving end.
    , @Oddsbodkins
    Roman Catholicism practiced traditionally is a recipe for Malthusian misery. Only emigration allowed Ireland to escape it. Only emigration and massive food imports prevent this in the Philippines and Guatemala now. Rwanda bought a little time in 1994 but this problem will soon return.
  71. Considering that the sample is NY Times readers, or at least people who read a small sample, I am encouraged a bit. However, as Mr. Templeton mentioned above with his NIMBY comment, perhaps the many Seattleites reading this got pretty nervous and decided it was worth being possibly called a name or two (like “Republican!”) to help put a stop to these ideas that may mess up their backyard one day soon.

    And then there’s Maude this guy:

    It does not consider the brutal nuisance of having them section 8-ed next door. I sound like a Republican monster, but I’m left of Bernie. So why does this story bother me so?

    The story bothers you, Mr. Giteck, because you have some common sense and are NOT to the left of Bernie. You have just been SAYING you are to the left of Bernie to fit in with your friends. But don’t worry, you are absolutely NOT a Republican MONSTER – you are a Conservative Monster. You have completed step 1. You have just 11 steps left in our RYS, Regain Your Sanity 12-step program. Do the math.

  72. Success as defined by avoiding early pregnancy, attending and graduation from College, and fairly stable employment. For the record : We had one child. Only.

    Don’t these people realize that this does not work mathematically? And he’s so proud of it. No wonder we are not reproducing ourselves. We have turned small families into a marker of good social status. Or, rather, irresponsible people have turned large families into a marker of low social status.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    It would work fine, Romanian, (OK, some people with their one, Only, but others with a few), if there weren't this massive immigration in competition. I really think most Americans are too innumerate to really understand this.

    We have turned small families into a marker of good social status.
     
    No, not "we". Socialism has turned small families into the way to have a economically-manageable life, because we have to support not only the irresponsible Americans that have 6 children, but now the scores of millions of immigrants and their children. "We" didn't just decide that, though I'll give you that the environmental movement affected many on the left in this regard.
    , @Jonathan Mason

    No wonder we are not reproducing ourselves. We have turned small families into a marker of good social status.
     
    I wrote a paper on a Public Health course more than twenty years ago in which I argued that women who started to reproduce early and produced more children were actually the winners from an evolutionary point of view, since it would be their genes that would populate the future population of our country.

    Obviously my argument owned a lot to Richard Dawkins' famous book The Selfish Gene, but I did not get a very good grade for it as it contradicted all the conventional wisdom of the public health community, which was that humans ought to be like Sumatran orang-utangs and devote a large part of their lives to raising a single offspring and teaching it skills prized in the orang-utang community.
    , @anonymous coward

    Or, rather, irresponsible people have turned large families into a marker of low social status.
     
    The rich and powerful generally have lots of kids.

    Bill Gates has 3, Steve Jobs had 4, Elon Musk has 5, Jeff Bezos has 4.

    The 'low social status marker' bullshit is for middle-class simps and shmucks. The rich and powerful have a more rational outlook on life.
  73. @Anonymousse
    It’s not encouraging for the future that white commenters are notably disgusted by the idea of anyone reproducing above replacement level. They mention the woman’s particular situation but this seems only an intensifier for their consistent distaste for large families generally.

    “notably disgusted” is a bit strong. Angry & incredulous is perhaps closer.
    Six children is now, in the West, seen as anomalous. Six children to a single mother, seemingly permanently lacking in the material means to care for those kids is not an appealing look.
    The commentators in the article are NOT stupid — they know that six kids is an incredible responsibility, for anyone, never mind the mother in question.
    One commentator notes the elementary fact that smart choices will tend to succeed, stupid choices tend to end in failure. Too true. But –Unfortunately there are many who are not smart — who are badly equipped for a world as abstract & complex as ours. You can criticize them, but ultimately there’s the danger of blaming someone for having a birth defect. ( & yes, there’s the other side of the coin – over looking people who should know better, but simply don’t give a fuck.)

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The commentators in the article are NOT stupid..."

    Let that sink in. White people who read the NYT and commented intelligently on a topic they disagreed with. Did pigs just sprout wings? I thought that publication was Fake News, with everyone associated with it hopelessly bamboozled by radical leftism.

    Maybe there is hope for you left, kid.
  74. @R.G. Camara

    one thing they usually get right is family planning.
     
    No, they do not. The problem isn't multiple pregnancies, or teenage pregnancies, the problem is what Christianity preached against:

    Unmarried parents and fatherless children.

    In the 1950s you could have 5+ kids from a young woman and few people thought it weird, so long as you were married and dad was working. We have an economic and social problem where our earning power has diminished such that a one-income couple can no longer afford a house, a new car, and 5+ children in a safe neighborhood with no debt as they could in the 1950s and 60s.

    Family planning is something imposed on the West by people who hate Western civilization and have used specious arguments to support it since the beginning.

    You have a good point, Mr. Camara, but first keep in mind that Americans lived more frugally in a lot of ways in the 1950’s. They took car trips for vacations, often had just one car, lived in much smaller houses, and most importantly, were not perpetually in the kind of debt (6-year term car loans, student loans, and credit cards) as our most people now.

    Secondly, it’s easy for the jobs to pay quite a bit more on the bottom line (take-home pay), when the big taxes aren’t taken out for the Socialism to support the “families” like that of Miss Rath in the article. That’s even before she would get paid to move into Renton and screw up the neighborhood.

    I do get that wages have not moved since the 1970’s adjusted for inflation*. That’s not good, but shouldn’t make things harder, were it not for American’s spending habits and muh Socialism.

    Lastly, families ought to read Squaw Warren’s 20-year-old book, The Two-Income trap before it gets “cancelled”.

    .

    * The thing is, I also don’t believe those inflation numbers. I do think an average low-wage hour’s pay can’t buy nearly what a low-wage hour’s pay could buy in the 1970’s.

  75. @Romanian

    Success as defined by avoiding early pregnancy, attending and graduation from College, and fairly stable employment. For the record : We had one child. Only.
     
    Don't these people realize that this does not work mathematically? And he's so proud of it. No wonder we are not reproducing ourselves. We have turned small families into a marker of good social status. Or, rather, irresponsible people have turned large families into a marker of low social status.

    It would work fine, Romanian, (OK, some people with their one, Only, but others with a few), if there weren’t this massive immigration in competition. I really think most Americans are too innumerate to really understand this.

    We have turned small families into a marker of good social status.

    No, not “we”. Socialism has turned small families into the way to have a economically-manageable life, because we have to support not only the irresponsible Americans that have 6 children, but now the scores of millions of immigrants and their children. “We” didn’t just decide that, though I’ll give you that the environmental movement affected many on the left in this regard.

  76. @Jesse
    There have been a LOT of said studies.

    However:

    (1) It's become so associated with the Catholic Church that no one wants to know. If you object to the Pill, you first have to spend an eternity reassuring them that you're not some screeching Papist trying to make them have 10 kids they don't want and can't afford.

    Believe it or not, the Catholic church getting more involved wouldn't be an improvement.

    (2) The logical extension of the harms of the Pill would be for men to take responsibility and start wearing condoms. That never seems to impinge, even though it's logical, no one needs surgery and hormones and it solves all problems. The idea of men taking responsibility draws a level of aggression.

    men to take responsibility and start wearing condoms. That never seems to impinge, even though it’s logical, no one needs surgery and hormones and it solves all problems. The idea of men taking responsibility draws a level of aggression.

    because the poor poor subjugated wahmens have literally no choice but to spread ’em, when casually approached in public by a rampaging stiffy on legs.
    Or is their seemingly uncontrollable dopamine addiction/orgasm habit not permitted for the men equally?

    I’m getting “Jessy”, rather than “Jesse” here.

    • Replies: @Jesse
    Proving my point. If the idea that men should wear condoms to prevent pregnancy makes you *this* pissy and hormonal, then you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.

    Condoms would solve a good 80-90% of the unwanted pregnancy problem.
  77. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    Good time to be in the hedge, fence and wall business in Renton. How far is it from Microsoft?

    5 or 10 miles up the road to the north, on the east side of the lake. Bill Gates doesn’t need to worry. That Medina place, if he still has it, is big enough to give the guard dogs room to get up some speed.

  78. @R.G. Camara
    Man, crime, bad schools, bad neighborhoods, "food deserts" (lol), drugs, and high HIV rates seem to follow blacks around wherever they go. Why are these poor people so cursed?

    It's like how (((another group))) keeps getting kicked out of country after country, for centuries, and hated so mercilessly by the native populations after moving in. These (((poor people)))---such injustice!

    “It’s like how (((another group))) keeps getting kicked out of country after country, for centuries, and hated so mercilessly by the native populations after moving in.”
    Yes, that is a strange one isn’t it? Must be a conspiracy — over thousands of years & hundreds of separate cultures (pagan, christian, white, brown, hot, cold, inland, coastal etc)

  79. Not quite OT:

    The headline was bad’: New York Times amends front page on Trump’s response to mass shootings after backlash

    NYT revises its headline, ‘TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM’ succumbing to pressure from readers after President Trump urged unity versus racism.

    He said” “In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy.”

    Readers were outraged by the objectivity of the headline and demanded a revised headline that embodied “context.”

    • Replies: @Known Fact
    They might as well make the NYT or WaPo an open-source file like Wiki -- and let any certified SJW amend it as they wish
    , @Hypnotoad666
    "Orange Man Double-Plus Bad" should just be the NYT's standing all-purpose headline.

    At this point they are just admitting that they make up "news" for anti-Trump readers.
  80. When I first went to live in Bermuda in 1980, I had hardly ever had any contact with black people or black culture, and was fascinated by a woman I met at work who was well-know to have three different children by three different fathers.

    Even in Bermuda at this time which was 70% black or mulatto, and 30% white, this was considered a bit scandalous as Bermuda is a very conservative place.

    However, knowing the family, the mother, the children, and the fathers, I wondered whether the point of having children by different fathers was not that when the children grew up, there was a greater chance of hitting the jackpot in the genetic arms race and producing at least one child who would be an economic success and this provide financial succor and social status to the mother in her declining years.

    Receiving child support payments from three different men would also diversify the family’s sources of income, which could be valuable in the event of one or more fathers meeting with an accident, or being in prison.

    Not saying that the mother would have been consciously aware of this, but all the same it could be a factor if it is a multi-generational learned pattern of behavior.

  81. @Romanian

    Success as defined by avoiding early pregnancy, attending and graduation from College, and fairly stable employment. For the record : We had one child. Only.
     
    Don't these people realize that this does not work mathematically? And he's so proud of it. No wonder we are not reproducing ourselves. We have turned small families into a marker of good social status. Or, rather, irresponsible people have turned large families into a marker of low social status.

    No wonder we are not reproducing ourselves. We have turned small families into a marker of good social status.

    I wrote a paper on a Public Health course more than twenty years ago in which I argued that women who started to reproduce early and produced more children were actually the winners from an evolutionary point of view, since it would be their genes that would populate the future population of our country.

    Obviously my argument owned a lot to Richard Dawkins’ famous book The Selfish Gene, but I did not get a very good grade for it as it contradicted all the conventional wisdom of the public health community, which was that humans ought to be like Sumatran orang-utangs and devote a large part of their lives to raising a single offspring and teaching it skills prized in the orang-utang community.

    • Replies: @Oddsbodkins
    You saw the world as it is, rather than as it ought to be. Shame on you.
    , @Romanian
    Innumeracy and permanency bias are facts of life for many liberals.
  82. @Ed
    The famine was caused by potato blight and exasperated by English indifference. It wasn’t caused by large families. Ireland’s population has never recovered from the famine and the emigration that followed.

    Yes, and who could possibly have foretold that having all your poor dependent on one crop could backfire?

    Frankly, if the same thing happened in Africa right now you’d have no problem blaming the Africans for having more kids than they knew how to feed.

    And the Irish emigration was, like South Korean baby selling, a way of avoiding solving their own problems. Not to mention what a catastrophe it was for the countries on the receiving end.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    In the Andes, it is rare for a farmer to only plant one variety of potato. Most farmers plant on hillsides. Different sub plots will have different elevations and different shades. Sometimes even different amounts of rain. So one farmer may plant several varieties of potatoes, and the aggregate of all the farmers gives a wide variety of potatoes.

    That way, if a disease wipes out one variety of potato, there are still plenty of others to go around.

    The potato turned out to be the perfect food for parts of Northern Europe. It grows well in cold climates and has a lot of calories. Not only Ireland, but Scandinavia had a significant population boom after the potato was introduced.

    The English, with their scientific bent, decided on one particular variety of potato as being THE optimal potato to grow in Ireland. So only that variety was grown. When the Potato Blight came around, the results were catastrophic. Immigration to the US made a big difference. There are now about 10x as many Irish in the US as in Ireland.

    Could we make the same mistake again?

    The big burger chains, led by MacDonalds, decided THE optimal potato for fries is the Russert Potato. The Russert Potato is also used for tator tots, and is the most popular potato in the US by far. Something like 95% of potatoes grown in the US are Russert.

    What happens if a disease comes along and destroys the Russert Potato ?
    , @Hypnotoad666

    Yes, and who could possibly have foretold that having all your poor dependent on one crop could backfire?
     
    EBT is the current staple crop of the poor.
    , @R.G. Camara

    Yes, and who could possibly have foretold that having all your poor dependent on one crop could backfire?
     
    The English sure didn't. They were not Catholics. But they were the ones who made that decision, not the Catholic Church.

    The English forced the Irish onto the potato crop on pain of death. They heavily regulated Ireland as a breadbasket for the empire, exporting most of the Irish food for their own use. The Irish were forced to work on English estates and were given only the potato for themselves as it was considered too dirty and low-class for the English overlords.

    But nice try on blaming the Catholics when it was really anti-Catholic English bureaucrats who caused the problem.

    I do enjoy dumb female liars like yourself. So amusing, so low-IQ, so....leftist.

  83. @Moses

    Someday, a ton of shit is going to come out about the negative effects of The Pill. We’re talking cancer risk increases, ovarian damage, personality changes, mental health effects, broken marriages etc. I firmly believe The Pill is going to one day be revealed to be right up there with treating people with mercury and doctors not washing their hands as one of the big “they were literally destroying people’s health and lives, those idiots!” events in medical history.
     
    Agreed.

    The second and third order effects for screwing around with the endocrine system are unknown but certainly are there. There ain't no free lunch.

    One thing I've learned over my life is disrupting the body's natural mechanisms which evolved over millions of years generally is a bad idea without an uber-compelling medical reason.

    For example, it used to be conventional medical wisdom to use drugs to reduce fevers. Now evidence shows that fever (unless crazy high) is beneficial and helps the immune system destroy invaders faster.

    Another example is how Western medicine thought infant formula was superior to breast milk. Incredible idiocy.

    My hunch is science eventually will show the pill had monstrous negative biological effects on women.

    Additionally, when these white women decide to have their kids when they come off the Pill is as important.

    That was reinforced Sunday evening when the girlfriend and I were tailgating with friends before the Queen concert. Many late-50/early 60ish couples with children, and there were a measurable percentage of these kids were what we used to call “slow”.

    The Pill and ancient eggs. This ain’t good.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    There are technological fixes for this. You can screen embryos. You can freeze your eggs when you are young. Having kids when you are older and wiser and better able to support them is not such a bad thing. Having kids at a later age has been a marker of places that are "better" to live in for a long time.

    The real issue is dysgenic breeding - the high IQ people who SHOULD be having kids (you could still have 2 or 3 starting in your 30s) aren't having any or only 1 and the lower IQ folks are having more (like 6 in the case of this lady) and over time this will reduce average IQs.

    At the concert, you might have been seeing a selection effect - beyond a certain age, normal teenagers don't want to socialize with their parents, they want to socialize with their peers. But "slow" kids are seen in public with their parents.
    , @Alden
    Might have been adopted kids.
  84. @Jonathan Mason

    No wonder we are not reproducing ourselves. We have turned small families into a marker of good social status.
     
    I wrote a paper on a Public Health course more than twenty years ago in which I argued that women who started to reproduce early and produced more children were actually the winners from an evolutionary point of view, since it would be their genes that would populate the future population of our country.

    Obviously my argument owned a lot to Richard Dawkins' famous book The Selfish Gene, but I did not get a very good grade for it as it contradicted all the conventional wisdom of the public health community, which was that humans ought to be like Sumatran orang-utangs and devote a large part of their lives to raising a single offspring and teaching it skills prized in the orang-utang community.

    You saw the world as it is, rather than as it ought to be. Shame on you.

  85. Pete Hammill’s biography, “A Drinking Life” was largely about his alcoholism. And he acknowledged when he was a younger man, he thought simply by moving someplace else, he would get a “geographic cure” rather than have to deal with his issues. That kind of stupidity is no different than this, except in Hammill’s case he came to understand that. Ultimately he came to realize your pathology follows you around, and either you deal with it or the dysfunction is your life. This is lost on Chetty. Moving this woman to a middle class neighborhood or a 5th Avenue penthouse will solve nothing if her bad life choices are not dealt with.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    The most telling examples are lottery winners. When someone like this woman wins the lottery, they waste it on junk that they don't know how to maintain, her parasitic relatives and friends suck her dry and in short order all the money is gone. No matter how much they win in a couple of years they are right back where they started. This happens over and over.
  86. Having a lot of experience with low income housing, the reality is that people like Ms Rath have messy lives with a) a lot of similar people in them and b) and inability to tell them ‘no’ or shut them out. So move someone like her to a nice new home and it won’t be long before all the losers in her life follow her. There is also a ton of pressure from these people to not change her behavior at all, and given that these people are generally whose acceptance it is she seeks, it’s highly unlikely she takes on the values or habits of her more successful neighbors.

  87. @Ed
    The famine was caused by potato blight and exasperated by English indifference. It wasn’t caused by large families. Ireland’s population has never recovered from the famine and the emigration that followed.

    Roman Catholicism practiced traditionally is a recipe for Malthusian misery. Only emigration allowed Ireland to escape it. Only emigration and massive food imports prevent this in the Philippines and Guatemala now. Rwanda bought a little time in 1994 but this problem will soon return.

    • Replies: @guest
    Roman Catholicism has persisted for 2,000 years, many of them times of Plenty. I think you might notice the Irish and Rawandans had political difficulties entirely distinct from the sexual strtictures of their religion.
  88. I’ve always been against welfare because people should bear the consequences of their actions. But if they tied the payments to sterilization I might support it.

    • Agree: S. Anonyia, Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Prodigal son
    Brilliant idea. We definitely should require all welfare recipients get sterilized. And also all those incarcerated felons should be required to get a vasectomy if they want to be paroled.
  89. @Dave Pinsen
    Jackie Rath brings to mind the saying about traffic: “You’re not in traffic; you are traffic.”.

    I think of that when liberal pundits talk about Central Americans “fleeing violence and poverty” too.

    Central Americans flee the violence created by Central Americans,
    Politicians want more Central Americans coming to your town soon.

  90. If there is hope, it lies in the comments section.

  91. @R.G. Camara
    Someday, a ton of shit is going to come out about the negative effects of The Pill. We're talking cancer risk increases, ovarian damage, personality changes, mental health effects, broken marriages etc. I firmly believe The Pill is going to one day be revealed to be right up there with treating people with mercury and doctors not washing their hands as one of the big "they were literally destroying people's health and lives, those idiots!" events in medical history.

    For example, the correlation between women who use The Pill and women on some sort of other drug for their mental health has to be something like 90% -- I've never known a girl using birth control who didn't also need another pharmaceutical to get through the week. Yet the studies aren't out there, or aren't well publicized.

    To my knowledge, there's really not ANY widely known long-term studies of The Pill on any of these subjects, or at least not a lot of them. Likely the few that have been have been junk science; but you don't need to have a study to see that chemically screwing with the most important natural function of a large number of human females is going to have some true negative outcomes that are measurable and quantifiable.

    The Catholic Church would've been the prime mover on all those studies from the get go, but suspiciously Vatican II happened right as The Pill came to market. The Church failed to back up its faith-based moral teachings with a lot of science, which would've helped a lot of lukewarm Catholics to reject The Pill. Sad, but hopefully purging the commies and homos one day (as well as the entire Jesuit order) will get them back on track.

    People forget that one reason the Catholic Church had a monopoly in Europe was it offered a lot of worldly truth. Science in the Middle Ages was protected and sponsored by the Church, the Church was the only literate safe keeper of records, the CHurch educated men vastly superior to secular society, monks taught people self-sufficiency and improved growing techniques, etc. The Church's moral teachings would've not been so widely accepted if they hadn't proven quite useful in their scientific rigor.

    Great post. Agree x 1000

  92. @Oddsbodkins
    Roman Catholicism practiced traditionally is a recipe for Malthusian misery. Only emigration allowed Ireland to escape it. Only emigration and massive food imports prevent this in the Philippines and Guatemala now. Rwanda bought a little time in 1994 but this problem will soon return.

    Roman Catholicism has persisted for 2,000 years, many of them times of Plenty. I think you might notice the Irish and Rawandans had political difficulties entirely distinct from the sexual strtictures of their religion.

    • Replies: @Oddsbodkins
    I don't doubt that the practice of RC, or any other religion, can persist while simultaneously leading its followers to misery.
    , @Expletive Deleted
    Christianity, initially as a minority interest, yes. Full on conversion? Patrick, 1600-odd years ago.

    There were Christians in Ireland before Saint Patrick, but we have no information as to how they worshipped, and their existence is ignored by Tirechan's 7th-century Catalogus Sanctorum Hiberniae, which divides the saints of Ireland into three orders covering about 225 years from the coming of St. Patrick in 440 in the reign of Laoghaire MacNeil to the reign of Blathmac and Diarmait sons of Aodh Slane in 665.
     
    Actual Roman Catholics, and not some odd schismatic native creed? 847 years, slightly more recently than when my own family arrived in the Big Island Next Door. As raging Papists, of course.

    After that we have an obscure period, during which the Roman Easter which had been accepted in South Ireland in 626-28, became universal, being accepted by North Ireland in 692, and it seems probable that a Mass on the model of the Carlsruhe and Piacenza fragments and the Stowe and Bobbio Missals - a Roman Canon with some features of a non-Roman type - came into general use. It was not until the 12th century that the separate Irish Rite, which, according to Gilbert, Bishop of Limerick (1106–39), was in use in nearly all Ireland, was abolished. Saint Malachy, bishop of Armagh (1134–48), began the campaign against it, and at the Synod of Cashel, in 1172, a Roman Rite "juxta quod Anglicana observat Ecclesia" was finally substituted.
     
  93. For the record : We had one child. Only.

    Should have been zero. In fact, why stop there? The climate needs to be saved, they should have done their part in lowering the carbon footprint by offing themselves at the age of 18.

  94. @Romanian

    Success as defined by avoiding early pregnancy, attending and graduation from College, and fairly stable employment. For the record : We had one child. Only.
     
    Don't these people realize that this does not work mathematically? And he's so proud of it. No wonder we are not reproducing ourselves. We have turned small families into a marker of good social status. Or, rather, irresponsible people have turned large families into a marker of low social status.

    Or, rather, irresponsible people have turned large families into a marker of low social status.

    The rich and powerful generally have lots of kids.

    Bill Gates has 3, Steve Jobs had 4, Elon Musk has 5, Jeff Bezos has 4.

    The ‘low social status marker’ bullshit is for middle-class simps and shmucks. The rich and powerful have a more rational outlook on life.

    • Agree: Romanian
    • Replies: @Moses

    The rich and powerful generally have lots of kids.

    Bill Gates has 3...
     
    Three is "lots of kids" in The Current Year?
    , @Known Fact
    The rich and powerful have Swiss nannies
    , @OFWHAP
    One of Bezos' kids was adopted from China, so it's not as if MacKenzie was operating a baby factory.
  95. @Moses

    These experiments are a good use of public funds. But they have a fatal flaw: at what point, with how many families moving to “high opportunity” neighborhoods, does the toxic culture muscle out the effective one?
     
    Yes.

    It's nice that SJW NYT readers can put 2 and 2 together here. But that's because this Rath Section 8 program threatens to move dysfunctional Section 8 families next door to them in Newtown MA, Bethesda MD and Marin Country CA. It's personal.

    Don't expect them to draw the same conclusion re: importing millions of people from toxic culture, sh*thole countries. As long as Somalis and Guatemalans move to poor White neighborhoods instead of theirs, everything is hunky-dory.

    Kinda like the White and Jewish wailing about integrating Blacks into well-to-do Manhattan public schools. Their SJW-ism goes right out the door.

    Section 8 program threatens to move dysfunctional Section 8 families next door to them in Newtown MA, Bethesda MD and Marin Country CA. It’s personal.

    We should bypass Section 8 in order to speed up this much-needed integration. I’d like to find a charity whose mission is purchasing nice upper middle class homes in places like Marin CA, Bethesda MD, Arlington VA, Menlo Park CA, etc and then re-locate the most dysfunctional ghetto “families” they can possibly find to these homes. The Raths would be a good starter family.

    An important part of this mission would include closely monitoring how these new families are treated, ensuring that none of their neighbors racistly call the police on them for just going about their lives, i.e. “living while black”.

    • Replies: @Moses
    Yes, and for more lulz we can integrate the Raths into majority, high-performing Asian grinder schools in Cupertino CA.

    Imagine the magic dirt there! Rath children will become valedictorians in no time.
  96. @animalogic
    "notably disgusted" is a bit strong. Angry & incredulous is perhaps closer.
    Six children is now, in the West, seen as anomalous. Six children to a single mother, seemingly permanently lacking in the material means to care for those kids is not an appealing look.
    The commentators in the article are NOT stupid -- they know that six kids is an incredible responsibility, for anyone, never mind the mother in question.
    One commentator notes the elementary fact that smart choices will tend to succeed, stupid choices tend to end in failure. Too true. But --Unfortunately there are many who are not smart -- who are badly equipped for a world as abstract & complex as ours. You can criticize them, but ultimately there's the danger of blaming someone for having a birth defect. ( & yes, there's the other side of the coin - over looking people who should know better, but simply don't give a fuck.)

    “The commentators in the article are NOT stupid…”

    Let that sink in. White people who read the NYT and commented intelligently on a topic they disagreed with. Did pigs just sprout wings? I thought that publication was Fake News, with everyone associated with it hopelessly bamboozled by radical leftism.

    Maybe there is hope for you left, kid.

  97. BobX [AKA "Bob who thinks more than Chetty are confused"] says:

    Not to defend Chetty’s magic dirt, but at least this woman from the examples you give is just as confused if she thinks people with a mean IQ of 85 can just “make smart choices” and their children will grow up to get PHDs like occurred for her husbands immigrant parents who spoke no English. This bootstrap “smart choice” magic thinking is just as insane. The half of their (IQ 85) offspring on the left hand of their bell curve when left to flounder in the toxic mix of current US culture are going to fail at very high rates no matter where they live, and by definition they don’t have the tools to make “smart choices”. For such a much more prescriptive culture will yield better results.

    Perhaps this explains the success of Islam in cousin marrying cultures. As sung by by Mr. Banks “Tradition, discipline and rules”.

    ____________________________________________________________________
    Connecticut Aug. 4

    My husband works for a low income, urban school district.

    a) all of these districts – at least in Connecticut – ALREADY get the majority of their funding from the state, NOT property taxes. It is not lack of funding that is hurting these schools. It is that they are full of students who don’t want to, or in many cases can’t, learn or fully function behaviorally in a classroom.

    b) what makes neighborhoods and schools “good” or “bad” is the people living in them.

    My husband grew up in a “ghetto” with immigrant parents who spoke no English and had almost no formal education. Within 10 years they had a house in the suburbs, purely from the fruit of their hard work at multiple jobs and savings. His parents stayed married. They were frugal and hardworking. They used birth control to only have two kids, both who grew up to earn graduate degrees and become professionals.

    No matter where you live, if you make smart choices, you can find your way up. And no matter where you live, if you make bad choices – unwed parenthood, wasting money, not showing up regularly to work, cursing out your teachers, breaking the law – you are going to fail.

    Putting people from bad neighborhoods in good ones does nothing to address the conditions that created the “bad” neighborhood to begin with.

    We will not come close to dealing with poverty in this country until we can honestly acknowledge that there are serious cultural problems in many low income communities, both black and white.

  98. @anonymous coward

    Or, rather, irresponsible people have turned large families into a marker of low social status.
     
    The rich and powerful generally have lots of kids.

    Bill Gates has 3, Steve Jobs had 4, Elon Musk has 5, Jeff Bezos has 4.

    The 'low social status marker' bullshit is for middle-class simps and shmucks. The rich and powerful have a more rational outlook on life.

    The rich and powerful generally have lots of kids.

    Bill Gates has 3…

    Three is “lots of kids” in The Current Year?

    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    Three is “lots of kids” in The Current Year?
     
    Unfortunately, yes.
    , @anonymous coward

    Three is “lots of kids” in The Current Year?
     
    Unfortunately, yes.
  99. Apropos of affordable family formation, I wonder how much attention has been paid to the issue of the impact of the expense of college education particularly on the upper middle class, which is ordinarily the source of the most accomplished members of society.

    It’s notorious that this cohort has greatly decreased its fertility. I have little doubt that a good portion of this owes to the overwhelming expense of putting a child through a good college. Doing so in the US amounts to an expense at least as great as a mortgage or putting aside for retirement. And this problem is mostly peculiar to the US — in Europe, I gather the expense is mostly borne by the welfare state.

    Is it really possible nowadays to promote decent fertility in the upper middle class without public support for higher education?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Public support for higher ed is the problem, not the solution. The government has poured vast amount of $ into higher ed and this has driven up the prices massively. If the government gave everyone loans to buy crack then there would be a lot more demand for crack and crack suppliers would raise their prices.
  100. @William Badwhite

    Section 8 program threatens to move dysfunctional Section 8 families next door to them in Newtown MA, Bethesda MD and Marin Country CA. It’s personal.
     
    We should bypass Section 8 in order to speed up this much-needed integration. I'd like to find a charity whose mission is purchasing nice upper middle class homes in places like Marin CA, Bethesda MD, Arlington VA, Menlo Park CA, etc and then re-locate the most dysfunctional ghetto "families" they can possibly find to these homes. The Raths would be a good starter family.

    An important part of this mission would include closely monitoring how these new families are treated, ensuring that none of their neighbors racistly call the police on them for just going about their lives, i.e. "living while black".

    Yes, and for more lulz we can integrate the Raths into majority, high-performing Asian grinder schools in Cupertino CA.

    Imagine the magic dirt there! Rath children will become valedictorians in no time.

  101. @Expletive Deleted

    men to take responsibility and start wearing condoms. That never seems to impinge, even though it’s logical, no one needs surgery and hormones and it solves all problems. The idea of men taking responsibility draws a level of aggression.
     
    because the poor poor subjugated wahmens have literally no choice but to spread 'em, when casually approached in public by a rampaging stiffy on legs.
    Or is their seemingly uncontrollable dopamine addiction/orgasm habit not permitted for the men equally?

    I'm getting "Jessy", rather than "Jesse" here.

    Proving my point. If the idea that men should wear condoms to prevent pregnancy makes you *this* pissy and hormonal, then you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.

    Condoms would solve a good 80-90% of the unwanted pregnancy problem.

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted

    Proving my point.
     
    Proving nothing at all. You tried, in a painfully womanish way, to ringfence your witless "solution" from criticism with a premature demand that nobody be mean to you. And then squealed "Aha! Gotcha!" when praise wasn't forthcoming.
    Pissy and hormonal? Projecting harder than CineWorld there, madame.

    Condoms would solve a good 80-90% of the unwanted pregnancy problem.
     
    What you seem unable to grasp, in your UMC fairyland, is that the overwhelming majority of these breeders desperately WANT to get pregnant, as soon as they are physically able. Serially, by any means necessary.

    The father is essentially irrelevant and will be rejected if he attempts to stick around. It's actually preferable to them that he's in jail. Or dead. Because he also is vanishingly unlikely to have any sort of legal income and consumes resources, and can impede access to the gibs-trough for various bureaucratic reasons.

    It's the only career open to underclass females, certainly in Europe and also Over There from what I read.

    Ask them. They're often quite smug about how clever they're being. Particularly when trolleyed on airline booze, on the Easyjet to Alicante (several times a year, from what they loudly boast).
    Pays way better than any job they might get even if gloriously child-free. The jackpot is a "disabled" child, gets you a free and frequently replaced vehicle of people-carrier type, in UK at least. Easy to come by, given how much they drink (etc.) while preggers.
    Guaranteed income, copious (when all the bennies and subs are totted up), and lasts for leisurely decades, if she times it right.

    I'm not even mad, girl. If these meatbags want to vegetate like sub-par cattle in the iron grip of the State instead of having actual lives, well, that's a bit sad. But not my problem.
    Don't even mind the taxes, our gov.uk pisses away more than they could ever cost up the wall, on the most ridiculous stuff. Often to do with War, far away, somewhere hot and sandy that nobody cares about.

    There. Did you get enough attention yet?
  102. @candid_observer
    Apropos of affordable family formation, I wonder how much attention has been paid to the issue of the impact of the expense of college education particularly on the upper middle class, which is ordinarily the source of the most accomplished members of society.

    It's notorious that this cohort has greatly decreased its fertility. I have little doubt that a good portion of this owes to the overwhelming expense of putting a child through a good college. Doing so in the US amounts to an expense at least as great as a mortgage or putting aside for retirement. And this problem is mostly peculiar to the US -- in Europe, I gather the expense is mostly borne by the welfare state.

    Is it really possible nowadays to promote decent fertility in the upper middle class without public support for higher education?

    Public support for higher ed is the problem, not the solution. The government has poured vast amount of $ into higher ed and this has driven up the prices massively. If the government gave everyone loans to buy crack then there would be a lot more demand for crack and crack suppliers would raise their prices.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    Somehow in Europe the expense of higher ed for a family is vastly lower.

    Maybe the issue is how the government support is implemented.

  103. @Bugg
    Pete Hammill's biography, "A Drinking Life" was largely about his alcoholism. And he acknowledged when he was a younger man, he thought simply by moving someplace else, he would get a "geographic cure" rather than have to deal with his issues. That kind of stupidity is no different than this, except in Hammill's case he came to understand that. Ultimately he came to realize your pathology follows you around, and either you deal with it or the dysfunction is your life. This is lost on Chetty. Moving this woman to a middle class neighborhood or a 5th Avenue penthouse will solve nothing if her bad life choices are not dealt with.

    The most telling examples are lottery winners. When someone like this woman wins the lottery, they waste it on junk that they don’t know how to maintain, her parasitic relatives and friends suck her dry and in short order all the money is gone. No matter how much they win in a couple of years they are right back where they started. This happens over and over.

  104. @Jack D
    Public support for higher ed is the problem, not the solution. The government has poured vast amount of $ into higher ed and this has driven up the prices massively. If the government gave everyone loans to buy crack then there would be a lot more demand for crack and crack suppliers would raise their prices.

    Somehow in Europe the expense of higher ed for a family is vastly lower.

    Maybe the issue is how the government support is implemented.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Sure, it's just like pharma. In the US we have a mixed economy - the government socializes the losses and the private sector privatizes the profits. It's the best of both worlds!
    , @Autochthon
    You've both lost the plot. Apart from professional schools – and even they would be included if the governmental scam ended so that schools and employers once again had to pay to train their own workers – nearly everyone who has any business attending a university can do so on merit scholarships paid by schools themselves (competing for the best students is critical to their success), and private benefactors.

    The real trouble is the madness of pretending every jackass who can barely read should attend a university.
  105. @Anon
    One reason people used to have lots of kids is because so many kids died in childhood. You had to improve your odds of getting two or three into adulthood.

    Now you can just have one or two, and they will all survive into adulthood. But on the other hand, with so few kids, if one is in an accident and dies, or if one goes adult-onset schitzo, or if one is just an asshole of a kid, it is more of a hit on the parent. Had the parent had five or six kids, not that there isn’t grief at one of the kids dying or turning out bad, but it’s less of a tragedy. The average kid is average; half of kids are below average.

    What reasons are there not to have kids:

    -- Mom doesn’t want to blow out her tummy and birth canal and carry babies all the time. Can’t argue with that, I suppose.

    -- Cost of feeding and housing them: This seems to somehow mysteriously take care of itself. You feed them what you can feed them and they sleep where there is space. Malnutrition is absent in modern life; obesity is the problem, not scurvy, rickets, and beri-beri.

    -- Cost of educating them: Don’t educate them -- that is, college. College is a waste and a decreasingly valuable human capital quality signal to employers. Let them take the SAT and show that directly to employers. If the score isn’t so great, college wouldn’t help them. Let them get in the workforce fast and not waste four years. A kid who really wants college can figure out how to get it, and if you’re from a big family I reckon financial aid is easier.

    -- Costs of mobile phones: Wah ha ha! None for you, kids. By the way, we cannot afford a television either.

    -- Modern problems like child protective services and other ways government regulation may want to prevent you from raising your kids the way you want. Will leaving a responsible teen to take care of a younger sibling cause problems? Is it child abuse not to give a kid a mobile phone these days?

    Cost of Educating Them — don’t forget you have to pay big-time to live in a neighborhood with good safe schools, or pay big-time for private school.

  106. anonymous[320] • Disclaimer says:

    Am I sensing a bit of bias in the NYT opinion section?

    The Nihilist in Chief
    How our president and our mass shooters are connected to the same dark psychic forces.

    Trump’s Racism Is a Global Problem for Our Country
    The president is serving up to our adversaries an ever more divided and weakened America.

    Trump Is a White Nationalist Who Inspires Terrorism
    Don’t pretend his teleprompter speech changes anything.

    Trust No One Online
    The internet remains a swamp of hate that can lead to terrible violence. But some companies like Apple see the benefit in protecting users.

    Trump’s China Shock

    The Ideology of Hate and How to Fight It

    Trump, Tax Cuts and Terrorism

    Can the Democrats Do Better Than Trump on North Korea?

    We Have a White Nationalist Terrorist Problem

    With a Democrat, a Cooler Head Would Prevail on Iran

    Much Ado About a Little More Housing

    Conservatism Has a Violence Problem

    This Is a Warning About the 2 Sides of White Nationalism

    Donald Trump Is Not a Sinister Genius

  107. @anonymous coward

    Or, rather, irresponsible people have turned large families into a marker of low social status.
     
    The rich and powerful generally have lots of kids.

    Bill Gates has 3, Steve Jobs had 4, Elon Musk has 5, Jeff Bezos has 4.

    The 'low social status marker' bullshit is for middle-class simps and shmucks. The rich and powerful have a more rational outlook on life.

    The rich and powerful have Swiss nannies

  108. @Lot
    "we’ve gone back to corporations dictating what we can and can’t read."

    The issue with censorship is that it requires you to both hire censors, remove free user-generated content, discourage the creation of additional free content, and annoys people.

    If twitter really were that censorious, GAB would be doing better rather than a wasteland of low audience nazi cosplayers.

    Facebook censorship isn't generally by facebook, but self-censorship or external actors punishing people for what they say on facebook.

    There’s no question that left to its own devices, Facebook and the rest would rather not censor – censorship is expensive. Facebook is now paying thousands and thousands of people (albeit at third world wages) to implement their censorship plan. They didn’t choose this – they were forced into it by (Leftist) pressure.

    Corporations don’t like censorship but (modern) Leftists do and Leftists have a lot of power. The Left used to have the monopoly on the megaphone. The Internet threatened to take this way and they didn’t like the competition. Most people are creatures of habit and would rather live with their customary Facebook (now censored by the Left) than switch to some other uncensored platform. The Chinese showed the Left that the Internet CAN be controlled – it just requires a lot of effort and $ to tame it. Luckily, Facebook HAS a lot of money and all the Leftists need to do is force them to spend some of it on censorship.

  109. @candid_observer
    Somehow in Europe the expense of higher ed for a family is vastly lower.

    Maybe the issue is how the government support is implemented.

    Sure, it’s just like pharma. In the US we have a mixed economy – the government socializes the losses and the private sector privatizes the profits. It’s the best of both worlds!

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    Some truth to that.

    The way student loans have been run in the US has been great for schools, especially the fly-by-night Trump U places that grab massive amounts of student loans for a bullsh!t fake education.
    It has been great for banks and often unscrupulous loan consolidation companies.

    It has been terrible for the borrowers and the taxpayers.

    Joe Biden is one of the people who did the most to make the student loan situation so dreadful.

    The smartest way I have seen someone handle the student loan situation:

    There is a fellow I know, village president of a small village in Wisconsin, who did the following:

    1. Instead of getting a student loan, he put his tuition on a credit card.
    2. When his business went south, he managed to get all his assets into rental properties and all his debts into unsecured loans.
    3. He was about to declare bankruptcy, but found that if he did so he would lose all his assets.
    4. He found some interesting clauses put into credit card agreements that were inserted to screw over the consumer. He turned those clauses around to walk away from hundreds of thousands of dollars of unsecured debt.

    Debt gone, assets still there, no student loans.

    You may not agree with what he did, but it was 100% legal and mostly exploited the greed of companies that had clauses backfire on them.
  110. @PiltdownMan
    Not quite OT:

    The headline was bad’: New York Times amends front page on Trump’s response to mass shootings after backlash
     
    NYT revises its headline, 'TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM' succumbing to pressure from readers after President Trump urged unity versus racism.

    He said" “In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy.”

    Readers were outraged by the objectivity of the headline and demanded a revised headline that embodied "context."

    They might as well make the NYT or WaPo an open-source file like Wiki — and let any certified SJW amend it as they wish

  111. “What I saw was poverty and its ills continue to replicate itself in spite of being next door to “better” or more well-to-do neighbours”

    Yes, you can be walking through Bloomsbury past homes worth several millions, and come across a development of Camden Council’s ‘social housing’ with high-security entrance, video surveillance and a bunch of flowers taped to the tall mesh fence recording another stabbing victim.

  112. @Brutusale
    Additionally, when these white women decide to have their kids when they come off the Pill is as important.

    That was reinforced Sunday evening when the girlfriend and I were tailgating with friends before the Queen concert. Many late-50/early 60ish couples with children, and there were a measurable percentage of these kids were what we used to call "slow".

    The Pill and ancient eggs. This ain't good.

    There are technological fixes for this. You can screen embryos. You can freeze your eggs when you are young. Having kids when you are older and wiser and better able to support them is not such a bad thing. Having kids at a later age has been a marker of places that are “better” to live in for a long time.

    The real issue is dysgenic breeding – the high IQ people who SHOULD be having kids (you could still have 2 or 3 starting in your 30s) aren’t having any or only 1 and the lower IQ folks are having more (like 6 in the case of this lady) and over time this will reduce average IQs.

    At the concert, you might have been seeing a selection effect – beyond a certain age, normal teenagers don’t want to socialize with their parents, they want to socialize with their peers. But “slow” kids are seen in public with their parents.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    There were WAY more youngsters at the show than we expected. And when the cheap GA seats are $150, pretty much all the kids are with their parents. They all saw the movie and came out to see a band whose last show with the original members took place before their parents even met.

    I would hazard a guess that someone paying upwards of $1,000 to bring the family to a show is from one of those "better" places. There is science, though; reference the first line in my original comment.

    https://www.livescience.com/46616-birth-control-pills-womens-fertility.html

  113. @Anonymousse
    It’s not encouraging for the future that white commenters are notably disgusted by the idea of anyone reproducing above replacement level. They mention the woman’s particular situation but this seems only an intensifier for their consistent distaste for large families generally.

    Why not? It means these people have common sense even if they are liberal. They sacrificed to make a good life for their 1 or 2, why should this irresponsible woman’s 6 children get access to special programs to lift them out of poverty?

    Also, there are over 7 billion people. How many more do you want? Our highways are already straining under the increase in population over the past couple of decades.

    I’m all for large families- if we have the living conditions of 1900. But infant mortality is low, lifespans are longer than ever and there are (thankfully) no major wars to cull the population.

  114. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Only in the short term. You cannot have perpetual growth without an ecological or military catastrophe. There are ways to manage negative population growth without short term fixes like importing foreign low wage workers.

  115. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Immigration (population growth) is needed to fund their Ponzi scheme of social welfare benefits as an aging population, combined with less-than-replacement fertility, has caused an inverted family tree, namely: 4 grandparents have 2 children who have 1 grandchild. Top-heavy, old-age social benefit schemes don’t survive these demographics.

    Unfortunately, immigrants arrive, attracted by welfare benefits, add to social welfare liabilities.

    Additionally, jobs are fewer due to automation, productivity gains in industry, with mix changing to less-labor intensive, information-based economy requiring educated, language-literate skill-set incompatible with third world immigration.

    Stumping for immigration to address low birthrates is kicking the can down the road regarding unsustainable, unfunded social benefit schemes. It’s adding irresponsibility on top of already existing fiscal irresponsibility.

  116. @R.G. Camara
    Someday, a ton of shit is going to come out about the negative effects of The Pill. We're talking cancer risk increases, ovarian damage, personality changes, mental health effects, broken marriages etc. I firmly believe The Pill is going to one day be revealed to be right up there with treating people with mercury and doctors not washing their hands as one of the big "they were literally destroying people's health and lives, those idiots!" events in medical history.

    For example, the correlation between women who use The Pill and women on some sort of other drug for their mental health has to be something like 90% -- I've never known a girl using birth control who didn't also need another pharmaceutical to get through the week. Yet the studies aren't out there, or aren't well publicized.

    To my knowledge, there's really not ANY widely known long-term studies of The Pill on any of these subjects, or at least not a lot of them. Likely the few that have been have been junk science; but you don't need to have a study to see that chemically screwing with the most important natural function of a large number of human females is going to have some true negative outcomes that are measurable and quantifiable.

    The Catholic Church would've been the prime mover on all those studies from the get go, but suspiciously Vatican II happened right as The Pill came to market. The Church failed to back up its faith-based moral teachings with a lot of science, which would've helped a lot of lukewarm Catholics to reject The Pill. Sad, but hopefully purging the commies and homos one day (as well as the entire Jesuit order) will get them back on track.

    People forget that one reason the Catholic Church had a monopoly in Europe was it offered a lot of worldly truth. Science in the Middle Ages was protected and sponsored by the Church, the Church was the only literate safe keeper of records, the CHurch educated men vastly superior to secular society, monks taught people self-sufficiency and improved growing techniques, etc. The Church's moral teachings would've not been so widely accepted if they hadn't proven quite useful in their scientific rigor.

    I’m all for lower birth rates but you are right about the pill. It’s very dangerous. Contributes to mood disorders, obesity and strokes. Wouldn’t be surprised if it also increases chances of certain types of cancer.

    However I don’t see it going anywhere. You’d be surprised how many upper middle class women (like myself) don’t take the pill but still manage to completely control our fertility. The problem is middle, lower middle class women need the pill, because the bottom 50 percent of men are either too stupid or too aggressive to use condoms or other methods like rhythm, pull out etc correctly. So a lack of the pill would just lead to even more dysgenic breeding than currently. As an aside the pill really has no impact on the poorest women because they either don’t have access or are usually too stupid to use the pill correctly…they need depo provera, which may be even more more dangerous than the pill.

  117. @Jonathan Mason

    No wonder we are not reproducing ourselves. We have turned small families into a marker of good social status.
     
    I wrote a paper on a Public Health course more than twenty years ago in which I argued that women who started to reproduce early and produced more children were actually the winners from an evolutionary point of view, since it would be their genes that would populate the future population of our country.

    Obviously my argument owned a lot to Richard Dawkins' famous book The Selfish Gene, but I did not get a very good grade for it as it contradicted all the conventional wisdom of the public health community, which was that humans ought to be like Sumatran orang-utangs and devote a large part of their lives to raising a single offspring and teaching it skills prized in the orang-utang community.

    Innumeracy and permanency bias are facts of life for many liberals.

  118. @Jesse
    Yes, and who could possibly have foretold that having all your poor dependent on one crop could backfire?

    Frankly, if the same thing happened in Africa right now you'd have no problem blaming the Africans for having more kids than they knew how to feed.

    And the Irish emigration was, like South Korean baby selling, a way of avoiding solving their own problems. Not to mention what a catastrophe it was for the countries on the receiving end.

    In the Andes, it is rare for a farmer to only plant one variety of potato. Most farmers plant on hillsides. Different sub plots will have different elevations and different shades. Sometimes even different amounts of rain. So one farmer may plant several varieties of potatoes, and the aggregate of all the farmers gives a wide variety of potatoes.

    That way, if a disease wipes out one variety of potato, there are still plenty of others to go around.

    The potato turned out to be the perfect food for parts of Northern Europe. It grows well in cold climates and has a lot of calories. Not only Ireland, but Scandinavia had a significant population boom after the potato was introduced.

    The English, with their scientific bent, decided on one particular variety of potato as being THE optimal potato to grow in Ireland. So only that variety was grown. When the Potato Blight came around, the results were catastrophic. Immigration to the US made a big difference. There are now about 10x as many Irish in the US as in Ireland.

    Could we make the same mistake again?

    The big burger chains, led by MacDonalds, decided THE optimal potato for fries is the Russert Potato. The Russert Potato is also used for tator tots, and is the most popular potato in the US by far. Something like 95% of potatoes grown in the US are Russert.

    What happens if a disease comes along and destroys the Russert Potato ?

    • Replies: @William Badwhite

    What happens if a disease comes along and destroys the Russert Potato ?
     
    The remaining 5% of potatoes would get really expensive, but nobody would starve because there are other things to eat besides potatoes. I half wonder if the Irish emigrated because they were just really sick of potatoes. Didn't anyone fish there? Rhetorical question.
    , @Jonathan Mason

    What happens if a disease comes along and destroys the Russert Potato ?
     
    Switch over to Russet potatoes.

    http://www.throughlinegroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Tim-Russert.jpg
  119. @Jesse
    There are plenty of white moderates and progressives who wanted big families but forwent/delayed them because they simply couldn't afford them.

    (1) They deeply resent people who then went out and had kids they then needed govt/charity support for. You'd be astonished as to how popular policies like restricting benefits to the first 2 kids are.

    (2) Pricing these people out of famlly life, then mocking them for being barren or outbred, is obnoxious and a perfect way to ensure that they never vote GOP or conservative.

    There are plenty of white moderates and progressives who wanted big families but forwent/delayed them because they simply couldn’t afford them.

    No one ever seems to treat this demographic as a separate category worthy of study: Aging people who forewent children altogether. Perhaps they could be called “Never Nesters” to contrast with “Empty Nesters.”

    Do they tend to get more conservative with age? Do they form deeper friendships to compensate for lack of immediate family? What do they do with all the extra resources they didn’t have to spend on their children?

    There’s going to be a lot of these (mostly white) people in the future.

  120. The article about Chetty’s dirt theorizing (Magic versus Tragic) was obviously stupid, but this morning the NYT had an article prominently displayed on their front page that is at least an order of magnitude more stupid:

    Stopped, Ticketed, Fined: The Pitfalls of Driving While Black in Ferguson
    Despite five years of changes in Missouri, black drivers continue to be stopped at much higher rates than white drivers in communities throughout the state.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/us/black-drivers-traffic-stops.html?searchResultPosition=1

    The article describes blacks who have been racistly oppressed by the police for speeding, driving with a suspended license, broken tail lights, driving without insurance, not paying tickets, and ignoring court dates. It turns out that the cops can racistly oppress black drivers for this sort of stuff even when the vehicle has dark, tinted windows, though it’s not explained how the cops can tell that a driver is black without seeing the driver. The Ferguson Chief of Police and more than half of the Ferguson cops are now black, but the racial disparities in traffic stops are obviously still because of racism. Redlining a couple of generations ago must be part of it.

    Most of the comments point out how idiotic the article is. The jokes write themselves!

    Someone at the NYT must have noticed how embarrassingly stupid the article is, so it has now been relegated to an inconspicuous spot on the “US News” page.

    • Agree: jim jones
  121. @Jack D
    Sure, it's just like pharma. In the US we have a mixed economy - the government socializes the losses and the private sector privatizes the profits. It's the best of both worlds!

    Some truth to that.

    The way student loans have been run in the US has been great for schools, especially the fly-by-night Trump U places that grab massive amounts of student loans for a bullsh!t fake education.
    It has been great for banks and often unscrupulous loan consolidation companies.

    It has been terrible for the borrowers and the taxpayers.

    Joe Biden is one of the people who did the most to make the student loan situation so dreadful.

    The smartest way I have seen someone handle the student loan situation:

    There is a fellow I know, village president of a small village in Wisconsin, who did the following:

    1. Instead of getting a student loan, he put his tuition on a credit card.
    2. When his business went south, he managed to get all his assets into rental properties and all his debts into unsecured loans.
    3. He was about to declare bankruptcy, but found that if he did so he would lose all his assets.
    4. He found some interesting clauses put into credit card agreements that were inserted to screw over the consumer. He turned those clauses around to walk away from hundreds of thousands of dollars of unsecured debt.

    Debt gone, assets still there, no student loans.

    You may not agree with what he did, but it was 100% legal and mostly exploited the greed of companies that had clauses backfire on them.

  122. @Anon
    I ran across this story in an expat site for France:

    Did you know? The perks and prizes for French parents with lots of kids.

    https://www.thelocal.fr/20190213/did-you-know-parents-in-france-who-have-more-than-two-kids-get-perks-and-prizes

    President Jacques Chirac pinning a gold medal on Martine Baumann, mother of ten:

    https://www.thelocal.fr/userdata/images/article/f569f00c089cedc60fe82f97966ab7a27f9f60a4702ecdc2dc64da8ee8c82962.jpg

    Big families get train and Metro discounts and other decreased prices. In addition, mom gets a medal, which looks like something de Gaulle would have worn.

    The Wikipedia page is out of date. There are no longer three classes of medals, so no more gold medal for 10 kids.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Médaille_de_la_Famille_française

    This wouldn’t work in the U.S. First of all, most of the candidates for medals would be teenaged black girls. But then none of them would pass the “raised in a dignified manner and provided with proper care” investigation. You’d end up with a few white Catholics and Mormons. Disparate impact! Racism!

    This wouldn’t work in the U.S. First of all, most of the candidates for medals would be teenaged black girls. But then none of them would pass the “raised in a dignified manner and provided with proper care” investigation. You’d end up with a few white Catholics and Mormons. Disparate impact! Racism!

    Here’s an interesting (to me) idea that I’d like to see Steve address at some point: Could the Democrat’s dingbat “free college for all” plan actually end up working as a Trojan Horse pro-white eugenics program?

    The idea is that college-educated whites defer childbearing because of the anticipated cost of putting their progeny through college. If they know the government will be picking up that particular tab, they will be inclined to have more (white) kids. And since this incentive only applies to those who assume their kids will be college-bound in the first place, it probably won’t affect the fertility of poor blacks and Hispanics.

    If nothing else, it would be fun to troll Elizabeth Warren for advocating a white supremacist eugenics plan.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    Free college would probably increase the fertility of whites and Asians.

    One of the reasons why fertility is down is the god awful cost of having kids. The catch-22 being the only ones who have the incomes to have kids are struggling with student loans. So only the rich or people on welfare can afford it.

    In Europe college is free, but much harder to get into. People without college education generally get good jobs through trade schools.

    It would seem that Europe should be a great place to have kids. Except it is so crowded that the housing costs are unbearable, so few if any kids. Then mass immigration to keep up the supply of cheap labor and to raise the housing costs.

    I wouldn’t mind the US having a more European education system. But we would need much lower immigration levels to have housing cheap enough for parents to afford.
  123. Might one ask Nicholas Kristof if he and his wife did their bit for social uplift by bringing up their children with lots of ghetto kids?

  124. @Paleo Liberal
    In the Andes, it is rare for a farmer to only plant one variety of potato. Most farmers plant on hillsides. Different sub plots will have different elevations and different shades. Sometimes even different amounts of rain. So one farmer may plant several varieties of potatoes, and the aggregate of all the farmers gives a wide variety of potatoes.

    That way, if a disease wipes out one variety of potato, there are still plenty of others to go around.

    The potato turned out to be the perfect food for parts of Northern Europe. It grows well in cold climates and has a lot of calories. Not only Ireland, but Scandinavia had a significant population boom after the potato was introduced.

    The English, with their scientific bent, decided on one particular variety of potato as being THE optimal potato to grow in Ireland. So only that variety was grown. When the Potato Blight came around, the results were catastrophic. Immigration to the US made a big difference. There are now about 10x as many Irish in the US as in Ireland.

    Could we make the same mistake again?

    The big burger chains, led by MacDonalds, decided THE optimal potato for fries is the Russert Potato. The Russert Potato is also used for tator tots, and is the most popular potato in the US by far. Something like 95% of potatoes grown in the US are Russert.

    What happens if a disease comes along and destroys the Russert Potato ?

    What happens if a disease comes along and destroys the Russert Potato ?

    The remaining 5% of potatoes would get really expensive, but nobody would starve because there are other things to eat besides potatoes. I half wonder if the Irish emigrated because they were just really sick of potatoes. Didn’t anyone fish there? Rhetorical question.

    • Replies: @Jesse
    The Irish don't like fish. They've always had fishing villages, but they were desperately poor and emptied out even quicker than the Rust Belt.
    , @R.G. Camara

    I half wonder if the Irish emigrated because they were just really sick of potatoes. Didn’t anyone fish there?
     
    The English held most of the land and forced most of the Irish to work for them. Then most of the food produced was promptly exported away from the Irish. The Irish were forced onto a near potato-only subsistence diet because the potato needed far less car by them on their home plots and because the potato was seen as a low vegetable beneath English tastes.

    Then when the blight hit, the English refused to amend their extreme regulation and allow Irish food to be fed to the Irish. Nonsensically, this is often called "lassez-faire" but it was anything but. Many people have speculated that this was deliberate starvation by the English bureaucrats, who saw the blight as a gift to rid themselves of the excess Irish chattel who were too hard to subdue completely.
    , @Alden
    The Irish didn’t govern themselves. The English made it very hard for the Irish Catholics to raise food other than potatoes.

    Please read my comment 180. It’s the truth about the numerous famines and explains why only coastal Irish Catholics were allowed to fish.
  125. @William Badwhite

    What happens if a disease comes along and destroys the Russert Potato ?
     
    The remaining 5% of potatoes would get really expensive, but nobody would starve because there are other things to eat besides potatoes. I half wonder if the Irish emigrated because they were just really sick of potatoes. Didn't anyone fish there? Rhetorical question.

    The Irish don’t like fish. They’ve always had fishing villages, but they were desperately poor and emptied out even quicker than the Rust Belt.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The Irish don’t like fish. They’ve always had fishing villages, but they were desperately poor and emptied out even quicker than the Rust Belt.
     
    Iceland in reverse.
    , @Anonymous
    The Irish don’t like fish.

    Why don't they like fish? Are there fish aplenty in the waters off Ireland?
    , @R.G. Camara
    Liar. It's not about not liking fish, its about the fact that the English forced them to work the land as near-serfs and eat only potatoes. The Irish would've gladly eaten fish had they been freed of their obligations to the English conquerors.

    So nice try with the lie again, little girl.
    , @Alden
    Please read my comment 180. It was illegal for Catholics to fish in rivers lakes and ponds.
    , @Alden
    You haven’t read comment 180 yet have you?
  126. @Anonymous

    Raphael Richman
    New York City Aug. 4

    Nicholas - Great article. Ties totally to recommendations in "The Color of Law" (2017) by Richard Rothstein. An eye-opening book on the history of racism in the USA. Rothstein documents how Federal law (from Social Security to the GI Bill to the (Un-)Fair Housing Act, to Tax Law on deductions for single family homes etc.) has unconstitutionally favored whites (like me) and hugely disadvantaged minorities over the generations. And, how our history textbooks skip over it.

    America has a blindspot on this. That helps a bigot like Trump motivate voters (likely unaware of this history), disparage communities like Baltimore, that have suffered under it, as he stifles ideas that could ameliorate the situation. Trump's father profited greatly from racism in real estate and taught Donald how to keep it going. Too poorly-read and too selfish to know it, Trump is day by day perpetuating the harm Seattle's Experiment is trying to undo.

    Let's hope the Seattle Experiment prevails.
    28 Recommend
     

    I always wonder why people like this right-minded commenter, or Raj Chetty or Nicholas Kristof don’t just pack up and move into black neighborhoods, teach those poor black folks the right way to live as they do. If all the bleeding heart liberals like them do that, there wouldn’t be any bad neighborhoods left. Why elevate one family at a time when they can elevate an entire neighborhood?

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    That is called gentrification.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    I always wonder why people like this right-minded commenter, or Raj Chetty or Nicholas Kristof don’t just pack up and move into black neighborhoods, teach those poor black folks the right way to live as they do. If all the bleeding heart liberals like them do that, there wouldn’t be any bad neighborhoods left. Why elevate one family at a time when they can elevate an entire neighborhood?
     
    They are all hypocrites. That is the core of socialism, someone else pays for the virtue of the socialist.
  127. @Colin Wright
    'It’s not encouraging for the future that white commenters are notably disgusted by the idea of anyone reproducing above replacement level. They mention the woman’s particular situation but this seems only an intensifier for their consistent distaste for large families generally.'

    I think large families are fine. They're particularly fine if they're white, but they're okay if they're brown or yellow, too.

    However, I assume the parents are paying for it all -- or at least aren't on public assistance.

    An extended family member has 5 children and another in the oven. They are married and in their 30’s. They live in a poor rural neighborhood and choose to homeschool rather than send their kids to the horrible neighborhood school. They are religious so go to church weekly. The children are all adorable and very well behaved. The husband works hard (self-employed) to take care of the family. They don’t have much but they are happy and self supporting, do not live on public assistance or ask for help even from family. That is the difference between poor whites and poor blacks.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    The husband works hard (self-employed) to take care of the family.
     
    What does he do for a living?
  128. @Paleo Liberal
    In the Andes, it is rare for a farmer to only plant one variety of potato. Most farmers plant on hillsides. Different sub plots will have different elevations and different shades. Sometimes even different amounts of rain. So one farmer may plant several varieties of potatoes, and the aggregate of all the farmers gives a wide variety of potatoes.

    That way, if a disease wipes out one variety of potato, there are still plenty of others to go around.

    The potato turned out to be the perfect food for parts of Northern Europe. It grows well in cold climates and has a lot of calories. Not only Ireland, but Scandinavia had a significant population boom after the potato was introduced.

    The English, with their scientific bent, decided on one particular variety of potato as being THE optimal potato to grow in Ireland. So only that variety was grown. When the Potato Blight came around, the results were catastrophic. Immigration to the US made a big difference. There are now about 10x as many Irish in the US as in Ireland.

    Could we make the same mistake again?

    The big burger chains, led by MacDonalds, decided THE optimal potato for fries is the Russert Potato. The Russert Potato is also used for tator tots, and is the most popular potato in the US by far. Something like 95% of potatoes grown in the US are Russert.

    What happens if a disease comes along and destroys the Russert Potato ?

    What happens if a disease comes along and destroys the Russert Potato ?

    Switch over to Russet potatoes.

    • LOL: Paleo Liberal
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Damn your eyes! You beat me to the smart-assed draw.

    I will add, though, that we need not fear: the hardy Russert potato has produced another crop to sustain a new generation:

    https://i0.wp.com/nyppagesix.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/russert.jpg

    (Hey, I couldn't see these glorious photographs of the Russert Potatoes at their potato-faced best go to waste.)

    If we must someday switch, I recommend the Mortenson Potato:

    https://i.pinimg.com/736x/03/6e/d0/036ed0f284d4b6ac3e827c5188b0fd44.jpg
  129. @Kronos
    Best stick family ever!

    https://odditymall.com/includes/content/dads-in-jail-stick-figure-family-decal-thumb.jpg

    And also a stick family with one man, 10 women, 14 kids. That’s your typical NFL/NBA player.

  130. @Hypnotoad666

    This wouldn’t work in the U.S. First of all, most of the candidates for medals would be teenaged black girls. But then none of them would pass the “raised in a dignified manner and provided with proper care” investigation. You’d end up with a few white Catholics and Mormons. Disparate impact! Racism!
     
    Here's an interesting (to me) idea that I'd like to see Steve address at some point: Could the Democrat's dingbat "free college for all" plan actually end up working as a Trojan Horse pro-white eugenics program?

    The idea is that college-educated whites defer childbearing because of the anticipated cost of putting their progeny through college. If they know the government will be picking up that particular tab, they will be inclined to have more (white) kids. And since this incentive only applies to those who assume their kids will be college-bound in the first place, it probably won't affect the fertility of poor blacks and Hispanics.

    If nothing else, it would be fun to troll Elizabeth Warren for advocating a white supremacist eugenics plan.

    Free college would probably increase the fertility of whites and Asians.

    One of the reasons why fertility is down is the god awful cost of having kids. The catch-22 being the only ones who have the incomes to have kids are struggling with student loans. So only the rich or people on welfare can afford it.

    In Europe college is free, but much harder to get into. People without college education generally get good jobs through trade schools.

    It would seem that Europe should be a great place to have kids. Except it is so crowded that the housing costs are unbearable, so few if any kids. Then mass immigration to keep up the supply of cheap labor and to raise the housing costs.

    I wouldn’t mind the US having a more European education system. But we would need much lower immigration levels to have housing cheap enough for parents to afford.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    I wouldn’t mind the US having a more European education system. But we would need much lower immigration levels to have housing cheap enough for parents to afford
     
    Most people forget that a lot of people in the US live in mobile homes, now known officially as manufactured homes, aka trailers. Trailers comprise about 8% of all housing units in the US. We have about 825.00o of them here in Florida out of 6.3 million households, so about 12%.

    Trailers are cheap compared to houses. You can get a double wide for about $39,000, which is about the same as the cost of a Tesla car. If you have a bit of money, you can put one on 5 acres and grow your own chickens, eggs, and herbs and veg, breed pit-bulls, and keep a few goats to do the mowing. (But don't let the pit-bulls get to the goats.)

    http://waynefriermacclenny.com/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=pbV591zFIcc

    The payments on this home could be about $300 per month over 20 years, (not counting land or taxes) depending on what kind of interest rate you could get. Credit Unions usually offer the best rates and there are also government backed loan programs.

    Most people have no idea how many people live in trailer parks. Some are for families, some for retirees, and others for single people. Some trailer parks specialize in sex offenders, who are not allowed to live near schools, or in former prisoners.

    In a city like Jacksonville, FL, you will find signs discreetly advertising manufactured homes, and then once you pass through the gates, you will find yourself in a vast maze of winding lanes with an incomprehensible numbering system incorporating hundreds of homes and streets that your phone navigation does not know about. It is like stepping into a third world country.

    I am not sure that lowering immigration numbers would really reduce the price of the cheapest type of homes.

    http://www.residencervpark.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/L2Kql2GXcUvXoD26n4PhrpdSPl-JGCRC5oT5igS6Eq0800x-600.jpg
    , @Jonathan Mason

    I wouldn’t mind the US having a more European education system. But we would need much lower immigration levels to have housing cheap enough for parents to afford
     
    Most people forget that a lot of people in the US live in mobile homes, now known officially as manufactured homes, aka trailers. Trailers comprise about 8% of all housing units in the US. We have about 825.00o of them here in Florida out of 6.3 million households, so about 12%.

    Trailers are cheap compared to houses. You can get a double wide for about $39,000, which is about the same as the cost of a Tesla car. If you have a bit of money, you can put one on 5 acres and grow your own chickens, eggs, and herbs and veg, breed pit-bulls, and keep a few goats to do the mowing. (But don't let the pit-bulls get to the goats.)

    http://waynefriermacclenny.com/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=pbV591zFIcc

    The payments on this home could be about $300 per month over 20 years, (not counting land or taxes) depending on what kind of interest rate you could get. Credit Unions usually offer the best rates and there are also government backed loan programs.

    Most people have no idea how many people live in trailer parks. Some are for families, some for retirees, and others for single people. Some trailer parks specialize in sex offenders, who are not allowed to live near schools, or in former prisoners.

    In a city like Jacksonville, FL, you will find signs discreetly advertising manufactured homes, and then once you pass through the gates, you will find yourself in a vast maze of winding lanes with an incomprehensible numbering system incorporating hundreds of homes and streets that your phone navigation does not know about. It is like stepping into a third world country.

    I am not sure that lowering immigration numbers would really reduce the price of the cheapest type of homes.

    http://www.residencervpark.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/L2Kql2GXcUvXoD26n4PhrpdSPl-JGCRC5oT5igS6Eq0800x-600.jpg
  131. @R.G. Camara
    Someday, a ton of shit is going to come out about the negative effects of The Pill. We're talking cancer risk increases, ovarian damage, personality changes, mental health effects, broken marriages etc. I firmly believe The Pill is going to one day be revealed to be right up there with treating people with mercury and doctors not washing their hands as one of the big "they were literally destroying people's health and lives, those idiots!" events in medical history.

    For example, the correlation between women who use The Pill and women on some sort of other drug for their mental health has to be something like 90% -- I've never known a girl using birth control who didn't also need another pharmaceutical to get through the week. Yet the studies aren't out there, or aren't well publicized.

    To my knowledge, there's really not ANY widely known long-term studies of The Pill on any of these subjects, or at least not a lot of them. Likely the few that have been have been junk science; but you don't need to have a study to see that chemically screwing with the most important natural function of a large number of human females is going to have some true negative outcomes that are measurable and quantifiable.

    The Catholic Church would've been the prime mover on all those studies from the get go, but suspiciously Vatican II happened right as The Pill came to market. The Church failed to back up its faith-based moral teachings with a lot of science, which would've helped a lot of lukewarm Catholics to reject The Pill. Sad, but hopefully purging the commies and homos one day (as well as the entire Jesuit order) will get them back on track.

    People forget that one reason the Catholic Church had a monopoly in Europe was it offered a lot of worldly truth. Science in the Middle Ages was protected and sponsored by the Church, the Church was the only literate safe keeper of records, the CHurch educated men vastly superior to secular society, monks taught people self-sufficiency and improved growing techniques, etc. The Church's moral teachings would've not been so widely accepted if they hadn't proven quite useful in their scientific rigor.

    Someday, a ton of shit is going to come out about the negative effects of The Pill.

    I am not so sure.

    The Pill works, of course, by releasing enough estrogen and progesterone to reproduce the hormonal effect of pregnancy, thus shutting down ovulation. But being pregnant is by no means an “unnatural” state for women. In fact, it’s probably their most natural state when they are healthiest and at their most “female.”

    The Pill has some bad side effects to be sure, such as an increased risk of breast cancer. But these risks seem to be more than compensated by the positive side effects such as protecting against ovarian cancer, reducing PMS, etc. See e.g., https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323199.php; https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/08/estrogen-and-female-anxiety/

    A certain strain of feminism is anti-Pill on ideological grounds because it’s the woman’s obligation to take it. They’d rather see all men get vasectomies.

  132. @Jesse
    Yes, and who could possibly have foretold that having all your poor dependent on one crop could backfire?

    Frankly, if the same thing happened in Africa right now you'd have no problem blaming the Africans for having more kids than they knew how to feed.

    And the Irish emigration was, like South Korean baby selling, a way of avoiding solving their own problems. Not to mention what a catastrophe it was for the countries on the receiving end.

    Yes, and who could possibly have foretold that having all your poor dependent on one crop could backfire?

    EBT is the current staple crop of the poor.

  133. @Jesse
    Proving my point. If the idea that men should wear condoms to prevent pregnancy makes you *this* pissy and hormonal, then you need to take a long, hard look at yourself.

    Condoms would solve a good 80-90% of the unwanted pregnancy problem.

    Proving my point.

    Proving nothing at all. You tried, in a painfully womanish way, to ringfence your witless “solution” from criticism with a premature demand that nobody be mean to you. And then squealed “Aha! Gotcha!” when praise wasn’t forthcoming.
    Pissy and hormonal? Projecting harder than CineWorld there, madame.

    Condoms would solve a good 80-90% of the unwanted pregnancy problem.

    What you seem unable to grasp, in your UMC fairyland, is that the overwhelming majority of these breeders desperately WANT to get pregnant, as soon as they are physically able. Serially, by any means necessary.

    The father is essentially irrelevant and will be rejected if he attempts to stick around. It’s actually preferable to them that he’s in jail. Or dead. Because he also is vanishingly unlikely to have any sort of legal income and consumes resources, and can impede access to the gibs-trough for various bureaucratic reasons.

    It’s the only career open to underclass females, certainly in Europe and also Over There from what I read.

    Ask them. They’re often quite smug about how clever they’re being. Particularly when trolleyed on airline booze, on the Easyjet to Alicante (several times a year, from what they loudly boast).
    Pays way better than any job they might get even if gloriously child-free. The jackpot is a “disabled” child, gets you a free and frequently replaced vehicle of people-carrier type, in UK at least. Easy to come by, given how much they drink (etc.) while preggers.
    Guaranteed income, copious (when all the bennies and subs are totted up), and lasts for leisurely decades, if she times it right.

    I’m not even mad, girl. If these meatbags want to vegetate like sub-par cattle in the iron grip of the State instead of having actual lives, well, that’s a bit sad. But not my problem.
    Don’t even mind the taxes, our gov.uk pisses away more than they could ever cost up the wall, on the most ridiculous stuff. Often to do with War, far away, somewhere hot and sandy that nobody cares about.

    There. Did you get enough attention yet?

    • Disagree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Damn it – that was meant to be the laughter business; in fact I could not agree more with your assessment of it all!
  134. @guest
    Roman Catholicism has persisted for 2,000 years, many of them times of Plenty. I think you might notice the Irish and Rawandans had political difficulties entirely distinct from the sexual strtictures of their religion.

    I don’t doubt that the practice of RC, or any other religion, can persist while simultaneously leading its followers to misery.

    • Agree: Jesse
    • Replies: @Alden
    Please read my comment 180 about the Irish famines. You might learn something.
  135. @guest
    Roman Catholicism has persisted for 2,000 years, many of them times of Plenty. I think you might notice the Irish and Rawandans had political difficulties entirely distinct from the sexual strtictures of their religion.

    Christianity, initially as a minority interest, yes. Full on conversion? Patrick, 1600-odd years ago.

    There were Christians in Ireland before Saint Patrick, but we have no information as to how they worshipped, and their existence is ignored by Tirechan’s 7th-century Catalogus Sanctorum Hiberniae, which divides the saints of Ireland into three orders covering about 225 years from the coming of St. Patrick in 440 in the reign of Laoghaire MacNeil to the reign of Blathmac and Diarmait sons of Aodh Slane in 665.

    Actual Roman Catholics, and not some odd schismatic native creed? 847 years, slightly more recently than when my own family arrived in the Big Island Next Door. As raging Papists, of course.

    After that we have an obscure period, during which the Roman Easter which had been accepted in South Ireland in 626-28, became universal, being accepted by North Ireland in 692, and it seems probable that a Mass on the model of the Carlsruhe and Piacenza fragments and the Stowe and Bobbio Missals – a Roman Canon with some features of a non-Roman type – came into general use. It was not until the 12th century that the separate Irish Rite, which, according to Gilbert, Bishop of Limerick (1106–39), was in use in nearly all Ireland, was abolished. Saint Malachy, bishop of Armagh (1134–48), began the campaign against it, and at the Synod of Cashel, in 1172, a Roman Rite “juxta quod Anglicana observat Ecclesia” was finally substituted.

  136. @Paleo Liberal
    Free college would probably increase the fertility of whites and Asians.

    One of the reasons why fertility is down is the god awful cost of having kids. The catch-22 being the only ones who have the incomes to have kids are struggling with student loans. So only the rich or people on welfare can afford it.

    In Europe college is free, but much harder to get into. People without college education generally get good jobs through trade schools.

    It would seem that Europe should be a great place to have kids. Except it is so crowded that the housing costs are unbearable, so few if any kids. Then mass immigration to keep up the supply of cheap labor and to raise the housing costs.

    I wouldn’t mind the US having a more European education system. But we would need much lower immigration levels to have housing cheap enough for parents to afford.

    I wouldn’t mind the US having a more European education system. But we would need much lower immigration levels to have housing cheap enough for parents to afford

    Most people forget that a lot of people in the US live in mobile homes, now known officially as manufactured homes, aka trailers. Trailers comprise about 8% of all housing units in the US. We have about 825.00o of them here in Florida out of 6.3 million households, so about 12%.

    Trailers are cheap compared to houses. You can get a double wide for about $39,000, which is about the same as the cost of a Tesla car. If you have a bit of money, you can put one on 5 acres and grow your own chickens, eggs, and herbs and veg, breed pit-bulls, and keep a few goats to do the mowing. (But don’t let the pit-bulls get to the goats.)

    http://waynefriermacclenny.com/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=pbV591zFIcc

    The payments on this home could be about $300 per month over 20 years, (not counting land or taxes) depending on what kind of interest rate you could get. Credit Unions usually offer the best rates and there are also government backed loan programs.

    Most people have no idea how many people live in trailer parks. Some are for families, some for retirees, and others for single people. Some trailer parks specialize in sex offenders, who are not allowed to live near schools, or in former prisoners.

    In a city like Jacksonville, FL, you will find signs discreetly advertising manufactured homes, and then once you pass through the gates, you will find yourself in a vast maze of winding lanes with an incomprehensible numbering system incorporating hundreds of homes and streets that your phone navigation does not know about. It is like stepping into a third world country.

    I am not sure that lowering immigration numbers would really reduce the price of the cheapest type of homes.

  137. @Paleo Liberal
    Free college would probably increase the fertility of whites and Asians.

    One of the reasons why fertility is down is the god awful cost of having kids. The catch-22 being the only ones who have the incomes to have kids are struggling with student loans. So only the rich or people on welfare can afford it.

    In Europe college is free, but much harder to get into. People without college education generally get good jobs through trade schools.

    It would seem that Europe should be a great place to have kids. Except it is so crowded that the housing costs are unbearable, so few if any kids. Then mass immigration to keep up the supply of cheap labor and to raise the housing costs.

    I wouldn’t mind the US having a more European education system. But we would need much lower immigration levels to have housing cheap enough for parents to afford.

    I wouldn’t mind the US having a more European education system. But we would need much lower immigration levels to have housing cheap enough for parents to afford

    Most people forget that a lot of people in the US live in mobile homes, now known officially as manufactured homes, aka trailers. Trailers comprise about 8% of all housing units in the US. We have about 825.00o of them here in Florida out of 6.3 million households, so about 12%.

    Trailers are cheap compared to houses. You can get a double wide for about $39,000, which is about the same as the cost of a Tesla car. If you have a bit of money, you can put one on 5 acres and grow your own chickens, eggs, and herbs and veg, breed pit-bulls, and keep a few goats to do the mowing. (But don’t let the pit-bulls get to the goats.)

    http://waynefriermacclenny.com/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=pbV591zFIcc

    The payments on this home could be about $300 per month over 20 years, (not counting land or taxes) depending on what kind of interest rate you could get. Credit Unions usually offer the best rates and there are also government backed loan programs.

    Most people have no idea how many people live in trailer parks. Some are for families, some for retirees, and others for single people. Some trailer parks specialize in sex offenders, who are not allowed to live near schools, or in former prisoners.

    In a city like Jacksonville, FL, you will find signs discreetly advertising manufactured homes, and then once you pass through the gates, you will find yourself in a vast maze of winding lanes with an incomprehensible numbering system incorporating hundreds of homes and streets that your phone navigation does not know about. It is like stepping into a third world country.

    I am not sure that lowering immigration numbers would really reduce the price of the cheapest type of homes.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    But don’t let the pit-bulls get to the goats.
     
    Or each other!


    Case Study: Animal Fighting – Michael Vick



    https://c8.alamy.com/comp/C1HJ9M/michael-vick-mugshot-C1HJ9M.jpg
    , @Paleo Liberal
    Lower immigration would not lower the cost of a mobile home.
    It would decrease the rate of increase of the lot price, and possible lower the cost at some point in the future.

    In some cases the owners of these parks find that their land is getting valuable, and they kick out everyone in the park. So the availability of mobile home parks is decreasing in many parts of the country.
    , @Alden
    What’s the monthly air conditioning bill for a trailer in Florida heat and humidity?

    Unless you confine poultry to one of those impenetrable metal buildings they always always eventually get devoured by raccoons weasels foxes hawks vultures stray dogs whatever critters around.

    Really, my brothers a farmer poultry is very hard to keep safe from the wild critters. Unless you have a big huge not castrated gander. Ever seen one? They are huge compared to girl geese. And like all un castrated male farm animals mean ornery and aggressive. A nasty gander might scare off a fox or raccoon. But I don’t think they can really fight, just scare them off.

    Each to his own or what they can afford.
  138. Chetty is just advocating using the school busing strategy by applying that strategy to neighborhoods – move bad parents with bad kids from bad neighborhoods in to good neighborhoods with good parents with good kids and the “goodness” will inspire the bad to achieve beyond their capabilities. What could go wrong? White Fright leads to White Flight!

    • Replies: @Alden
    Entire cities and huge parts of other cities and suburbs were destroyed when bad black parents and their vicious black kids moved in to White neighborhoods. It’s been going in since before the civil war.

    Foreign diplomats in the 19th early 20th century used to joke that Washington DC was Africa, partly because of the climate, partly because of the blacks.
  139. @Mr McKenna
    It's been years since I read the NYT and frankly I'm amazed that they still have sensible people among their readership.

    Having six fatherless children...
     


    I’m appalled by women who can barely take care of themselves financially and then have several children. I find it very irresponsible.
     

    Bad culture, bad values, and bad behaviour replicate poverty.
     

    If Ms. Rath was truly determined to break the cycle of poverty, she wouldn’t have had six illegitimate children.
     
    Every one of these--and these are just a sample--are the sort of remarks that get you banned from many major news-oriented websites, not to mention deplatformed, blocked on social media, and drummed out of polite society.

    There's still a lot of good, solid common sense abroad in the society, but we now have 'gatekeepers' who increasingly prohibit anything of the kind, if and when it conflicts with their favored 'narratives'--and it almost invariably does. It won't end well.

    Every one of these–and these are just a sample–are the sort of remarks that get you banned from many major news-oriented websites, not to mention deplatformed, blocked on social media, and drummed out of polite society.

    The Purge Khalifa!

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    Never had a less refreshing dip than when i thought i'd cool off with a dip in the Gulf. LOL.
  140. @Moses

    The rich and powerful generally have lots of kids.

    Bill Gates has 3...
     
    Three is "lots of kids" in The Current Year?

    Three is “lots of kids” in The Current Year?

    Unfortunately, yes.

  141. @Tired of Not Winning
    I always wonder why people like this right-minded commenter, or Raj Chetty or Nicholas Kristof don't just pack up and move into black neighborhoods, teach those poor black folks the right way to live as they do. If all the bleeding heart liberals like them do that, there wouldn't be any bad neighborhoods left. Why elevate one family at a time when they can elevate an entire neighborhood?

    That is called gentrification.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar


    I always wonder why people like this right-minded commenter, or Raj Chetty or Nicholas Kristof don’t just pack up and move into black neighborhoods, teach those poor black folks the right way to live as they do.
     
    That is called gentrification.
     
    By the childless. Often led by homos.

    So using their progeny to civilize the locals' progeny isn't an option.

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    That is called gentrification.
     
    No, it is not. Gentrification is ethnically cleansing the undesirables. What Tired described is living with the undesirables. And almost all of you Liberals will not take the plunge.

    I do not blame you for not taking the plunge. But I do despise you for your hypocrisy and hubris.
  142. @Jonathan Mason

    I wouldn’t mind the US having a more European education system. But we would need much lower immigration levels to have housing cheap enough for parents to afford
     
    Most people forget that a lot of people in the US live in mobile homes, now known officially as manufactured homes, aka trailers. Trailers comprise about 8% of all housing units in the US. We have about 825.00o of them here in Florida out of 6.3 million households, so about 12%.

    Trailers are cheap compared to houses. You can get a double wide for about $39,000, which is about the same as the cost of a Tesla car. If you have a bit of money, you can put one on 5 acres and grow your own chickens, eggs, and herbs and veg, breed pit-bulls, and keep a few goats to do the mowing. (But don't let the pit-bulls get to the goats.)

    http://waynefriermacclenny.com/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=pbV591zFIcc

    The payments on this home could be about $300 per month over 20 years, (not counting land or taxes) depending on what kind of interest rate you could get. Credit Unions usually offer the best rates and there are also government backed loan programs.

    Most people have no idea how many people live in trailer parks. Some are for families, some for retirees, and others for single people. Some trailer parks specialize in sex offenders, who are not allowed to live near schools, or in former prisoners.

    In a city like Jacksonville, FL, you will find signs discreetly advertising manufactured homes, and then once you pass through the gates, you will find yourself in a vast maze of winding lanes with an incomprehensible numbering system incorporating hundreds of homes and streets that your phone navigation does not know about. It is like stepping into a third world country.

    I am not sure that lowering immigration numbers would really reduce the price of the cheapest type of homes.

    http://www.residencervpark.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/L2Kql2GXcUvXoD26n4PhrpdSPl-JGCRC5oT5igS6Eq0800x-600.jpg

    But don’t let the pit-bulls get to the goats.

    Or each other!

    Case Study: Animal Fighting – Michael Vick

    • Replies: @OFWHAP
    It's amazing the NFL deems Rush Limbaugh too toxic to allow back into the commentary booth, but Michael Vick has somehow made quite the comeback.
  143. @Jesse
    The Irish don't like fish. They've always had fishing villages, but they were desperately poor and emptied out even quicker than the Rust Belt.

    The Irish don’t like fish. They’ve always had fishing villages, but they were desperately poor and emptied out even quicker than the Rust Belt.

    Iceland in reverse.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Iceland in reverse.
     
    Icelanders have Irish ancestry. So what gives?
  144. @Moses

    The rich and powerful generally have lots of kids.

    Bill Gates has 3...
     
    Three is "lots of kids" in The Current Year?

    Three is “lots of kids” in The Current Year?

    Unfortunately, yes.

  145. @Jonathan Mason

    I wouldn’t mind the US having a more European education system. But we would need much lower immigration levels to have housing cheap enough for parents to afford
     
    Most people forget that a lot of people in the US live in mobile homes, now known officially as manufactured homes, aka trailers. Trailers comprise about 8% of all housing units in the US. We have about 825.00o of them here in Florida out of 6.3 million households, so about 12%.

    Trailers are cheap compared to houses. You can get a double wide for about $39,000, which is about the same as the cost of a Tesla car. If you have a bit of money, you can put one on 5 acres and grow your own chickens, eggs, and herbs and veg, breed pit-bulls, and keep a few goats to do the mowing. (But don't let the pit-bulls get to the goats.)

    http://waynefriermacclenny.com/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=pbV591zFIcc

    The payments on this home could be about $300 per month over 20 years, (not counting land or taxes) depending on what kind of interest rate you could get. Credit Unions usually offer the best rates and there are also government backed loan programs.

    Most people have no idea how many people live in trailer parks. Some are for families, some for retirees, and others for single people. Some trailer parks specialize in sex offenders, who are not allowed to live near schools, or in former prisoners.

    In a city like Jacksonville, FL, you will find signs discreetly advertising manufactured homes, and then once you pass through the gates, you will find yourself in a vast maze of winding lanes with an incomprehensible numbering system incorporating hundreds of homes and streets that your phone navigation does not know about. It is like stepping into a third world country.

    I am not sure that lowering immigration numbers would really reduce the price of the cheapest type of homes.

    http://www.residencervpark.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/L2Kql2GXcUvXoD26n4PhrpdSPl-JGCRC5oT5igS6Eq0800x-600.jpg

    Lower immigration would not lower the cost of a mobile home.
    It would decrease the rate of increase of the lot price, and possible lower the cost at some point in the future.

    In some cases the owners of these parks find that their land is getting valuable, and they kick out everyone in the park. So the availability of mobile home parks is decreasing in many parts of the country.

  146. @Paleo Liberal
    That is called gentrification.

    I always wonder why people like this right-minded commenter, or Raj Chetty or Nicholas Kristof don’t just pack up and move into black neighborhoods, teach those poor black folks the right way to live as they do.

    That is called gentrification.

    By the childless. Often led by homos.

    So using their progeny to civilize the locals’ progeny isn’t an option.

  147. @Anon
    One reason people used to have lots of kids is because so many kids died in childhood. You had to improve your odds of getting two or three into adulthood.

    Now you can just have one or two, and they will all survive into adulthood. But on the other hand, with so few kids, if one is in an accident and dies, or if one goes adult-onset schitzo, or if one is just an asshole of a kid, it is more of a hit on the parent. Had the parent had five or six kids, not that there isn’t grief at one of the kids dying or turning out bad, but it’s less of a tragedy. The average kid is average; half of kids are below average.

    What reasons are there not to have kids:

    -- Mom doesn’t want to blow out her tummy and birth canal and carry babies all the time. Can’t argue with that, I suppose.

    -- Cost of feeding and housing them: This seems to somehow mysteriously take care of itself. You feed them what you can feed them and they sleep where there is space. Malnutrition is absent in modern life; obesity is the problem, not scurvy, rickets, and beri-beri.

    -- Cost of educating them: Don’t educate them -- that is, college. College is a waste and a decreasingly valuable human capital quality signal to employers. Let them take the SAT and show that directly to employers. If the score isn’t so great, college wouldn’t help them. Let them get in the workforce fast and not waste four years. A kid who really wants college can figure out how to get it, and if you’re from a big family I reckon financial aid is easier.

    -- Costs of mobile phones: Wah ha ha! None for you, kids. By the way, we cannot afford a television either.

    -- Modern problems like child protective services and other ways government regulation may want to prevent you from raising your kids the way you want. Will leaving a responsible teen to take care of a younger sibling cause problems? Is it child abuse not to give a kid a mobile phone these days?

    Come on. Child protective services barely has the resources to intercede with parents who are failing to feed their kids or beating them till their bones break. They are certainly not going to come after you for teaching your kids non normative values.

  148. @Jesse
    The Irish don't like fish. They've always had fishing villages, but they were desperately poor and emptied out even quicker than the Rust Belt.

    The Irish don’t like fish.

    Why don’t they like fish? Are there fish aplenty in the waters off Ireland?

    • Replies: @Alden
    Please read my comment 180 about the severe food restrictions the English forced on the Irish Catholics for 300 years. Those restrictions exactly fit the definition of genocide. No different from Stalin and Ukraine.
  149. @Tired of Not Winning
    An extended family member has 5 children and another in the oven. They are married and in their 30's. They live in a poor rural neighborhood and choose to homeschool rather than send their kids to the horrible neighborhood school. They are religious so go to church weekly. The children are all adorable and very well behaved. The husband works hard (self-employed) to take care of the family. They don't have much but they are happy and self supporting, do not live on public assistance or ask for help even from family. That is the difference between poor whites and poor blacks.

    The husband works hard (self-employed) to take care of the family.

    What does he do for a living?

  150. @Reg Cæsar

    The Irish don’t like fish. They’ve always had fishing villages, but they were desperately poor and emptied out even quicker than the Rust Belt.
     
    Iceland in reverse.

    Iceland in reverse.

    Icelanders have Irish ancestry. So what gives?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    They love fish. The Irish don't-- per the previous commenter.

    I often met Icelandair and KLM flight crews at the same time. It was striking how much more "Nordic" the Dutch stews were. It was easy to see the quarter-quantum Irish slave ancestry in the Icelanders.

    Maybe they weren't slaves, but came along by their own will because the Vikings promised them the fish their neighbors spurned!

    And yes, I'm aware that the hiring pool in the Netherlands is sixty times that of Iceland's.
  151. Marian from Philadelphia, bless her heart, says:

    In future, I would opine that government programs for welfare and better housing need to be coupled with a limit to the number of children and free birth control.

    It’s always tough to read these well meaning folks offering their wisdom for how to address these “issues”. Poor dears don’t even know that what Marian proposes is FORBIDDEN and ILLEGAL because of DISPARATE IMPACT THEORY.

    iSteve readers already know about this though. To say that “people that have more than X amount of children” should be cut off is de facto discriminatory because it disproportionatly effects members of protected classes. Said in a more basic way: “its illegal because it primarily effects Hispanics”. See the example of California legislature attempting to limit Medicare payments to women after they’ve had 4 children on the taxpayer dime.

  152. I think the key is to change tragic dirt to magic dirt. You can do that by dropping an A-bomb on the place.

  153. @Jesse
    Take it from an Irish American with strong ties to the original country: Ireland has traditionally been massively overbred. It caused the Famine. It caused a huge amount of misery that, because the Papists managed to keep birth control away from people, is within livig memory.

    LMAO.

    No, little liar, it was the Potato Blight and the British extreme regulation —disallowing the sale of all non-Irish food in Ireland, and taking most Irish food themselves–that killed them. That’s why in Irish the time is called The Great Hunger and not the Great Famine.

    But nice try on blaming the church, little girl. Your calumny against God and his followers is noted.

    • Replies: @Alden
    For more information please read my post 180.
  154. @Anonymousse
    It’s not encouraging for the future that white commenters are notably disgusted by the idea of anyone reproducing above replacement level. They mention the woman’s particular situation but this seems only an intensifier for their consistent distaste for large families generally.

    It’s not encouraging for the future that white commenters are notably disgusted by the idea of anyone reproducing above replacement level. They mention the woman’s particular situation but this seems only an intensifier for their consistent distaste for large families generally.

    Disagree Anonymousee. I think it is very encouraging.

    Don’t get me wrong, ultimately we need to turn around white fertility–a bit. Basically in a healthy nation married couples who are smart, healthy, financial secure–basically have their stuff together–would target, be encouraged to have 3 or 4 kids. They make up for the non-marrieds, the late starters, the fertility issues, the don’t-feel-like-its. And at the other end, if you end up on welfare, or in prison or the mental hospital you agree to sterilization in return for state support. But this is a sane eugenic culture you can pretty easily build once you’ve thrown off minoritarianism, stopped immigration and anti-white, anti-national insanity.

    What is encouraging about these reactions is that a bunch of white people are disgusted by a poor minority rapidly reproducing at their expense. Even a lot of white people who consider themselves “liberals”, find this abusive. This awarness and concern for demographic reality is exactly the sort of thing that we whites who want to save America–keep it as a white nation, part of Western civilization–can use to raise awareness of the anti-white animus (and abject insanity) of “nation of immigrants” and get those whites on-side with a moratorium.

    Basically “people who can’t afford it–i.e. minorities–having lots of children” is a crack in the coalition of the fringes that separates the breeder minorities from good whites. We need those cracks and should work to stick wedges in them and widen them.

    • Replies: @Alden
    At least they realize that the money dey welfare mammas and their thug kids live on comes from the taxpayers money.

    For most of my life liberals must have thought welfare money came from God or some mysterious source. Now they realize the money is taken from the taxpayers children.
  155. @Jesse
    Yes, and who could possibly have foretold that having all your poor dependent on one crop could backfire?

    Frankly, if the same thing happened in Africa right now you'd have no problem blaming the Africans for having more kids than they knew how to feed.

    And the Irish emigration was, like South Korean baby selling, a way of avoiding solving their own problems. Not to mention what a catastrophe it was for the countries on the receiving end.

    Yes, and who could possibly have foretold that having all your poor dependent on one crop could backfire?

    The English sure didn’t. They were not Catholics. But they were the ones who made that decision, not the Catholic Church.

    The English forced the Irish onto the potato crop on pain of death. They heavily regulated Ireland as a breadbasket for the empire, exporting most of the Irish food for their own use. The Irish were forced to work on English estates and were given only the potato for themselves as it was considered too dirty and low-class for the English overlords.

    But nice try on blaming the Catholics when it was really anti-Catholic English bureaucrats who caused the problem.

    I do enjoy dumb female liars like yourself. So amusing, so low-IQ, so….leftist.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    Don't forget: Ireland actually exported food during the famine. The poor did not have enough money to purchase the food that was available.
    , @Alden
    Please read comment 18o for more information.
  156. @Reg Cæsar

    Every one of these–and these are just a sample–are the sort of remarks that get you banned from many major news-oriented websites, not to mention deplatformed, blocked on social media, and drummed out of polite society.
     
    The Purge Khalifa!

    http://fanthefiremagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Mission-Impossible-Ghost-Protocol-3.jpg


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0JioZmFdTKs

    Never had a less refreshing dip than when i thought i’d cool off with a dip in the Gulf. LOL.

  157. @Jesse
    There have been a LOT of said studies.

    However:

    (1) It's become so associated with the Catholic Church that no one wants to know. If you object to the Pill, you first have to spend an eternity reassuring them that you're not some screeching Papist trying to make them have 10 kids they don't want and can't afford.

    Believe it or not, the Catholic church getting more involved wouldn't be an improvement.

    (2) The logical extension of the harms of the Pill would be for men to take responsibility and start wearing condoms. That never seems to impinge, even though it's logical, no one needs surgery and hormones and it solves all problems. The idea of men taking responsibility draws a level of aggression.

    lmao. So many commie lies, its amazing.

    The logical extension of the harms of The Pill would be for women to stop taking The Pill. Trying to put this on men is an amusing dodge and non sequitur , little liar. But then again, women like you never were good at logic.

    • Replies: @Alden
    May I suggest an easy, harmless absolutely totally reliable method of birth control?

    It’s called abstinence. No sex no dating no marriage no physical contact with the opposite sex at all. No need for men to support their children. Perfect for UNZ men.

    Given their ignorance of family life, household maintenance, and raising children it’s obvious that most of the sad young, middle aged and old bachelors here have practiced total complete abstinence all their lives.
  158. @William Badwhite

    What happens if a disease comes along and destroys the Russert Potato ?
     
    The remaining 5% of potatoes would get really expensive, but nobody would starve because there are other things to eat besides potatoes. I half wonder if the Irish emigrated because they were just really sick of potatoes. Didn't anyone fish there? Rhetorical question.

    I half wonder if the Irish emigrated because they were just really sick of potatoes. Didn’t anyone fish there?

    The English held most of the land and forced most of the Irish to work for them. Then most of the food produced was promptly exported away from the Irish. The Irish were forced onto a near potato-only subsistence diet because the potato needed far less car by them on their home plots and because the potato was seen as a low vegetable beneath English tastes.

    Then when the blight hit, the English refused to amend their extreme regulation and allow Irish food to be fed to the Irish. Nonsensically, this is often called “lassez-faire” but it was anything but. Many people have speculated that this was deliberate starvation by the English bureaucrats, who saw the blight as a gift to rid themselves of the excess Irish chattel who were too hard to subdue completely.

    • Replies: @sayless
    It was deliberate starvation. The Irish food was taken out of the countryside in wagons under armed guard.
    , @Alden
    Comment 180. It was genocide no different from Stalin and Ukraine
  159. “PF59
    NJAug. 4
    Question: if this program “helps families move to neighborhoods with a proven record of helping kids do better”, who is left living in the neighborhoods with a proven record of not helping kids? Are those neighborhoods abandoned and then bulldozed?”

    I thought this was the best question especially since I have the answer as I’ve experienced the ‘cycle’…what happens to those blighted neighborhoods is eventually whites start sneaking back into them again (slowly but surely) and start gentrifying them. Then very gradually the blighted neighborhoods become better housing picks up, schools get better, streets get cleaner and safer and suddenly a few people start noticing them again and begin to demand that poor minority people be allowed to moved back into them…

    Then the cycle begins all over again.

    The good news is that I hear people keep saying well if whites keep running eventually they will run out of places to run to, but I say no, because there will always be a blighted neighborhood to gentrify…

    New York is a perfect example of this trend…

  160. @Jesse
    The Irish don't like fish. They've always had fishing villages, but they were desperately poor and emptied out even quicker than the Rust Belt.

    Liar. It’s not about not liking fish, its about the fact that the English forced them to work the land as near-serfs and eat only potatoes. The Irish would’ve gladly eaten fish had they been freed of their obligations to the English conquerors.

    So nice try with the lie again, little girl.

    • Replies: @Jesse
    Hi Talcolm X! Nice self pity there! I'm sure you'll be perfectly understanding once the black leadership starts saying the same things about white people!
    , @Jesse
    This is exactly like the guys saying African Americans only like soul food because the White Man forced it on the during slavery.
  161. Speaking of Kristof didn’t he get busted fairly recently for making up narrative friendly stories about sex trafficking in Cambodia? You would think he’d be a little less gullible. Maybe a less credulous editor forced him to include the detail of the single mother of six? Or maybe he is smart but follows the Sailer rules of NYT journalism and buries the juicy bits.

  162. @Monsieur le Baron
    It's overproduced elite aspirants that virtue signal more, because they have to distinguish themselves from the deplorables as much as they possibly can, since otherwise little separates them. As you head up into genuine upper middle class haunting grounds, people are more willing to share their genuine opinions, which are still liberal but less liberal than the saccharine pure globohomo of the QUANGO bureaucrat set. The average NYT reader makes about $200k, as opposed to a mere $75k for WaPo. WaPo readers are more virulently leftists because they know they're also commoners deep down.

    The middle class conforms, the upper middle class tries to epater le bourgeois.

    Plus, the ravening Outer Party has an additional incentive to virtue signal and form twitterati mobs because if they can knock one of the real Party members out, they might get in.

    We send too many people to college. It's unhealthy for society.

    Having been binge-listening for several months now to archived MP3 recordings of Luke Ford’s YouTube livestream, my first thought upon seeing the handle Monsieur le Baron was, Might this, perchance, be the “MON-ZJHUR” / “Angry Chinaman” character who has appeared regularly on the aforementioned podcast? I had only begun to read the first sentence of the comment when, based on the vocabulary alone, I thought, “This has to be him.” Any remaining doubt was then removed when, hovering over the hyper-linked Website field, I recognized the URL as none other than the one that I heard MON-ZJHUR provide as that of his blog.

    Hello Monsieur, nice to see you here. Thank you for, along with Kevin Michael Grace and many of the other guests who appear on the show, providing much informative, stimulating, highly enjoyable content.

    • Replies: @Monsieur le Baron
    Thanks fren.
  163. @Tired of Not Winning
    I always wonder why people like this right-minded commenter, or Raj Chetty or Nicholas Kristof don't just pack up and move into black neighborhoods, teach those poor black folks the right way to live as they do. If all the bleeding heart liberals like them do that, there wouldn't be any bad neighborhoods left. Why elevate one family at a time when they can elevate an entire neighborhood?

    I always wonder why people like this right-minded commenter, or Raj Chetty or Nicholas Kristof don’t just pack up and move into black neighborhoods, teach those poor black folks the right way to live as they do. If all the bleeding heart liberals like them do that, there wouldn’t be any bad neighborhoods left. Why elevate one family at a time when they can elevate an entire neighborhood?

    They are all hypocrites. That is the core of socialism, someone else pays for the virtue of the socialist.

  164. @Paleo Liberal
    That is called gentrification.

    That is called gentrification.

    No, it is not. Gentrification is ethnically cleansing the undesirables. What Tired described is living with the undesirables. And almost all of you Liberals will not take the plunge.

    I do not blame you for not taking the plunge. But I do despise you for your hypocrisy and hubris.

  165. @Fidelios Automata
    I've always been against welfare because people should bear the consequences of their actions. But if they tied the payments to sterilization I might support it.

    Brilliant idea. We definitely should require all welfare recipients get sterilized. And also all those incarcerated felons should be required to get a vasectomy if they want to be paroled.

  166. @Monsieur le Baron
    It's overproduced elite aspirants that virtue signal more, because they have to distinguish themselves from the deplorables as much as they possibly can, since otherwise little separates them. As you head up into genuine upper middle class haunting grounds, people are more willing to share their genuine opinions, which are still liberal but less liberal than the saccharine pure globohomo of the QUANGO bureaucrat set. The average NYT reader makes about $200k, as opposed to a mere $75k for WaPo. WaPo readers are more virulently leftists because they know they're also commoners deep down.

    The middle class conforms, the upper middle class tries to epater le bourgeois.

    Plus, the ravening Outer Party has an additional incentive to virtue signal and form twitterati mobs because if they can knock one of the real Party members out, they might get in.

    We send too many people to college. It's unhealthy for society.

    We send too many people to college. It’s unhealthy for society.

    John Derbyshire has made that argument in some detail.

    The Dream Palace of Educational Theorists

    Towering over all these lesser scams is the college racket, a vast money-swollen credentialing machine for lower-middle-class worker bees. American parents are now all resigned to the fact that they must beggar themselves to purchase college diplomas for their offspring, so that said offspring can get low-paid outsource-able office jobs, instead of having to descend to high-paid, un-outsource-able work like plumbing, carpentry, or electrical installation.

    The Importance of a College Education
    (A review of Crazy U: One Dad’s Crash Course in Getting His Kid Into College, by Andrew Ferguson
    and In the Basement of the Ivory Tower: Confessions of an Accidental Academic, by Professor X)

    One of the strongest pieces of evidence that our civilization has descended into madness was offered by National Public Radio in April 2007. NPR’s Robert Siegel was interviewing Melinda Gates, wife of Bill Gates and custodian of a new $60 million education reform initiative the Gates Foundation was launching. “Can we reasonably expect 100% of high school students to become college students?” asked Siegel. To which Mrs. Gates replied, “Yes, I think we can.”

    From Radio Derb:

    The college racket takes a hit (September 2018)
    When will the college bubble pop? (April 2014)
    College follies (February 2012)

    • Replies: @Ibound1

    “Can we reasonably expect 100% of high school students to become college students?” asked Siegel. To which Mrs. Gates replied, “Yes, I think we can.”
     
    That’s not college. That’s grades 13-16.
  167. @Dissident

    We send too many people to college. It’s unhealthy for society.
     
    John Derbyshire has made that argument in some detail.

    The Dream Palace of Educational Theorists

    Towering over all these lesser scams is the college racket, a vast money-swollen credentialing machine for lower-middle-class worker bees. American parents are now all resigned to the fact that they must beggar themselves to purchase college diplomas for their offspring, so that said offspring can get low-paid outsource-able office jobs, instead of having to descend to high-paid, un-outsource-able work like plumbing, carpentry, or electrical installation.
     
    The Importance of a College Education
    (A review of Crazy U: One Dad's Crash Course in Getting His Kid Into College, by Andrew Ferguson
    and In the Basement of the Ivory Tower: Confessions of an Accidental Academic, by Professor X)

    One of the strongest pieces of evidence that our civilization has descended into madness was offered by National Public Radio in April 2007. NPR's Robert Siegel was interviewing Melinda Gates, wife of Bill Gates and custodian of a new $60 million education reform initiative the Gates Foundation was launching. "Can we reasonably expect 100% of high school students to become college students?" asked Siegel. To which Mrs. Gates replied, "Yes, I think we can."
     
    From Radio Derb:

    The college racket takes a hit (September 2018)
    When will the college bubble pop? (April 2014)
    College follies (February 2012)

    “Can we reasonably expect 100% of high school students to become college students?” asked Siegel. To which Mrs. Gates replied, “Yes, I think we can.”

    That’s not college. That’s grades 13-16.

  168. Most of these comments are saying that it’s advantageous to have fewer children. For ones personal finances, over a lifetime. Macro economically speaking, everyone in white culture having fewer children hasn’t translated into a more robust economy in the last 60 years, or about the course of a lifetime.

    • Replies: @Alden
    How many White children have you fathered, supported and raised? We had 4.
  169. @Jonathan Mason

    What happens if a disease comes along and destroys the Russert Potato ?
     
    Switch over to Russet potatoes.

    http://www.throughlinegroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Tim-Russert.jpg

    Damn your eyes! You beat me to the smart-assed draw.

    I will add, though, that we need not fear: the hardy Russert potato has produced another crop to sustain a new generation:

    (Hey, I couldn’t see these glorious photographs of the Russert Potatoes at their potato-faced best go to waste.)

    If we must someday switch, I recommend the Mortenson Potato:

  170. @Anon
    Fun reading.

    At least some of the comments seem to imply the heretical notion that having six kids may be something that should be disincentivized ... how might you do that? Cut social services and welfare! Cancelled!

    The people saying things like this:

    Stop having so many Children that you can’t afford or support. There is absolutely no GOOD reason to have more than two children. This is not the 1800’s or even the 1950’s. The more kids, the less each individual one will get, and the less their chances for success.
     
    What is she saying? “Give” to children in the way of leaving money to them? That sounds like reparations and wealth gap talk.

    I think a relatively normal family with two parents at least one of whom has a full-time job and who are not living in an expensive urban area can “give" six or ten kids all they need in terms of time, love, and attention, and assuming the genomic human capital is right, they will turn out fine. Make sure from an early age that they understand that they will be on their own when they graduate from high school.

    Potential problems: Are there really no jobs these days? And do you have to live a play-date, helicopter lifestyle to avoid busybodies reporting you to CPS?

    On the whole the best strategy is to convert to Mormonism and move to Utah.

    You either don’t have children or you’re a welfare mamma. Or you’re single and your take home, not gross income is between 100 and 200 K a year depending on where you live. . Don’t you have winter heat bills and property taxes even if your house is paid for?

    Children need more than time, love and attention. They need the necessities food $30 a week per person is cheap. 5 kids, 2 parents that’s $210 a week almost $11,000 a year $900 a month. $30 a week per person is a dirt cheap food budget rice dried not canned beans cooked cereal noodles tortillas carbs carbs carbs.

    Housing you’d need at least 4 rooms, a kitchen living all purpose room and 3 bedrooms. Utility bills and laundry. If you do it at home for 7 people you need a washer and dryer and the water bill will be high. Do it in a laundromat what? $15 worth of quarters a week?

    Unless you live in the slums of Detroit where 3 bedroom single family homes can be bought for $14,000 most of anyone’s budget goes for the mortgage & property taxes or rent.

    Car I suppose it’s possible to wrangle 5 kids groceries for 7 people and laundry to the laundromat on public transportation. Groceries for 7 people week after week would need daily shopping if you didn’t have a car. Even walking distance to a supermarket would entail endless daily trips as you can’t get food and household supplies for 7 people into those little metal grocery carts.

    So you’d need a car.

    We haven’t covered basic clothes furniture cooking implements household supplies yet.

    Children’s activities cost a lot, like $125. For typical sports team plus the shoes and uniforms etc School trips birthday parties where the guests are expected to bring presents.

    Love and attention cost nothing Time depends on work and commuting schedule. If you have 5 kids, better hope you and spouse work in jobs with lots of paid overtime.

    I won’t even go into loss of privacy sibling squabbles because of so many kids and different ages, difficulty of coordinating family and other activities because the kids range from 14 to 2.

    Cooking and cleaning up after meals for 7 people. Oh, by the way, to feed 7 people you’ll need a decent size dining table and a place to put it. A lot of modernist even “ luxury” homes and condos don’t have a place for a big dining table. They have these huge kitchens but people are supposed to eat on stools at the kitchen counter or on the coffee table spilling food on the couch chairs and rug,

    Good luck. Hope your big family works out.

    • Replies: @Jesse
    Yuuuuuup.

    A lot of the guys here talking about how easy (and cheap?!) it is to raise lots of kids clearly have never done it themselves. How can you make alliances and persuade people to do something that would be good for a lot of them if you start from a batshit premise? If you appear to genuinely not know that, say, cooked meals and laundry require energy and energy costs money, you just look infantile.

    It's also a complete retreat on living standards. I'm old enough to remember cons arguing that their policies would raise prosperity and living standards. They were wrong in their policies, but I liked what they were aiming for.

    Now, its constantly harping that people should give up on nice things, spare time, public education, generally all the advantages of living in the First World, so a bunch of childless men can feel manly. (This is a major beef I have with the likes of Megan McArdle; I'm not especially interested in a childless 50 y/o telling people to permanently lower their living standards because she apparently knows all about raising kids.)

    So yeah, at some point everyone needs to enter the real world, and use the crisis of low birthrates as a way to make vital alliances, rather than as an opportunity to preen.
  171. @candid_observer
    Somehow in Europe the expense of higher ed for a family is vastly lower.

    Maybe the issue is how the government support is implemented.

    You’ve both lost the plot. Apart from professional schools – and even they would be included if the governmental scam ended so that schools and employers once again had to pay to train their own workers – nearly everyone who has any business attending a university can do so on merit scholarships paid by schools themselves (competing for the best students is critical to their success), and private benefactors.

    The real trouble is the madness of pretending every jackass who can barely read should attend a university.

  172. @Hubbub
    Chetty is just advocating using the school busing strategy by applying that strategy to neighborhoods - move bad parents with bad kids from bad neighborhoods in to good neighborhoods with good parents with good kids and the "goodness" will inspire the bad to achieve beyond their capabilities. What could go wrong? White Fright leads to White Flight!

    Entire cities and huge parts of other cities and suburbs were destroyed when bad black parents and their vicious black kids moved in to White neighborhoods. It’s been going in since before the civil war.

    Foreign diplomats in the 19th early 20th century used to joke that Washington DC was Africa, partly because of the climate, partly because of the blacks.

  173. @Jonathan Mason

    I wouldn’t mind the US having a more European education system. But we would need much lower immigration levels to have housing cheap enough for parents to afford
     
    Most people forget that a lot of people in the US live in mobile homes, now known officially as manufactured homes, aka trailers. Trailers comprise about 8% of all housing units in the US. We have about 825.00o of them here in Florida out of 6.3 million households, so about 12%.

    Trailers are cheap compared to houses. You can get a double wide for about $39,000, which is about the same as the cost of a Tesla car. If you have a bit of money, you can put one on 5 acres and grow your own chickens, eggs, and herbs and veg, breed pit-bulls, and keep a few goats to do the mowing. (But don't let the pit-bulls get to the goats.)

    http://waynefriermacclenny.com/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=pbV591zFIcc

    The payments on this home could be about $300 per month over 20 years, (not counting land or taxes) depending on what kind of interest rate you could get. Credit Unions usually offer the best rates and there are also government backed loan programs.

    Most people have no idea how many people live in trailer parks. Some are for families, some for retirees, and others for single people. Some trailer parks specialize in sex offenders, who are not allowed to live near schools, or in former prisoners.

    In a city like Jacksonville, FL, you will find signs discreetly advertising manufactured homes, and then once you pass through the gates, you will find yourself in a vast maze of winding lanes with an incomprehensible numbering system incorporating hundreds of homes and streets that your phone navigation does not know about. It is like stepping into a third world country.

    I am not sure that lowering immigration numbers would really reduce the price of the cheapest type of homes.

    http://www.residencervpark.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/L2Kql2GXcUvXoD26n4PhrpdSPl-JGCRC5oT5igS6Eq0800x-600.jpg

    What’s the monthly air conditioning bill for a trailer in Florida heat and humidity?

    Unless you confine poultry to one of those impenetrable metal buildings they always always eventually get devoured by raccoons weasels foxes hawks vultures stray dogs whatever critters around.

    Really, my brothers a farmer poultry is very hard to keep safe from the wild critters. Unless you have a big huge not castrated gander. Ever seen one? They are huge compared to girl geese. And like all un castrated male farm animals mean ornery and aggressive. A nasty gander might scare off a fox or raccoon. But I don’t think they can really fight, just scare them off.

    Each to his own or what they can afford.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Poultry can easily and safely be kept in a coop built in a single day with chicken wire (guess why it's called that?) and lumber from any hardware store. By keeping a dog in the same yard as the coop, then enclosing the yard with a chain-link or wooden fence, one eliminates most all problems with raccoons, foxes, stoats, stray dogs, and such. One might still loose a hen to the odd raptor, I suppose, but even that can be prevented by covering the enclosure with netting, corrugated plastic or aluminum, more chicken wire, or something similar.

    I know people who use this technique. No hermetic metal buildings are required. (Your brother is operating a farm, so the sheer numbers of his charges are what make his challenges fundamentally different and perhaps more challenging.)
    , @Jonathan Mason

    What’s the monthly air conditioning bill for a trailer in Florida heat and humidity?
     
    A divorced woman who I work with told me her electricity bill was $35 per month until her daughter and boyfriend and child and dog moved in with her. I don't remember what it went up to, but less than $100.
  174. @AnotherDad

    It’s not encouraging for the future that white commenters are notably disgusted by the idea of anyone reproducing above replacement level. They mention the woman’s particular situation but this seems only an intensifier for their consistent distaste for large families generally.
     
    Disagree Anonymousee. I think it is very encouraging.

    Don't get me wrong, ultimately we need to turn around white fertility--a bit. Basically in a healthy nation married couples who are smart, healthy, financial secure--basically have their stuff together--would target, be encouraged to have 3 or 4 kids. They make up for the non-marrieds, the late starters, the fertility issues, the don't-feel-like-its. And at the other end, if you end up on welfare, or in prison or the mental hospital you agree to sterilization in return for state support. But this is a sane eugenic culture you can pretty easily build once you've thrown off minoritarianism, stopped immigration and anti-white, anti-national insanity.

    What is encouraging about these reactions is that a bunch of white people are disgusted by a poor minority rapidly reproducing at their expense. Even a lot of white people who consider themselves "liberals", find this abusive. This awarness and concern for demographic reality is exactly the sort of thing that we whites who want to save America--keep it as a white nation, part of Western civilization--can use to raise awareness of the anti-white animus (and abject insanity) of "nation of immigrants" and get those whites on-side with a moratorium.

    Basically "people who can't afford it--i.e. minorities--having lots of children" is a crack in the coalition of the fringes that separates the breeder minorities from good whites. We need those cracks and should work to stick wedges in them and widen them.

    At least they realize that the money dey welfare mammas and their thug kids live on comes from the taxpayers money.

    For most of my life liberals must have thought welfare money came from God or some mysterious source. Now they realize the money is taken from the taxpayers children.

  175. @Hypnotoad666
    I imagine that most commenters were urban professionals who expended huge amounts of emotional energy, money, career sacrifices, and stress to raise just one kid up to the exacting current standards of white middle class parenting.

    Some of them may even be bitter about foregoing children because they didn't want to make the sacrifices.

    To hear of a 38-year old mindlessly popping out six kids and living at government expense in a nice "opportunity community," thus really struck a personal nerve with these otherwise PC readers.

    Most of the comments seemed….I don’t want to seem like a snob, but insecure financially and socially?

    Whites scrimp and save and borrow money for the down payment and then have to deal with mortgage property taxes maintenance repairs.

    And this welfare pig gets for free what they probably delayed having the first child and worked for years just to get the down payment. Now probably half or more take home income is spent on the house. And she gets it for free as well as a big welfare check, Medicaid etc

    She had her kids and paid nothing. People with insurance pay 10 to 18 K for childbirth. Think how much insurance costs a year.

    Christmas is a big expense if you have kids. She probably signs up with the cops firemen Salvation Army several churches and other charities for free Christmas presents the first of November

    She can supplement her food stamp card by making the rounds of all the food pantries every week. In most cities they’re open 7 days a week. If she doesn’t have a car you can bet one of the baby daddies has a car and lends it to her or drives her around.

    No wonder all the commenters are jealous.

    Another thing most commenters don’t realize. Anyone whose worked in law enforcement social work or any other form of wrangling the underclass knows that welfare mammas are a magnet for the worst type of black underclass men; the losers who can’t get a job and don’t have a place to live or steady income.

    At least one will move in soon. Then there’s her thug brothers and other relatives.

    6 kids the oldest must be at least 14 and nasty vicious and hateful. Her brats will start fights with neighbor children her men roommates will come out screeching.

    Same thing at school. She’ll be called in for a conference. Pretty soon NAACP will be suing the school district for requesting her thugs to behave like normal children

    About school. 3rd generation blacks average 70s IQ. But they’ll be in class with 100 t0 120 White kids working at grade level. A lot of black bad behavior in school is due to genetics. A lot of it is due to boredom.

    How’d you like to go to China and sit through 6 hours a day, every day, classes in Mandarin not understanding a word said or in the books.

    That’s what it’s like for a 75 IQ black. It gets worse as the blacks get into third or 4th grade. They can’t get their reading past 3rd grade or multiplication and division. Any further education is just a blur to them.

  176. @Jesse
    There are plenty of white moderates and progressives who wanted big families but forwent/delayed them because they simply couldn't afford them.

    (1) They deeply resent people who then went out and had kids they then needed govt/charity support for. You'd be astonished as to how popular policies like restricting benefits to the first 2 kids are.

    (2) Pricing these people out of famlly life, then mocking them for being barren or outbred, is obnoxious and a perfect way to ensure that they never vote GOP or conservative.

    I’d like to see a survey of all the UNZ commenters constantly preaching that Whites should have big families and ask how many of them have more than 2 children.

    We had 4. I suspect we’re one of the biggest families on UNZ.

    • Agree: Jesse
  177. @PiltdownMan
    Not quite OT:

    The headline was bad’: New York Times amends front page on Trump’s response to mass shootings after backlash
     
    NYT revises its headline, 'TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM' succumbing to pressure from readers after President Trump urged unity versus racism.

    He said" “In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy.”

    Readers were outraged by the objectivity of the headline and demanded a revised headline that embodied "context."

    “Orange Man Double-Plus Bad” should just be the NYT’s standing all-purpose headline.

    At this point they are just admitting that they make up “news” for anti-Trump readers.

  178. @Jack D
    There are technological fixes for this. You can screen embryos. You can freeze your eggs when you are young. Having kids when you are older and wiser and better able to support them is not such a bad thing. Having kids at a later age has been a marker of places that are "better" to live in for a long time.

    The real issue is dysgenic breeding - the high IQ people who SHOULD be having kids (you could still have 2 or 3 starting in your 30s) aren't having any or only 1 and the lower IQ folks are having more (like 6 in the case of this lady) and over time this will reduce average IQs.

    At the concert, you might have been seeing a selection effect - beyond a certain age, normal teenagers don't want to socialize with their parents, they want to socialize with their peers. But "slow" kids are seen in public with their parents.

    There were WAY more youngsters at the show than we expected. And when the cheap GA seats are $150, pretty much all the kids are with their parents. They all saw the movie and came out to see a band whose last show with the original members took place before their parents even met.

    I would hazard a guess that someone paying upwards of $1,000 to bring the family to a show is from one of those “better” places. There is science, though; reference the first line in my original comment.

    https://www.livescience.com/46616-birth-control-pills-womens-fertility.html

  179. @R.G. Camara

    Yes, and who could possibly have foretold that having all your poor dependent on one crop could backfire?
     
    The English sure didn't. They were not Catholics. But they were the ones who made that decision, not the Catholic Church.

    The English forced the Irish onto the potato crop on pain of death. They heavily regulated Ireland as a breadbasket for the empire, exporting most of the Irish food for their own use. The Irish were forced to work on English estates and were given only the potato for themselves as it was considered too dirty and low-class for the English overlords.

    But nice try on blaming the Catholics when it was really anti-Catholic English bureaucrats who caused the problem.

    I do enjoy dumb female liars like yourself. So amusing, so low-IQ, so....leftist.

    Don’t forget: Ireland actually exported food during the famine. The poor did not have enough money to purchase the food that was available.

  180. @Jesse
    Take it from an Irish American with strong ties to the original country: Ireland has traditionally been massively overbred. It caused the Famine. It caused a huge amount of misery that, because the Papists managed to keep birth control away from people, is within livig memory.

    There was plenty of food in Ireland but the Irish raised it on the English estates. Irish Catholics were not allowed to own more than 2 cows or I think 3 pigs and only 1 horse of low value. So they couldn’t breed livestock. Only reason they were allowed 2.cows is because cows alternate pregnancy birth milk producing and pregnancy. The Catholic Irish were forbidden to own bulls and had to pay a big fee to the English to breed their cows.

    They were forbidden to rent enough land even if they had the money to raise cash crops or varied food crops. They were allowed to fish in the sea but not in rivers lakes and ponds. 3 acres of land could produce enough potatoes to feed a family for a year. They weren’t allowed to hunt.

    It was a conscious genocide or ethnic clearance program pursued by the English for centuries. The Irish were starved out of Britain.

    Some Scots were forcibly removed when sheep able to survive in cold damp Scotland were finally bred. They were marched to the harbors loaded on ships and sold as indentured servants in Colonial America. It’s called the Highland Clearances

    One thing most people don’t realize is that the big 1948 potato famine was widespread all over Northern Europe, France Germany Belgium Austria Netherlands Scandinavia Poland etc

    But no one starved and there was no famine BECAUSE there was other food to eat and the governments especially the city governments were prepared.

    Since early medieval times city and local governments kept track of the harvest and had stores of grain, dried fish dried fruit and vegetables to feed the population in bad times.

    When. news of the blight came in May those cities and national governments ordered rice from S Carolina Louisiana and S America. The warehoused rice arrived quickly. That years harvest arrived in the fall. Grain was ordered from Russia, Argentina and the USA. Dried fish was preserved stored and ordered from Portugual and Spain. Dried fruit was bought from S Europe and the Arab countries.

    That hoarding supplies had been ongoing from early medieval times. It was already organized.

    But most important, there was other food than potatoes to eat in the rest of Europe for even the poorest. In Ireland the Catholic Irish were legally prevented from fishing hunting breeding livestock and raising either cash crops or much of a varied diet.

    Many countries sent food to the starving Irish. But the English didn’t allow the ships to land in Ireland. The ships were forced to land in English ports.and charged much higher than usual harbor fees . Then the ships were unloaded very, very slowly to English ships and after further delay went tonIreland after a month 6 weeks delay in England.

    The potato blight was widespread all over Europe. But the famine was only in Catholic Ireland because:

    1 there was food other than potatoes to eat in other countries.
    2 The other countries kept track of crops. So when the harvest failed in September is wasn’t a surprise. Supplementary food was already ordered and ready for distribution according to a thousand year custom.

    The food grown on the Protestant Ascendancy estates was not sold in Ireland. It was sent to England.

    And with all that, by 1900 the average working class English man had shrunk from 5’6 in the 1640s to to 5’3 in 1900 due to malnutrition hard physical at age 8 or 10 and using more calories in hard labor than their bodies took in. Working class women shrunk as well, Even in the 1930s many working class girls didn’t mature enough to start menstruating till 17 or 18 a sure sign of starvation.
    By 1900 middle class English men were 5 inches taller than working class men.

    Potatoes are a lot more nutritious than bread bacon grease and strong tea and sugar. By 1900 despite periodic famines for 300 years the Irish poor were the same size they were in 1600 due to better food less child labor and peat home heating while the English poor expended more calories trying to keep warm in cold homes in winter.

    No matter how much the English hated the Irish for their catholic religion, England treated its own Anglo Saxon English working class far worse by child labor, malnutrition long hours of hard physical labor with too little to eat.

    And the Irish Catholics did practice birth control. They delayed marriage because of poverty.While the average age of marriage in England was about 22 for women and 28 or 30 for men, the Irish Catholic women married at 28 or 29 men early to mid thirties.

    And few used birth control till the 1930s. The Anglican and most Protestant churches forbade birth control as much as the Catholics did till the early mid 20th century. It was illegal to sell birth control devices in the Puritan state of Connecticut till the 1960s.

    • Replies: @Jesse
    I have no idea what your wider point is, but it does tell that the most ethno nationalist among us are the ones with something to prove. Actual Irish people find the constant self pity repulsive.

    Also, I don't want to hear one more goddamn word telling the blacks to get over slavery, or the Jews to get over the Holocaust, if this is how you treat the poor widdle oppressed white people.
    , @Jack D
    Needless to say, this is a one sided view of history. The Penal Laws (which prohibited Catholics from owning land) had been repealed a couple of decades before the famine. When the famine struck, they repealed the Corn Laws, which had exacted tariffs on imported grain. The peasants were partly at fault for not only depending on one crop for their calories but depending on one variety. The Indians of Peru also depended on the potato but they planted hundreds of varieties so at least some of them were always resistant to whatever disease was going around. The population had risen from about 3 million in 1700 to over 8 million by 1840 so they were already at the Malthusian edge when the famine pushed them over.

    The British did attempt some public works programs to give the destitute some income but for the most part they diddled and delayed inconclusively. They resorted to secretly distributing free corn imported from America because they did not want to undermine private enterprise but facilities to grind the corn were lacking and it was an unfamiliar food not well accepted as a food by the populace. In the middle of the famine, a new government was elected that was even more laissez faire than the previous one - they believed that the invisible hand of the market would take care of any shortages and cut the relief that the previous government had started. It's not clear that the British government was being malicious - incompetence is a sufficient explanation.

    There was plenty of blame to go around - the biggest one was that the absentee landlords did not feel any noblesse obige toward their tenants as was the case in England and elsewhere in Europe. Decisions were made strictly on the basis of economics without a glimmer of compassion toward what they regarded as an alien race. We think of Irish as being more or less white people but to the English of the time they might as well have been black. I think that the plantation owners of the American South liked their black sharecroppers more and treated them better than the English landlords treated their Irish tenants, but in the US we weren't living at the Malthusian edge to begin with so the system was not under the same stress.
  181. I wonder how many here recall the BOB GRANT MANDATORY STERIIZATION PROGRAM. First introduced some time in the 70’s.

  182. The comments on the article show an impressive lack of strategic thought. It seems like those commenting are the types who would actually be shocked to discover gambling at Rick’s in “Casablanca.” These are people who have wholeheartedly supported restrictions on affordable family formation, driving up myriad costs by combined myriads of dollars, for independent and predominantly white self-supporting families. At the same time, they have engineered a system whereby costs of poor families are covered by the state, and in many cases there is financial incentive to bring in more children into a broken home. Ms. Rath’s “family” is an easily foreseeable natural result. It is almost indistinguishable from an intentionally dysgenic system. NYT commenters are shocked at the result.

    This makes me wonder, is the typical NYT commenter only separated from the average traditional right-winger by a lack of foresight and capability for strategic thought? Personally, I would say that’s at least part of it, though they do betray a desire to limit population of traditional American families (as well as population in broken homes) that is clearly not in evidence on the right.

  183. @Dissident
    Having been binge-listening for several months now to archived MP3 recordings of Luke Ford's YouTube livestream, my first thought upon seeing the handle Monsieur le Baron was, Might this, perchance, be the "MON-ZJHUR" / "Angry Chinaman" character who has appeared regularly on the aforementioned podcast? I had only begun to read the first sentence of the comment when, based on the vocabulary alone, I thought, "This has to be him." Any remaining doubt was then removed when, hovering over the hyper-linked Website field, I recognized the URL as none other than the one that I heard MON-ZJHUR provide as that of his blog.

    Hello Monsieur, nice to see you here. Thank you for, along with Kevin Michael Grace and many of the other guests who appear on the show, providing much informative, stimulating, highly enjoyable content.

    Thanks fren.

  184. @R.G. Camara
    Liar. It's not about not liking fish, its about the fact that the English forced them to work the land as near-serfs and eat only potatoes. The Irish would've gladly eaten fish had they been freed of their obligations to the English conquerors.

    So nice try with the lie again, little girl.

    Hi Talcolm X! Nice self pity there! I’m sure you’ll be perfectly understanding once the black leadership starts saying the same things about white people!

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    lol, little commie liar. This is a pretty well-documented, direct cause-and-effect thing, and not some "massa made me do it" conspiracy theory with several steps between purported cause and effect, like "redlining held blacks in crime and proverty" nonsense.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Irish_food_exports_during_Famine

    https://www.amazon.com/Great-Hunger-Cecil-Woodham-Smith/dp/0525476431/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=the+great+hunger&qid=1565230197&s=gateway&sr=8-2

    Most historians are pretty confident that the British government had a stubborn bureaucratic blindspot combined with a fervent belief in their economic system to the letter and were also more preoccupied with other crown holdings at the time (e.g. India). There was no real "famine" except for potatoes; Irish was a net exporter of food even during the so-called famine.

    This isn't blaming the Brits unfairly, anymore than noting that white migrants to North America killed off loads of American Indians both through taking their lands and through inadvertnantly giving them diseases.

    In short, as everyone agrees, there was a direct cause and effect between British regulations causing the starvation, and the potato blight was only a catalyst. There was no famine, just very bad regulation. Had those regulations not existed, the Irish would not have starved at all.

    But you're not "smart" enough to understand that, little liar.
  185. @Alden
    There was plenty of food in Ireland but the Irish raised it on the English estates. Irish Catholics were not allowed to own more than 2 cows or I think 3 pigs and only 1 horse of low value. So they couldn’t breed livestock. Only reason they were allowed 2.cows is because cows alternate pregnancy birth milk producing and pregnancy. The Catholic Irish were forbidden to own bulls and had to pay a big fee to the English to breed their cows.

    They were forbidden to rent enough land even if they had the money to raise cash crops or varied food crops. They were allowed to fish in the sea but not in rivers lakes and ponds. 3 acres of land could produce enough potatoes to feed a family for a year. They weren’t allowed to hunt.

    It was a conscious genocide or ethnic clearance program pursued by the English for centuries. The Irish were starved out of Britain.

    Some Scots were forcibly removed when sheep able to survive in cold damp Scotland were finally bred. They were marched to the harbors loaded on ships and sold as indentured servants in Colonial America. It’s called the Highland Clearances

    One thing most people don’t realize is that the big 1948 potato famine was widespread all over Northern Europe, France Germany Belgium Austria Netherlands Scandinavia Poland etc

    But no one starved and there was no famine BECAUSE there was other food to eat and the governments especially the city governments were prepared.

    Since early medieval times city and local governments kept track of the harvest and had stores of grain, dried fish dried fruit and vegetables to feed the population in bad times.

    When. news of the blight came in May those cities and national governments ordered rice from S Carolina Louisiana and S America. The warehoused rice arrived quickly. That years harvest arrived in the fall. Grain was ordered from Russia, Argentina and the USA. Dried fish was preserved stored and ordered from Portugual and Spain. Dried fruit was bought from S Europe and the Arab countries.

    That hoarding supplies had been ongoing from early medieval times. It was already organized.

    But most important, there was other food than potatoes to eat in the rest of Europe for even the poorest. In Ireland the Catholic Irish were legally prevented from fishing hunting breeding livestock and raising either cash crops or much of a varied diet.

    Many countries sent food to the starving Irish. But the English didn’t allow the ships to land in Ireland. The ships were forced to land in English ports.and charged much higher than usual harbor fees . Then the ships were unloaded very, very slowly to English ships and after further delay went tonIreland after a month 6 weeks delay in England.

    The potato blight was widespread all over Europe. But the famine was only in Catholic Ireland because:

    1 there was food other than potatoes to eat in other countries.
    2 The other countries kept track of crops. So when the harvest failed in September is wasn’t a surprise. Supplementary food was already ordered and ready for distribution according to a thousand year custom.

    The food grown on the Protestant Ascendancy estates was not sold in Ireland. It was sent to England.

    And with all that, by 1900 the average working class English man had shrunk from 5’6 in the 1640s to to 5’3 in 1900 due to malnutrition hard physical at age 8 or 10 and using more calories in hard labor than their bodies took in. Working class women shrunk as well, Even in the 1930s many working class girls didn’t mature enough to start menstruating till 17 or 18 a sure sign of starvation.
    By 1900 middle class English men were 5 inches taller than working class men.

    Potatoes are a lot more nutritious than bread bacon grease and strong tea and sugar. By 1900 despite periodic famines for 300 years the Irish poor were the same size they were in 1600 due to better food less child labor and peat home heating while the English poor expended more calories trying to keep warm in cold homes in winter.

    No matter how much the English hated the Irish for their catholic religion, England treated its own Anglo Saxon English working class far worse by child labor, malnutrition long hours of hard physical labor with too little to eat.

    And the Irish Catholics did practice birth control. They delayed marriage because of poverty.While the average age of marriage in England was about 22 for women and 28 or 30 for men, the Irish Catholic women married at 28 or 29 men early to mid thirties.

    And few used birth control till the 1930s. The Anglican and most Protestant churches forbade birth control as much as the Catholics did till the early mid 20th century. It was illegal to sell birth control devices in the Puritan state of Connecticut till the 1960s.

    I have no idea what your wider point is, but it does tell that the most ethno nationalist among us are the ones with something to prove. Actual Irish people find the constant self pity repulsive.

    Also, I don’t want to hear one more goddamn word telling the blacks to get over slavery, or the Jews to get over the Holocaust, if this is how you treat the poor widdle oppressed white people.

    • Replies: @Alden
    I, the historian made comment 180 to inform the ignorant bigots about the English intentions to starve the Catholics out of Ireland also known as genocide. Also made comment 180 to inform the ignorant bigots that the potato blight was all over Europe. But Only in Ireland was there famine, starvation and death because:

    1 In the rest of Europe there was plenty of food other than potatoes for even the poorest.
    2 Other European governments kept track of the agricultural year. They usually knew by May how the harvest would turn out. When the potato blight started in April those governments ordered rice from the USA which was stockpiled and ready to be distributed by harvest time.

    What’s your point?
  186. @anonymous coward

    Or, rather, irresponsible people have turned large families into a marker of low social status.
     
    The rich and powerful generally have lots of kids.

    Bill Gates has 3, Steve Jobs had 4, Elon Musk has 5, Jeff Bezos has 4.

    The 'low social status marker' bullshit is for middle-class simps and shmucks. The rich and powerful have a more rational outlook on life.

    One of Bezos’ kids was adopted from China, so it’s not as if MacKenzie was operating a baby factory.

  187. @Alden
    You either don’t have children or you’re a welfare mamma. Or you’re single and your take home, not gross income is between 100 and 200 K a year depending on where you live. . Don’t you have winter heat bills and property taxes even if your house is paid for?

    Children need more than time, love and attention. They need the necessities food $30 a week per person is cheap. 5 kids, 2 parents that’s $210 a week almost $11,000 a year $900 a month. $30 a week per person is a dirt cheap food budget rice dried not canned beans cooked cereal noodles tortillas carbs carbs carbs.

    Housing you’d need at least 4 rooms, a kitchen living all purpose room and 3 bedrooms. Utility bills and laundry. If you do it at home for 7 people you need a washer and dryer and the water bill will be high. Do it in a laundromat what? $15 worth of quarters a week?

    Unless you live in the slums of Detroit where 3 bedroom single family homes can be bought for $14,000 most of anyone’s budget goes for the mortgage & property taxes or rent.

    Car I suppose it’s possible to wrangle 5 kids groceries for 7 people and laundry to the laundromat on public transportation. Groceries for 7 people week after week would need daily shopping if you didn’t have a car. Even walking distance to a supermarket would entail endless daily trips as you can’t get food and household supplies for 7 people into those little metal grocery carts.

    So you’d need a car.

    We haven’t covered basic clothes furniture cooking implements household supplies yet.

    Children’s activities cost a lot, like $125. For typical sports team plus the shoes and uniforms etc School trips birthday parties where the guests are expected to bring presents.

    Love and attention cost nothing Time depends on work and commuting schedule. If you have 5 kids, better hope you and spouse work in jobs with lots of paid overtime.

    I won’t even go into loss of privacy sibling squabbles because of so many kids and different ages, difficulty of coordinating family and other activities because the kids range from 14 to 2.

    Cooking and cleaning up after meals for 7 people. Oh, by the way, to feed 7 people you’ll need a decent size dining table and a place to put it. A lot of modernist even “ luxury” homes and condos don’t have a place for a big dining table. They have these huge kitchens but people are supposed to eat on stools at the kitchen counter or on the coffee table spilling food on the couch chairs and rug,

    Good luck. Hope your big family works out.

    Yuuuuuup.

    A lot of the guys here talking about how easy (and cheap?!) it is to raise lots of kids clearly have never done it themselves. How can you make alliances and persuade people to do something that would be good for a lot of them if you start from a batshit premise? If you appear to genuinely not know that, say, cooked meals and laundry require energy and energy costs money, you just look infantile.

    It’s also a complete retreat on living standards. I’m old enough to remember cons arguing that their policies would raise prosperity and living standards. They were wrong in their policies, but I liked what they were aiming for.

    Now, its constantly harping that people should give up on nice things, spare time, public education, generally all the advantages of living in the First World, so a bunch of childless men can feel manly. (This is a major beef I have with the likes of Megan McArdle; I’m not especially interested in a childless 50 y/o telling people to permanently lower their living standards because she apparently knows all about raising kids.)

    So yeah, at some point everyone needs to enter the real world, and use the crisis of low birthrates as a way to make vital alliances, rather than as an opportunity to preen.

    • Replies: @Alden
    That’s the one thing I just can’t stand about this site. Either Rip Van Winkles who

    bought a house for 12,000 K in 1955,

    sent their 2 kids to a nice free public school

    , had a stay at home wife who did all cooking cleaning childcare and decorating,

    who worked exactly 40 hours a week and was home in 2o minutes, thus having plenty of time for car and home maintenance

    paid $2.40 a month phone bill $5.00 a month gas and electric in summer, $2o. 00 a month in winter while keeping the house nice and warm at 75F

    paid $140.00 a year property taxes.

    That’s the first group I despise
    Here’s the second group I despise

    The 35 to 50 year old men who never married no kids
    live in one bedroom apartments
    have a motorcycle but no car
    eat fast food a lot, can’t cook a pork chop and baked potato,
    don’t own the most elementary tools, couldn’t tighten a loose screw or fix anything
    don’t know if they’ll have a job 5 months ahead,

    These guys endlessly pontificate that White women should all have 4-6 kids.

    I wonder what’s happening to my survey about how many of these fertility advocates have more than 2 children.
  188. @R.G. Camara
    Liar. It's not about not liking fish, its about the fact that the English forced them to work the land as near-serfs and eat only potatoes. The Irish would've gladly eaten fish had they been freed of their obligations to the English conquerors.

    So nice try with the lie again, little girl.

    This is exactly like the guys saying African Americans only like soul food because the White Man forced it on the during slavery.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Read comment 180 and learn something. The Protestant Ascendancy of Ireland exported food to England during the famine.

    I direct your attention to the section about what the middle and upper class English did to their own poor 1650 to 1950. The English poor shrank substantially during those years due to not enough food. And the English poor were all Protestants.

    Lots of history you don’t know.
  189. @Reg Cæsar

    But don’t let the pit-bulls get to the goats.
     
    Or each other!


    Case Study: Animal Fighting – Michael Vick



    https://c8.alamy.com/comp/C1HJ9M/michael-vick-mugshot-C1HJ9M.jpg

    It’s amazing the NFL deems Rush Limbaugh too toxic to allow back into the commentary booth, but Michael Vick has somehow made quite the comeback.

  190. @Alden
    What’s the monthly air conditioning bill for a trailer in Florida heat and humidity?

    Unless you confine poultry to one of those impenetrable metal buildings they always always eventually get devoured by raccoons weasels foxes hawks vultures stray dogs whatever critters around.

    Really, my brothers a farmer poultry is very hard to keep safe from the wild critters. Unless you have a big huge not castrated gander. Ever seen one? They are huge compared to girl geese. And like all un castrated male farm animals mean ornery and aggressive. A nasty gander might scare off a fox or raccoon. But I don’t think they can really fight, just scare them off.

    Each to his own or what they can afford.

    Poultry can easily and safely be kept in a coop built in a single day with chicken wire (guess why it’s called that?) and lumber from any hardware store. By keeping a dog in the same yard as the coop, then enclosing the yard with a chain-link or wooden fence, one eliminates most all problems with raccoons, foxes, stoats, stray dogs, and such. One might still loose a hen to the odd raptor, I suppose, but even that can be prevented by covering the enclosure with netting, corrugated plastic or aluminum, more chicken wire, or something similar.

    I know people who use this technique. No hermetic metal buildings are required. (Your brother is operating a farm, so the sheer numbers of his charges are what make his challenges fundamentally different and perhaps more challenging.)

    • Replies: @Alden
    Livestock farmers don’t like dogs anywhere in the neighborhood because once they start chasing and and running in packs and kill a calf they become dangerous.

    Only well trained herding dogs belong on farms. There’s one merle collie I used to see in Marin. It drove about 50 holsteins home every late afternoon for milking all by itself. Spectacular!! But no farmers my brother knows wanted a dog around.

    Everybody who didn’t grow up farming or ranching tries chickens, ducks other poultry exactly as you described. But they get sick of coming out in the morning and seeing several dead birds. Especially in winter when the rabbits are down in the ground hibernating and the squirrels are wherever they go in winter and the foxes and weasels get hungry

    It’s become very popular with sissy city boy liberal families to have a chicken coop just for the eggs. But it’s just as bad in cities because of stray dogs. Plus the mess and diseases. And it costs more than supermarket eggs. Chicken manure is the very best fertilizer though because of the nitrogen.

    Most people give it up after a few years because the work deaths and cost isn’t worth it.
  191. I took my kids to the park yesterday and performed the usual sweep of the benches and common areas, so as to pick up the stray Kools packets, discarded Doritos bags, blunt wraps, Sprite cans, and the occasional foety ounce bottle of malt likka. (Fortunately, Mickey’s is on special at our nearest Indo-Pak consulate, so I didn’t have to deal with the broken glass that accompanies King Cobra.)

    As I was “mowing the black lawn,” I couldn’t help but laugh thinking about how once the whites move a bit farther out and the park is reclaimed by the wild, the newspapers will be full of op-eds from Professors Snipdick and Gropeblatt blaming us for the mess. The miasma of white supremacy, after all, dissolves all those containers of grape drank that sprout eternal from Tragic Dirt.

    • Replies: @Dissident

    It’s amazing the NFL deems Rush Limbaugh too toxic to allow back into the commentary booth, but Michael Vick has somehow made quite the comeback.
     
    More amazing than the fact that MSNBC fired Pat Buchanan and replaced him with Al Sharpton?

    Or the incredible sanctimony that Democrats-- who gave a standing ovation to Sharpton at their 2004 Convention and have only honored and groveled to him since-- continue to so brazenly exhibit?
  192. @R.G. Camara

    I half wonder if the Irish emigrated because they were just really sick of potatoes. Didn’t anyone fish there?
     
    The English held most of the land and forced most of the Irish to work for them. Then most of the food produced was promptly exported away from the Irish. The Irish were forced onto a near potato-only subsistence diet because the potato needed far less car by them on their home plots and because the potato was seen as a low vegetable beneath English tastes.

    Then when the blight hit, the English refused to amend their extreme regulation and allow Irish food to be fed to the Irish. Nonsensically, this is often called "lassez-faire" but it was anything but. Many people have speculated that this was deliberate starvation by the English bureaucrats, who saw the blight as a gift to rid themselves of the excess Irish chattel who were too hard to subdue completely.

    It was deliberate starvation. The Irish food was taken out of the countryside in wagons under armed guard.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Please read comment 180 about the European potato blight that only causes a famine and starvation in Ireland
  193. @Brutusale
    Additionally, when these white women decide to have their kids when they come off the Pill is as important.

    That was reinforced Sunday evening when the girlfriend and I were tailgating with friends before the Queen concert. Many late-50/early 60ish couples with children, and there were a measurable percentage of these kids were what we used to call "slow".

    The Pill and ancient eggs. This ain't good.

    Might have been adopted kids.

  194. @William Badwhite

    What happens if a disease comes along and destroys the Russert Potato ?
     
    The remaining 5% of potatoes would get really expensive, but nobody would starve because there are other things to eat besides potatoes. I half wonder if the Irish emigrated because they were just really sick of potatoes. Didn't anyone fish there? Rhetorical question.

    The Irish didn’t govern themselves. The English made it very hard for the Irish Catholics to raise food other than potatoes.

    Please read my comment 180. It’s the truth about the numerous famines and explains why only coastal Irish Catholics were allowed to fish.

  195. @Jesse
    The Irish don't like fish. They've always had fishing villages, but they were desperately poor and emptied out even quicker than the Rust Belt.

    Please read my comment 180. It was illegal for Catholics to fish in rivers lakes and ponds.

  196. @Oddsbodkins
    I don't doubt that the practice of RC, or any other religion, can persist while simultaneously leading its followers to misery.

    Please read my comment 180 about the Irish famines. You might learn something.

  197. @Anonymous
    The Irish don’t like fish.

    Why don't they like fish? Are there fish aplenty in the waters off Ireland?

    Please read my comment 180 about the severe food restrictions the English forced on the Irish Catholics for 300 years. Those restrictions exactly fit the definition of genocide. No different from Stalin and Ukraine.

  198. @R.G. Camara
    LMAO.

    No, little liar, it was the Potato Blight and the British extreme regulation ---disallowing the sale of all non-Irish food in Ireland, and taking most Irish food themselves--that killed them. That's why in Irish the time is called The Great Hunger and not the Great Famine.

    But nice try on blaming the church, little girl. Your calumny against God and his followers is noted.

    For more information please read my post 180.

  199. @R.G. Camara

    Yes, and who could possibly have foretold that having all your poor dependent on one crop could backfire?
     
    The English sure didn't. They were not Catholics. But they were the ones who made that decision, not the Catholic Church.

    The English forced the Irish onto the potato crop on pain of death. They heavily regulated Ireland as a breadbasket for the empire, exporting most of the Irish food for their own use. The Irish were forced to work on English estates and were given only the potato for themselves as it was considered too dirty and low-class for the English overlords.

    But nice try on blaming the Catholics when it was really anti-Catholic English bureaucrats who caused the problem.

    I do enjoy dumb female liars like yourself. So amusing, so low-IQ, so....leftist.

    Please read comment 18o for more information.

  200. @R.G. Camara

    I half wonder if the Irish emigrated because they were just really sick of potatoes. Didn’t anyone fish there?
     
    The English held most of the land and forced most of the Irish to work for them. Then most of the food produced was promptly exported away from the Irish. The Irish were forced onto a near potato-only subsistence diet because the potato needed far less car by them on their home plots and because the potato was seen as a low vegetable beneath English tastes.

    Then when the blight hit, the English refused to amend their extreme regulation and allow Irish food to be fed to the Irish. Nonsensically, this is often called "lassez-faire" but it was anything but. Many people have speculated that this was deliberate starvation by the English bureaucrats, who saw the blight as a gift to rid themselves of the excess Irish chattel who were too hard to subdue completely.

    Comment 180. It was genocide no different from Stalin and Ukraine

  201. @Jesse
    I have no idea what your wider point is, but it does tell that the most ethno nationalist among us are the ones with something to prove. Actual Irish people find the constant self pity repulsive.

    Also, I don't want to hear one more goddamn word telling the blacks to get over slavery, or the Jews to get over the Holocaust, if this is how you treat the poor widdle oppressed white people.

    I, the historian made comment 180 to inform the ignorant bigots about the English intentions to starve the Catholics out of Ireland also known as genocide. Also made comment 180 to inform the ignorant bigots that the potato blight was all over Europe. But Only in Ireland was there famine, starvation and death because:

    1 In the rest of Europe there was plenty of food other than potatoes for even the poorest.
    2 Other European governments kept track of the agricultural year. They usually knew by May how the harvest would turn out. When the potato blight started in April those governments ordered rice from the USA which was stockpiled and ready to be distributed by harvest time.

    What’s your point?

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    Jesse is a paid troll, as is evidenced by her lying, nonsensical circular reasoning, bad rhetoric, and overall illogic and stupidity.

    You're coming at her as if she were a person open to logic and facts, but she is not here for that, she is here to demoralize, lying, obfuscate, double talk, and derail discussion---facts be danged. Her laughably bad and inept comparison between the Great Hunger and blacks being victims of redlining and needing reparations is evidence of this.

    Now that you know this, pay her no mind. Your posts are rich with information, study, and thought, and you not only waste them on a paid troll such as her, you exhaust and frustrate yourself, when you could be using such posts to respond to those of us who do care about facts and arguments.

    Next time you see one of her posts, just ignore her or make fun of her and move in. She's quite a dumb troll, so her masters are certainly going to be angry at not getting their money's worth.

  202. @Jesse
    Yuuuuuup.

    A lot of the guys here talking about how easy (and cheap?!) it is to raise lots of kids clearly have never done it themselves. How can you make alliances and persuade people to do something that would be good for a lot of them if you start from a batshit premise? If you appear to genuinely not know that, say, cooked meals and laundry require energy and energy costs money, you just look infantile.

    It's also a complete retreat on living standards. I'm old enough to remember cons arguing that their policies would raise prosperity and living standards. They were wrong in their policies, but I liked what they were aiming for.

    Now, its constantly harping that people should give up on nice things, spare time, public education, generally all the advantages of living in the First World, so a bunch of childless men can feel manly. (This is a major beef I have with the likes of Megan McArdle; I'm not especially interested in a childless 50 y/o telling people to permanently lower their living standards because she apparently knows all about raising kids.)

    So yeah, at some point everyone needs to enter the real world, and use the crisis of low birthrates as a way to make vital alliances, rather than as an opportunity to preen.

    That’s the one thing I just can’t stand about this site. Either Rip Van Winkles who

    bought a house for 12,000 K in 1955,

    sent their 2 kids to a nice free public school

    , had a stay at home wife who did all cooking cleaning childcare and decorating,

    who worked exactly 40 hours a week and was home in 2o minutes, thus having plenty of time for car and home maintenance

    paid $2.40 a month phone bill $5.00 a month gas and electric in summer, $2o. 00 a month in winter while keeping the house nice and warm at 75F

    paid $140.00 a year property taxes.

    That’s the first group I despise
    Here’s the second group I despise

    The 35 to 50 year old men who never married no kids
    live in one bedroom apartments
    have a motorcycle but no car
    eat fast food a lot, can’t cook a pork chop and baked potato,
    don’t own the most elementary tools, couldn’t tighten a loose screw or fix anything
    don’t know if they’ll have a job 5 months ahead,

    These guys endlessly pontificate that White women should all have 4-6 kids.

    I wonder what’s happening to my survey about how many of these fertility advocates have more than 2 children.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    I hate both types of people you describe, too. I expect any one would – even a member of either group, if he's any self-awareness and shame, ought to have at least some nagging element of self-hatred.

    I'll grant you the Rip van Winkle – I've seen him around here pretty regularly, and I chastise him when I do.

    I'm not as convinced any significant number of readers fit your second category, though, and I'm half convinced you're imagining that constituency. Most of us have families, from what I can tell. Do we all have ten children? No. Do some of us have one child? Sure. Are some yet unmarried and without children? Of course. Responsible people (unless fabulously wealthy) don't have six children by the age of twenty-five; depending upon one's circumstances, it may never be responsible to have six children.

    Some readers are young persons who've not yet wed. Others of us are a bit older, with a small family, still growing. Just because we didn't accost our wives before they'd recovered from their episiotomies or begun menstruating again – to ensure they shat out babies nine months and nine days apart, meeting some goofy quota – doesn't mean we are child-hating hedonists.

    In any event, I don't see any evidence that any significant part of the younger crowd meet your cartoonish criteria. Your criteria for Rip van Winkle describe an actual lifestyle quite common in living memory – even I remember it, and I was born during the Carter administration.
    Your second criteria, though, over-egg the pudding. "Can't cook a pork chop or tighten a screw?" Idiots can do these things in middle school. Your critique loses credibility when you opt for what you reckon are hilarious zingers instead of keeping to legitimate points.
  203. @sayless
    It was deliberate starvation. The Irish food was taken out of the countryside in wagons under armed guard.

    Please read comment 180 about the European potato blight that only causes a famine and starvation in Ireland

  204. @Autochthon
    Poultry can easily and safely be kept in a coop built in a single day with chicken wire (guess why it's called that?) and lumber from any hardware store. By keeping a dog in the same yard as the coop, then enclosing the yard with a chain-link or wooden fence, one eliminates most all problems with raccoons, foxes, stoats, stray dogs, and such. One might still loose a hen to the odd raptor, I suppose, but even that can be prevented by covering the enclosure with netting, corrugated plastic or aluminum, more chicken wire, or something similar.

    I know people who use this technique. No hermetic metal buildings are required. (Your brother is operating a farm, so the sheer numbers of his charges are what make his challenges fundamentally different and perhaps more challenging.)

    Livestock farmers don’t like dogs anywhere in the neighborhood because once they start chasing and and running in packs and kill a calf they become dangerous.

    Only well trained herding dogs belong on farms. There’s one merle collie I used to see in Marin. It drove about 50 holsteins home every late afternoon for milking all by itself. Spectacular!! But no farmers my brother knows wanted a dog around.

    Everybody who didn’t grow up farming or ranching tries chickens, ducks other poultry exactly as you described. But they get sick of coming out in the morning and seeing several dead birds. Especially in winter when the rabbits are down in the ground hibernating and the squirrels are wherever they go in winter and the foxes and weasels get hungry

    It’s become very popular with sissy city boy liberal families to have a chicken coop just for the eggs. But it’s just as bad in cities because of stray dogs. Plus the mess and diseases. And it costs more than supermarket eggs. Chicken manure is the very best fertilizer though because of the nitrogen.

    Most people give it up after a few years because the work deaths and cost isn’t worth it.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    My rabbits survived for quite a few years living in a small walled-in backyard in Los Angeles, but I had to put out quite a lot of anti-hawk impedimenta like cafe umbrellas and shiny ribbons to distract the raptors. One male rabbit even dug himself a 20 foot long tunnel after almost being caught by a red hawk.

    A few nights ago I was out for a walk in the wee hours and I came upon two young coyotes trotting up the street. Usually coyotes are solitary, but these two were only about half (25 pounds) the normal size, so I imagine they were siblings about six months old. They were sleek, good-looking beasts.

    In contrast, a couple of weeks ago I ran into a possum. It reminded me of a John Updike story in "Penthouse" about "The Man Who Loved Extinct Mammals" about a scientist who specializes in early mammals from 50 million years ago who look primitively engineered compared to modern canids and, especially, felines. Possums still look like a beta release, Mammal 0.9.

    https://shortstorymagictricks.com/2017/06/29/the-man-who-loved-extinct-mammals-by-john-updike/

    , @Autochthon

    No farmers my brother knows wanted a dog around.
     
    The farmers your brother knows sound like a piece of work. No farmer I've known didn't swear by a good dog.

    https://phoenicianfarm.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/sable-chickens2.jpg

    Are we talking about the same thing?

    More and more I suspect perhaps your brother's crowd are the slimy agribusiness types who swear by gallons of antibiotics, irresponsibly depleting aquifers at all costs then bitching about daddy gubmint not impounding Moar Water! for them, an army of illegal aliens to shame any antebellum planter's slaves, and the holy church of Monsanto. I know about these types – I'm surrounded by them. They live in mansions adjacent to their fields, drive around town in $80,000.00 monster trucks, spend half their days in clatches at Starbucks bitching about the prices of commodities, and whatever is not automated gets done by their trusty Mexican slaves. They are rich because they inherited a lot land, not because they work it. They disgust me.

    The actual farmers I know (who all live back east in remnants of the U.S.A., rather than Mexinchifornia) live on small farms their families have owned for an age and have none of these predilections, nor the accompanying pathologies. They live modest lives. Some barely get by.

    Everybody who didn’t grow up farming or ranching tries chickens, ducks other poultry exactly as you described. But they get sick of coming out in the morning and seeing several dead birds.
     
    I don't know about "everybody." I do know the five people I know personally who do it have no such troubles. These people did not grow up farming and are not farmers. Just people with a bit of land who are not stupid (they are nothing like the hipster doofus "urban chicken" people you mention – I know those types, too, and I agree they are as hapless as you say.) One is a Russian emigre who grew up in Moscow (as urban as it gets!) and now lives in rural Santa Clara. She has an emu, too. It's ornery as Hell, and probably contributes more than her dog to keeping her chickens safe – I was afraid of the damned thing.

    http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwmu/files/styles/x_large/public/201603/emu.jpg
  205. @Jesse
    This is exactly like the guys saying African Americans only like soul food because the White Man forced it on the during slavery.

    Read comment 180 and learn something. The Protestant Ascendancy of Ireland exported food to England during the famine.

    I direct your attention to the section about what the middle and upper class English did to their own poor 1650 to 1950. The English poor shrank substantially during those years due to not enough food. And the English poor were all Protestants.

    Lots of history you don’t know.

  206. What will this mother of six do when she gets horny? Normally she’d glue on the nails,get her hair done and hit the club to find herself a nice thug.
    Now will she arrive at the local hipster hangout and try to seduce a Starbucks barista?
    Perhaps the prospect will help the mom of six avoid being a mom of seven?

  207. @Anonymous

    Iceland in reverse.
     
    Icelanders have Irish ancestry. So what gives?

    They love fish. The Irish don’t– per the previous commenter.

    I often met Icelandair and KLM flight crews at the same time. It was striking how much more “Nordic” the Dutch stews were. It was easy to see the quarter-quantum Irish slave ancestry in the Icelanders.

    Maybe they weren’t slaves, but came along by their own will because the Vikings promised them the fish their neighbors spurned!

    And yes, I’m aware that the hiring pool in the Netherlands is sixty times that of Iceland’s.

  208. @Kyle
    Most of these comments are saying that it's advantageous to have fewer children. For ones personal finances, over a lifetime. Macro economically speaking, everyone in white culture having fewer children hasn’t translated into a more robust economy in the last 60 years, or about the course of a lifetime.

    How many White children have you fathered, supported and raised? We had 4.

  209. @Jesse
    The Irish don't like fish. They've always had fishing villages, but they were desperately poor and emptied out even quicker than the Rust Belt.

    You haven’t read comment 180 yet have you?

    • Replies: @Jesse
    I have and all I saw was one long whiiiiiiiiiine.

    At the very least, I don't want to see any more complaints about the Jews not getting over the Holocaust, or the blacks not getting over slavery, if this is your attitude.

    And it's something that actual Irish people find repulsive. Why wallow in a feeling of powerlessness? Why boast about being weak? It's always the diaspora types.
  210. @Anon
    One reason people used to have lots of kids is because so many kids died in childhood. You had to improve your odds of getting two or three into adulthood.

    Now you can just have one or two, and they will all survive into adulthood. But on the other hand, with so few kids, if one is in an accident and dies, or if one goes adult-onset schitzo, or if one is just an asshole of a kid, it is more of a hit on the parent. Had the parent had five or six kids, not that there isn’t grief at one of the kids dying or turning out bad, but it’s less of a tragedy. The average kid is average; half of kids are below average.

    What reasons are there not to have kids:

    -- Mom doesn’t want to blow out her tummy and birth canal and carry babies all the time. Can’t argue with that, I suppose.

    -- Cost of feeding and housing them: This seems to somehow mysteriously take care of itself. You feed them what you can feed them and they sleep where there is space. Malnutrition is absent in modern life; obesity is the problem, not scurvy, rickets, and beri-beri.

    -- Cost of educating them: Don’t educate them -- that is, college. College is a waste and a decreasingly valuable human capital quality signal to employers. Let them take the SAT and show that directly to employers. If the score isn’t so great, college wouldn’t help them. Let them get in the workforce fast and not waste four years. A kid who really wants college can figure out how to get it, and if you’re from a big family I reckon financial aid is easier.

    -- Costs of mobile phones: Wah ha ha! None for you, kids. By the way, we cannot afford a television either.

    -- Modern problems like child protective services and other ways government regulation may want to prevent you from raising your kids the way you want. Will leaving a responsible teen to take care of a younger sibling cause problems? Is it child abuse not to give a kid a mobile phone these days?

    So, Anon 713, how many White children have you fathered supported and raised?

    We raised 4. What about you, you sad old bachelor? From your post, anyone whose maintained a home and raised kids can see you have no children.

  211. @More R1b, Less H1B
    I took my kids to the park yesterday and performed the usual sweep of the benches and common areas, so as to pick up the stray Kools packets, discarded Doritos bags, blunt wraps, Sprite cans, and the occasional foety ounce bottle of malt likka. (Fortunately, Mickey's is on special at our nearest Indo-Pak consulate, so I didn't have to deal with the broken glass that accompanies King Cobra.)

    As I was "mowing the black lawn," I couldn't help but laugh thinking about how once the whites move a bit farther out and the park is reclaimed by the wild, the newspapers will be full of op-eds from Professors Snipdick and Gropeblatt blaming us for the mess. The miasma of white supremacy, after all, dissolves all those containers of grape drank that sprout eternal from Tragic Dirt.

    It’s amazing the NFL deems Rush Limbaugh too toxic to allow back into the commentary booth, but Michael Vick has somehow made quite the comeback.

    More amazing than the fact that MSNBC fired Pat Buchanan and replaced him with Al Sharpton?

    Or the incredible sanctimony that Democrats– who gave a standing ovation to Sharpton at their 2004 Convention and have only honored and groveled to him since– continue to so brazenly exhibit?

  212. @Moses

    Someday, a ton of shit is going to come out about the negative effects of The Pill. We’re talking cancer risk increases, ovarian damage, personality changes, mental health effects, broken marriages etc. I firmly believe The Pill is going to one day be revealed to be right up there with treating people with mercury and doctors not washing their hands as one of the big “they were literally destroying people’s health and lives, those idiots!” events in medical history.
     
    Agreed.

    The second and third order effects for screwing around with the endocrine system are unknown but certainly are there. There ain't no free lunch.

    One thing I've learned over my life is disrupting the body's natural mechanisms which evolved over millions of years generally is a bad idea without an uber-compelling medical reason.

    For example, it used to be conventional medical wisdom to use drugs to reduce fevers. Now evidence shows that fever (unless crazy high) is beneficial and helps the immune system destroy invaders faster.

    Another example is how Western medicine thought infant formula was superior to breast milk. Incredible idiocy.

    My hunch is science eventually will show the pill had monstrous negative biological effects on women.

    You’re a man. You’re not in medicine, not even an EMT.

    You have no sex life is obvious because you are unaware that condoms and diaphragms are cumbersome and unreliable, IUDS are messy and implants are the same hormones as the pill.

    The pill’s been widely used for 60 years and no one has caught cancer or any other disease from it.

    The pill or the implant is the best birth control from a man’s point of view. It’s very reliable the man has nothing to do and it’s not messy like IUDs

    Yet you who have no sex life pontificate against the pill. Why? You who have no medical knowledge other than some internet ignorance pontificate against the pill Why?

    While preaching against the pill you probably preach against divorced men or unmarried men having to support their children.

    The pill prevents the conception of children UNZ men think it’s not their obligation to support.

    I already know why you can’t get married and have children. Every woman within 100 miles of where you live is covered with tattoos, weighs 300 pounds has an ugly face and dyes her hair green.

    Another sad old bachelor telling other people to have lots of children and not use birth control.

    • Replies: @Moses
    You're a woman, aren't you?
  213. @Jesse
    There have been a LOT of said studies.

    However:

    (1) It's become so associated with the Catholic Church that no one wants to know. If you object to the Pill, you first have to spend an eternity reassuring them that you're not some screeching Papist trying to make them have 10 kids they don't want and can't afford.

    Believe it or not, the Catholic church getting more involved wouldn't be an improvement.

    (2) The logical extension of the harms of the Pill would be for men to take responsibility and start wearing condoms. That never seems to impinge, even though it's logical, no one needs surgery and hormones and it solves all problems. The idea of men taking responsibility draws a level of aggression.

    Women can get the Fallopian tubes clipped or knotted together so the ovum don’t come down and the spermatozoon can’t swim up.

    Then get the procedure undone and have a baby.

    The pills been around for 60 years and no ones gotten a disease from it yet. I remember when the PI attorneys were justa hopin’ and a prayin’ that the pill was dangerous and they could make fortunes .

    The men on this site are strange. Most seem to not be married or have children or own homes. Yet they are extremely opinionated about birth control, abortion other people having big families and men not supporting their children if divorced or unmarried.

    They’re also completely unaware of cooking a meal, having a table to sit and eat the meal, the constant large and small repairs a house needs or normal family life at all.

    That’s why there’s very few women on this site. After a few blasts from the sad old bachelors about the evils of birth control and that every White woman should have several kids and raise them on $30,000 a year with no help from the father either in conception, finance, child care or household maintenance most women never look at UNZ again.

    • Agree: Jesse
    • Replies: @Moses
    Ms. Alden - Your posts are full of silly hallucinations about the readers on this site.

    You rage against me for criticizing the pill. From that, you hallucinate that I am against all kinds of birth control. Then you rage against your imagination that all the men on this site are childless incels.

    Perhaps some are. I have no idea. I lack your powers of omnipotent clairvoyance.

    You clearly have some kind of strong emotional attachment to the pill.

    For the record, I'm married and have 4 children intentionally. My wife has never gone on the pill.

    Perhaps years of taking the pill is causing these hallucinations? You might reconsider it.
    , @Jesse
    Men can get vasectomies, which are far less invasive and easier to reverse. They could also use condoms, so no one need surgery and hormones.

    But yes on the alt right type men. They want all the benefits they see Alphas getting from the modern system, and all of the deference they saw older generations of men getting. But they don't want any of the responsibilities and courtesies their grandfathers took on.

    So we have the likes of Dennis Prager saying that men should be automatically be deferred to, *and* that they should have the right to ogle any woman they like, and never pay child support. Their ancestors wouldn't have recognized them as male.
  214. @Kronos
    “The average NYT reader makes about $200k, as opposed to a mere $75k for WaPo. WaPo readers are more virulently leftists because they know they’re also commoners deep down.”

    Are those numbers for real? I’ve always been curious about the demographic makeup of NYT subscribers. Sailer often points out the writer quality between the physical paper and online version. (That the former is more sophisticated than the latter.) Any idea what the main age brackets are? There are only 250,000 subscribers right?

    If you want to know the income of readers of anything, just look at the ADs. NYTimes ADs are aimed at the very rich, not upper middle.

  215. @Jesse
    Take it from an Irish American with strong ties to the original country: Ireland has traditionally been massively overbred. It caused the Famine. It caused a huge amount of misery that, because the Papists managed to keep birth control away from people, is within livig memory.

    You may have strong ties to the old country but you don’t know the history of how the English upper and middle classes treated the working classes of both islands.

    And you don’t know that the 1840s potato blight was all over Europe but only the Catholic Irish starved to death because of English genocidal policy.

    I understand that many Irish are anti catholic for good reason. But it’s unbelievably ignorant to claim that the Catholic Church was responsible for the fact that there was no semi reliable birth control until the 1920’s Dutch Cap diaphragm thing.

    All over the world Asia Africa Muslim Puritan Europe Anglican Europe catholic Europe there really wasn’t women’s birth control until the 1920s and you can’t blame the Catholic Church for that.

    If you believe that reliable women’s birth control was developed a thousand years ago and the Catholic Church suppressed it in every culture all over the world feel free to do so.

    • Agree: byrresheim
  216. @anon
    You see a similar phenomenon on Nature's Facebook page. Occasionally, they'll misrepresent or politicize a study only for readers to then rip them apart for it.

    Ex:

    >Study examines socioeconomic trend impacting families.
    >Nature: Women are suffering.
    >Readers: That wasn't the focus of the study, so why did you mention that one thing in your headline? Seems inflammatory.

    OR

    >Nature: Anecdote proves anti-women discrimination in science hiring.
    >Reader 1: Uh, there's not a shred of statistical evidence in this claim. Shameful.
    >Reader 2: Here's a link to a report stating that, due to affirmative action bias, women are nearly 3x as a likely to get certain academic appointments when compared to male competitors.
    >Reader 3: Here's a link to a study showing men in science are biased in their hiring practices ... against other men. They often favor women over men.

    OR

    >Nature: Extreme ethnic diversity is always good and this fact is "proved" by this one anecdote from a guy whom we interviewed and this study about laboratory graduate students.
    >Readers: Did you miss the Putnam work showing the opposite is true? Besides, the idea that people work together better just because they have different skin tones seems a bit absurd on the face of it.
    >Nature: It's totally true and that dumb story we just posted proves it.
    >Readers: Maybe your "study" doesn't show what you think it does.

    OR

    >Nature: We need more take your daughter to work things because this one area of science employment is underrepresented in some respect or something.
    >Female Commenter: Wouldn't it be less divisive to advocate more child science learning regardless of gender?

    I looked through nature a few times at the local library, just liberal propaganda. Gag. Also Serena Williams seems to be on every other cover of Vogue and Harpers.

  217. @Alden
    What’s the monthly air conditioning bill for a trailer in Florida heat and humidity?

    Unless you confine poultry to one of those impenetrable metal buildings they always always eventually get devoured by raccoons weasels foxes hawks vultures stray dogs whatever critters around.

    Really, my brothers a farmer poultry is very hard to keep safe from the wild critters. Unless you have a big huge not castrated gander. Ever seen one? They are huge compared to girl geese. And like all un castrated male farm animals mean ornery and aggressive. A nasty gander might scare off a fox or raccoon. But I don’t think they can really fight, just scare them off.

    Each to his own or what they can afford.

    What’s the monthly air conditioning bill for a trailer in Florida heat and humidity?

    A divorced woman who I work with told me her electricity bill was $35 per month until her daughter and boyfriend and child and dog moved in with her. I don’t remember what it went up to, but less than $100.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Sounds great.
  218. @Jesse
    Hi Talcolm X! Nice self pity there! I'm sure you'll be perfectly understanding once the black leadership starts saying the same things about white people!

    lol, little commie liar. This is a pretty well-documented, direct cause-and-effect thing, and not some “massa made me do it” conspiracy theory with several steps between purported cause and effect, like “redlining held blacks in crime and proverty” nonsense.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Irish_food_exports_during_Famine

    Most historians are pretty confident that the British government had a stubborn bureaucratic blindspot combined with a fervent belief in their economic system to the letter and were also more preoccupied with other crown holdings at the time (e.g. India). There was no real “famine” except for potatoes; Irish was a net exporter of food even during the so-called famine.

    This isn’t blaming the Brits unfairly, anymore than noting that white migrants to North America killed off loads of American Indians both through taking their lands and through inadvertnantly giving them diseases.

    In short, as everyone agrees, there was a direct cause and effect between British regulations causing the starvation, and the potato blight was only a catalyst. There was no famine, just very bad regulation. Had those regulations not existed, the Irish would not have starved at all.

    But you’re not “smart” enough to understand that, little liar.

  219. Ms Rath is near Seattle. There’s another freebie she can get if she has another baby. Some Seattle churches have The Baby Corner. It’s a crib collection point somewhere in the place . The idea as your baby abd toddlers grow out of their clothes put them in the crib and the clothes are given to poor welfare mammas and illegal immigrants who Seattle churches just adore and worship. The biggest need is of course disposable diapers as the poor pitiful welfare mammas can’t afford
    to buy disposable diapers. Welfare mammas don’t even have to ask the church.

    The nurses at the hospital where the babies are delivered contact the public health visiting nurses. The public health nurses visit the baby at home for its checkups and vaccines because, you see, welfare mammas aren’t expected to get off the couch and take the baby to the Dr. Well, also the visiting nurses come to check the mamma is feeding the kid changing diapers not beating it to death.

    So a couple days after the welfare pigs get home there’s the public health nurse with a huge bag of baby clothes blankets and disposable diapers. The diapers keep coming for the next 18 months.

    Isn’t that sweet.

    I think a lot of southern churches have something similar.

  220. @Jonathan Mason

    What’s the monthly air conditioning bill for a trailer in Florida heat and humidity?
     
    A divorced woman who I work with told me her electricity bill was $35 per month until her daughter and boyfriend and child and dog moved in with her. I don't remember what it went up to, but less than $100.

    Sounds great.

  221. @Alden
    I, the historian made comment 180 to inform the ignorant bigots about the English intentions to starve the Catholics out of Ireland also known as genocide. Also made comment 180 to inform the ignorant bigots that the potato blight was all over Europe. But Only in Ireland was there famine, starvation and death because:

    1 In the rest of Europe there was plenty of food other than potatoes for even the poorest.
    2 Other European governments kept track of the agricultural year. They usually knew by May how the harvest would turn out. When the potato blight started in April those governments ordered rice from the USA which was stockpiled and ready to be distributed by harvest time.

    What’s your point?

    Jesse is a paid troll, as is evidenced by her lying, nonsensical circular reasoning, bad rhetoric, and overall illogic and stupidity.

    You’re coming at her as if she were a person open to logic and facts, but she is not here for that, she is here to demoralize, lying, obfuscate, double talk, and derail discussion—facts be danged. Her laughably bad and inept comparison between the Great Hunger and blacks being victims of redlining and needing reparations is evidence of this.

    Now that you know this, pay her no mind. Your posts are rich with information, study, and thought, and you not only waste them on a paid troll such as her, you exhaust and frustrate yourself, when you could be using such posts to respond to those of us who do care about facts and arguments.

    Next time you see one of her posts, just ignore her or make fun of her and move in. She’s quite a dumb troll, so her masters are certainly going to be angry at not getting their money’s worth.

  222. @R.G. Camara
    lmao. So many commie lies, its amazing.

    The logical extension of the harms of The Pill would be for women to stop taking The Pill. Trying to put this on men is an amusing dodge and non sequitur , little liar. But then again, women like you never were good at logic.

    May I suggest an easy, harmless absolutely totally reliable method of birth control?

    It’s called abstinence. No sex no dating no marriage no physical contact with the opposite sex at all. No need for men to support their children. Perfect for UNZ men.

    Given their ignorance of family life, household maintenance, and raising children it’s obvious that most of the sad young, middle aged and old bachelors here have practiced total complete abstinence all their lives.

    • Replies: @Moses

    Given their ignorance of family life, household maintenance, and raising children it’s obvious that most of the sad young, middle aged and old bachelors here have practiced total complete abstinence all their lives.
     
    You are a very angry woman. Full of hate for other readers of this site.

    Getting off the pill might help.
  223. @Alden
    Livestock farmers don’t like dogs anywhere in the neighborhood because once they start chasing and and running in packs and kill a calf they become dangerous.

    Only well trained herding dogs belong on farms. There’s one merle collie I used to see in Marin. It drove about 50 holsteins home every late afternoon for milking all by itself. Spectacular!! But no farmers my brother knows wanted a dog around.

    Everybody who didn’t grow up farming or ranching tries chickens, ducks other poultry exactly as you described. But they get sick of coming out in the morning and seeing several dead birds. Especially in winter when the rabbits are down in the ground hibernating and the squirrels are wherever they go in winter and the foxes and weasels get hungry

    It’s become very popular with sissy city boy liberal families to have a chicken coop just for the eggs. But it’s just as bad in cities because of stray dogs. Plus the mess and diseases. And it costs more than supermarket eggs. Chicken manure is the very best fertilizer though because of the nitrogen.

    Most people give it up after a few years because the work deaths and cost isn’t worth it.

    My rabbits survived for quite a few years living in a small walled-in backyard in Los Angeles, but I had to put out quite a lot of anti-hawk impedimenta like cafe umbrellas and shiny ribbons to distract the raptors. One male rabbit even dug himself a 20 foot long tunnel after almost being caught by a red hawk.

    A few nights ago I was out for a walk in the wee hours and I came upon two young coyotes trotting up the street. Usually coyotes are solitary, but these two were only about half (25 pounds) the normal size, so I imagine they were siblings about six months old. They were sleek, good-looking beasts.

    In contrast, a couple of weeks ago I ran into a possum. It reminded me of a John Updike story in “Penthouse” about “The Man Who Loved Extinct Mammals” about a scientist who specializes in early mammals from 50 million years ago who look primitively engineered compared to modern canids and, especially, felines. Possums still look like a beta release, Mammal 0.9.

    https://shortstorymagictricks.com/2017/06/29/the-man-who-loved-extinct-mammals-by-john-updike/

    • Replies: @Alden
    I have coyotes in the alley because I live near the VA hospital. Wish we had some hawks around here to kill the seagulls. Coyotes are a pretty color

    After several trips to the vet with a big dog chewed up by a raccoon and a mountain lion stalking my brother’s cows, I’m getting sick of California wild life.

    Animal control won’t do anything about the raccoons either

    We had 2 really sweet rabbits when we were kids. They were house rabbits. Trained with a litter box in the utility room. But the next door neighbors dog got them when they were out in the yard in their cage . Mom put them out went inside and the dog ripped up the cage and the rabbits
  224. @Alden
    You’re a man. You’re not in medicine, not even an EMT.

    You have no sex life is obvious because you are unaware that condoms and diaphragms are cumbersome and unreliable, IUDS are messy and implants are the same hormones as the pill.

    The pill’s been widely used for 60 years and no one has caught cancer or any other disease from it.

    The pill or the implant is the best birth control from a man’s point of view. It’s very reliable the man has nothing to do and it’s not messy like IUDs

    Yet you who have no sex life pontificate against the pill. Why? You who have no medical knowledge other than some internet ignorance pontificate against the pill Why?

    While preaching against the pill you probably preach against divorced men or unmarried men having to support their children.

    The pill prevents the conception of children UNZ men think it’s not their obligation to support.

    I already know why you can’t get married and have children. Every woman within 100 miles of where you live is covered with tattoos, weighs 300 pounds has an ugly face and dyes her hair green.

    Another sad old bachelor telling other people to have lots of children and not use birth control.

    You’re a woman, aren’t you?

  225. @Alden
    Women can get the Fallopian tubes clipped or knotted together so the ovum don’t come down and the spermatozoon can’t swim up.

    Then get the procedure undone and have a baby.

    The pills been around for 60 years and no ones gotten a disease from it yet. I remember when the PI attorneys were justa hopin’ and a prayin’ that the pill was dangerous and they could make fortunes .

    The men on this site are strange. Most seem to not be married or have children or own homes. Yet they are extremely opinionated about birth control, abortion other people having big families and men not supporting their children if divorced or unmarried.

    They’re also completely unaware of cooking a meal, having a table to sit and eat the meal, the constant large and small repairs a house needs or normal family life at all.

    That’s why there’s very few women on this site. After a few blasts from the sad old bachelors about the evils of birth control and that every White woman should have several kids and raise them on $30,000 a year with no help from the father either in conception, finance, child care or household maintenance most women never look at UNZ again.

    Ms. Alden – Your posts are full of silly hallucinations about the readers on this site.

    You rage against me for criticizing the pill. From that, you hallucinate that I am against all kinds of birth control. Then you rage against your imagination that all the men on this site are childless incels.

    Perhaps some are. I have no idea. I lack your powers of omnipotent clairvoyance.

    You clearly have some kind of strong emotional attachment to the pill.

    For the record, I’m married and have 4 children intentionally. My wife has never gone on the pill.

    Perhaps years of taking the pill is causing these hallucinations? You might reconsider it.

    • Replies: @Alden
    The pills been around 60 years and no ones gotten cancer or any other disease from it.

    Instead of reading ignorant internet scare stories that vaccines cause autism and the pill causes cancer, why not ask a Dr or nurse, someone who knows what they’re talking about if the pill causes cancer and other disease?

    Idiots who believe the pill causes cancer usually don’t get their children get vaccinated and are in weird macrobiotic diets.

    Talk to a medical professional about the pill. Don’t read internet ignorance about it.
  226. @Alden
    May I suggest an easy, harmless absolutely totally reliable method of birth control?

    It’s called abstinence. No sex no dating no marriage no physical contact with the opposite sex at all. No need for men to support their children. Perfect for UNZ men.

    Given their ignorance of family life, household maintenance, and raising children it’s obvious that most of the sad young, middle aged and old bachelors here have practiced total complete abstinence all their lives.

    Given their ignorance of family life, household maintenance, and raising children it’s obvious that most of the sad young, middle aged and old bachelors here have practiced total complete abstinence all their lives.

    You are a very angry woman. Full of hate for other readers of this site.

    Getting off the pill might help.

    • LOL: William Badwhite
    • Replies: @Alden
    I don’t take the pill.

    I’m only reacting to the overall We Hate Women theme of this site.

    Given the hatred of women it’s hard to believe any men on this site are married or even heterosexual. Hatred of women is an indication of homosexuality you know.
  227. @Alden
    You haven’t read comment 180 yet have you?

    I have and all I saw was one long whiiiiiiiiiine.

    At the very least, I don’t want to see any more complaints about the Jews not getting over the Holocaust, or the blacks not getting over slavery, if this is your attitude.

    And it’s something that actual Irish people find repulsive. Why wallow in a feeling of powerlessness? Why boast about being weak? It’s always the diaspora types.

  228. @Alden
    Livestock farmers don’t like dogs anywhere in the neighborhood because once they start chasing and and running in packs and kill a calf they become dangerous.

    Only well trained herding dogs belong on farms. There’s one merle collie I used to see in Marin. It drove about 50 holsteins home every late afternoon for milking all by itself. Spectacular!! But no farmers my brother knows wanted a dog around.

    Everybody who didn’t grow up farming or ranching tries chickens, ducks other poultry exactly as you described. But they get sick of coming out in the morning and seeing several dead birds. Especially in winter when the rabbits are down in the ground hibernating and the squirrels are wherever they go in winter and the foxes and weasels get hungry

    It’s become very popular with sissy city boy liberal families to have a chicken coop just for the eggs. But it’s just as bad in cities because of stray dogs. Plus the mess and diseases. And it costs more than supermarket eggs. Chicken manure is the very best fertilizer though because of the nitrogen.

    Most people give it up after a few years because the work deaths and cost isn’t worth it.

    No farmers my brother knows wanted a dog around.

    The farmers your brother knows sound like a piece of work. No farmer I’ve known didn’t swear by a good dog.

    Are we talking about the same thing?

    More and more I suspect perhaps your brother’s crowd are the slimy agribusiness types who swear by gallons of antibiotics, irresponsibly depleting aquifers at all costs then bitching about daddy gubmint not impounding Moar Water! for them, an army of illegal aliens to shame any antebellum planter’s slaves, and the holy church of Monsanto. I know about these types – I’m surrounded by them. They live in mansions adjacent to their fields, drive around town in $80,000.00 monster trucks, spend half their days in clatches at Starbucks bitching about the prices of commodities, and whatever is not automated gets done by their trusty Mexican slaves. They are rich because they inherited a lot land, not because they work it. They disgust me.

    The actual farmers I know (who all live back east in remnants of the U.S.A., rather than Mexinchifornia) live on small farms their families have owned for an age and have none of these predilections, nor the accompanying pathologies. They live modest lives. Some barely get by.

    Everybody who didn’t grow up farming or ranching tries chickens, ducks other poultry exactly as you described. But they get sick of coming out in the morning and seeing several dead birds.

    I don’t know about “everybody.” I do know the five people I know personally who do it have no such troubles. These people did not grow up farming and are not farmers. Just people with a bit of land who are not stupid (they are nothing like the hipster doofus “urban chicken” people you mention – I know those types, too, and I agree they are as hapless as you say.) One is a Russian emigre who grew up in Moscow (as urban as it gets!) and now lives in rural Santa Clara. She has an emu, too. It’s ornery as Hell, and probably contributes more than her dog to keeping her chickens safe – I was afraid of the damned thing.

    • Replies: @Alden
    My brothers a small dairy farmer in Sonoma county California. Usually about 50 60 cows.

    He and his neighbors don’t like dogs around livestock because they chase them and dairy cows are kind of delicate especially an hour before milking time when they get a calcium overload drained out of their bones and they can’t be chased. Their udders are extremely delicate and can’t be chewed by dog bites either.

    Dairy cows are way too docile to fight off dogs. Milk production depends somewhat on them having a peaceful life and not being scared.
    The cows are part of how he makes his living. The big milk producers are much more valuable than mediocre producers. And dogs kill calves and the calves and mothers like to be together in the field instead of the calves in the pen by the barn
    California has 50 pound male raccoons that attack dogs and lots of weasels and critters that destroy poultry Sonoma has a lot of mountain lions and bob cats as well.

    Why bother with poultry when they get killed anyway?

    I’m pretty sure that in most states it’s legal for a farmer to shoot a dog that’s harassing his livestock. Dog living is more of a sissy city boy than a farmers thing
    , @Dissident
    Nice photos. Dog is beautiful and appears remarkably well-groomed.
  229. @Alden
    Women can get the Fallopian tubes clipped or knotted together so the ovum don’t come down and the spermatozoon can’t swim up.

    Then get the procedure undone and have a baby.

    The pills been around for 60 years and no ones gotten a disease from it yet. I remember when the PI attorneys were justa hopin’ and a prayin’ that the pill was dangerous and they could make fortunes .

    The men on this site are strange. Most seem to not be married or have children or own homes. Yet they are extremely opinionated about birth control, abortion other people having big families and men not supporting their children if divorced or unmarried.

    They’re also completely unaware of cooking a meal, having a table to sit and eat the meal, the constant large and small repairs a house needs or normal family life at all.

    That’s why there’s very few women on this site. After a few blasts from the sad old bachelors about the evils of birth control and that every White woman should have several kids and raise them on $30,000 a year with no help from the father either in conception, finance, child care or household maintenance most women never look at UNZ again.

    Men can get vasectomies, which are far less invasive and easier to reverse. They could also use condoms, so no one need surgery and hormones.

    But yes on the alt right type men. They want all the benefits they see Alphas getting from the modern system, and all of the deference they saw older generations of men getting. But they don’t want any of the responsibilities and courtesies their grandfathers took on.

    So we have the likes of Dennis Prager saying that men should be automatically be deferred to, *and* that they should have the right to ogle any woman they like, and never pay child support. Their ancestors wouldn’t have recognized them as male.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Most of the men in this site are totally absolutely against child support.

    This is pretty much a women hating site. Go back and find the men’s comments about the Muslim terrorist who bombed the Arianna Grand concert in England a few years ago.

    Most of the men here applauded the bombing because of the way both the singer and the girl and women concert goers were dressed.

    Most women who happen upon UNZ get tired of the woman hating after a few months and stop reading it

    I stay because of Steve Sailer. I’ve followed him for about 25 years.

    If you like fighting with idiots it’s kind of fun to harass and insult the woman haters.

    Most UNZ readers only post things they find on the internet. Anything you write based in personal knowledge from having been there or known the person gets slammed.

    UNZ isn’t for most women
  230. @Alden
    That’s the one thing I just can’t stand about this site. Either Rip Van Winkles who

    bought a house for 12,000 K in 1955,

    sent their 2 kids to a nice free public school

    , had a stay at home wife who did all cooking cleaning childcare and decorating,

    who worked exactly 40 hours a week and was home in 2o minutes, thus having plenty of time for car and home maintenance

    paid $2.40 a month phone bill $5.00 a month gas and electric in summer, $2o. 00 a month in winter while keeping the house nice and warm at 75F

    paid $140.00 a year property taxes.

    That’s the first group I despise
    Here’s the second group I despise

    The 35 to 50 year old men who never married no kids
    live in one bedroom apartments
    have a motorcycle but no car
    eat fast food a lot, can’t cook a pork chop and baked potato,
    don’t own the most elementary tools, couldn’t tighten a loose screw or fix anything
    don’t know if they’ll have a job 5 months ahead,

    These guys endlessly pontificate that White women should all have 4-6 kids.

    I wonder what’s happening to my survey about how many of these fertility advocates have more than 2 children.

    I hate both types of people you describe, too. I expect any one would – even a member of either group, if he’s any self-awareness and shame, ought to have at least some nagging element of self-hatred.

    I’ll grant you the Rip van Winkle – I’ve seen him around here pretty regularly, and I chastise him when I do.

    I’m not as convinced any significant number of readers fit your second category, though, and I’m half convinced you’re imagining that constituency. Most of us have families, from what I can tell. Do we all have ten children? No. Do some of us have one child? Sure. Are some yet unmarried and without children? Of course. Responsible people (unless fabulously wealthy) don’t have six children by the age of twenty-five; depending upon one’s circumstances, it may never be responsible to have six children.

    Some readers are young persons who’ve not yet wed. Others of us are a bit older, with a small family, still growing. Just because we didn’t accost our wives before they’d recovered from their episiotomies or begun menstruating again – to ensure they shat out babies nine months and nine days apart, meeting some goofy quota – doesn’t mean we are child-hating hedonists.

    In any event, I don’t see any evidence that any significant part of the younger crowd meet your cartoonish criteria. Your criteria for Rip van Winkle describe an actual lifestyle quite common in living memory – even I remember it, and I was born during the Carter administration.
    Your second criteria, though, over-egg the pudding. “Can’t cook a pork chop or tighten a screw?” Idiots can do these things in middle school. Your critique loses credibility when you opt for what you reckon are hilarious zingers instead of keeping to legitimate points.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Reading the many many posts I’ve concluded that as well as a lot of Rip Van Winkles, many of the men who keep posting about other people should have4 or 5 kids are exactly the 35-50 year old men in 1 bedroom apts I described

    We all have our strengths and weaknesses. Mine is being able to deduct things about a poster from their writings I was law enforcement at years. I soon learned to tell when people are not telling the truth

    I’ve noticed that many of the men urging others to have large families have no idea about cooking cleaning laundry child raising home maintenance household repairs and all the time work and money that goes into raising 4-5 kids.

    Because of their ignorance about such things as laundry for 6 or 7 people I have rightly concluded they live alone in small apartments

    Their total ignorance about what it takes to run a home for a big family reveals that they aren’t fathers husbands and live in small apartments.
    , @Alden
    “ Some readers are young persons who have not yet wed”. So why are these young bachelors telling other people to have 4 or 5 children?

    What gives them that right??’
  231. @Autochthon
    I hate both types of people you describe, too. I expect any one would – even a member of either group, if he's any self-awareness and shame, ought to have at least some nagging element of self-hatred.

    I'll grant you the Rip van Winkle – I've seen him around here pretty regularly, and I chastise him when I do.

    I'm not as convinced any significant number of readers fit your second category, though, and I'm half convinced you're imagining that constituency. Most of us have families, from what I can tell. Do we all have ten children? No. Do some of us have one child? Sure. Are some yet unmarried and without children? Of course. Responsible people (unless fabulously wealthy) don't have six children by the age of twenty-five; depending upon one's circumstances, it may never be responsible to have six children.

    Some readers are young persons who've not yet wed. Others of us are a bit older, with a small family, still growing. Just because we didn't accost our wives before they'd recovered from their episiotomies or begun menstruating again – to ensure they shat out babies nine months and nine days apart, meeting some goofy quota – doesn't mean we are child-hating hedonists.

    In any event, I don't see any evidence that any significant part of the younger crowd meet your cartoonish criteria. Your criteria for Rip van Winkle describe an actual lifestyle quite common in living memory – even I remember it, and I was born during the Carter administration.
    Your second criteria, though, over-egg the pudding. "Can't cook a pork chop or tighten a screw?" Idiots can do these things in middle school. Your critique loses credibility when you opt for what you reckon are hilarious zingers instead of keeping to legitimate points.

    Reading the many many posts I’ve concluded that as well as a lot of Rip Van Winkles, many of the men who keep posting about other people should have4 or 5 kids are exactly the 35-50 year old men in 1 bedroom apts I described

    We all have our strengths and weaknesses. Mine is being able to deduct things about a poster from their writings I was law enforcement at years. I soon learned to tell when people are not telling the truth

    I’ve noticed that many of the men urging others to have large families have no idea about cooking cleaning laundry child raising home maintenance household repairs and all the time work and money that goes into raising 4-5 kids.

    Because of their ignorance about such things as laundry for 6 or 7 people I have rightly concluded they live alone in small apartments

    Their total ignorance about what it takes to run a home for a big family reveals that they aren’t fathers husbands and live in small apartments.

  232. @Autochthon
    I hate both types of people you describe, too. I expect any one would – even a member of either group, if he's any self-awareness and shame, ought to have at least some nagging element of self-hatred.

    I'll grant you the Rip van Winkle – I've seen him around here pretty regularly, and I chastise him when I do.

    I'm not as convinced any significant number of readers fit your second category, though, and I'm half convinced you're imagining that constituency. Most of us have families, from what I can tell. Do we all have ten children? No. Do some of us have one child? Sure. Are some yet unmarried and without children? Of course. Responsible people (unless fabulously wealthy) don't have six children by the age of twenty-five; depending upon one's circumstances, it may never be responsible to have six children.

    Some readers are young persons who've not yet wed. Others of us are a bit older, with a small family, still growing. Just because we didn't accost our wives before they'd recovered from their episiotomies or begun menstruating again – to ensure they shat out babies nine months and nine days apart, meeting some goofy quota – doesn't mean we are child-hating hedonists.

    In any event, I don't see any evidence that any significant part of the younger crowd meet your cartoonish criteria. Your criteria for Rip van Winkle describe an actual lifestyle quite common in living memory – even I remember it, and I was born during the Carter administration.
    Your second criteria, though, over-egg the pudding. "Can't cook a pork chop or tighten a screw?" Idiots can do these things in middle school. Your critique loses credibility when you opt for what you reckon are hilarious zingers instead of keeping to legitimate points.

    “ Some readers are young persons who have not yet wed”. So why are these young bachelors telling other people to have 4 or 5 children?

    What gives them that right??’

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    It's what philosophers would call a natural right. It's commonly codified as "freedom of speech" in modern democracies. A fallacious argument underlies your implied position: "If Joe does not have direct experience of x, he's no business opining about it, or, in any event, his opinion is invalid."

    It's nonsense, of course, not only because it is illogical, but the evidence it all around you. An elderly orthopoedist with two left feet may nevertheless be an outstanding authority about the best way for an Olympic gymnast or a professional dancer to avoid injuries. A childless bachelor may quite validly and sensibly exhort other men not to beat their wives and children. A blind cripple unqualified for service may nevertheless rebuke a deserter for cowardice or a mutineer for disloyalty.

    Suppose the unwed reader is a fellow in his early twenties, finishing a doctorate in medicine or petrochemical engineering. Or even a high-schooler. He has every intention of marrying and having a family. Why, it may be his dearest dream. He may even already be in excited discussions about it with his sweetheart. But he's no fool; he knows the last thing he needs is to be juggling the stress of caring for a newborn – or even a new marriage – with the horrors of his completing his residency or defending his dissertation! Nevertheless, he is perfectly warranted in criticising women who reject marriage and children.

    As to your other remark about how you are "able to deduct things about a poster from their writings" because you were "in law enforcement" and "learned to tell when people are not telling the truth" – well, I'll dispute none of it, nor even your sincerity and honesty in asserting it...but that's not to say I am entirely convinced of it, either.

  233. @Jesse
    Men can get vasectomies, which are far less invasive and easier to reverse. They could also use condoms, so no one need surgery and hormones.

    But yes on the alt right type men. They want all the benefits they see Alphas getting from the modern system, and all of the deference they saw older generations of men getting. But they don't want any of the responsibilities and courtesies their grandfathers took on.

    So we have the likes of Dennis Prager saying that men should be automatically be deferred to, *and* that they should have the right to ogle any woman they like, and never pay child support. Their ancestors wouldn't have recognized them as male.

    Most of the men in this site are totally absolutely against child support.

    This is pretty much a women hating site. Go back and find the men’s comments about the Muslim terrorist who bombed the Arianna Grand concert in England a few years ago.

    Most of the men here applauded the bombing because of the way both the singer and the girl and women concert goers were dressed.

    Most women who happen upon UNZ get tired of the woman hating after a few months and stop reading it

    I stay because of Steve Sailer. I’ve followed him for about 25 years.

    If you like fighting with idiots it’s kind of fun to harass and insult the woman haters.

    Most UNZ readers only post things they find on the internet. Anything you write based in personal knowledge from having been there or known the person gets slammed.

    UNZ isn’t for most women

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    I've never met a man in my life – not one, and I've known some real pieces of work! – who was opposed to supporting his children, or the idea of men supporting their children in the abstract.

    What men do oppose is supporting faithless wives – women who have abandoned them, whether for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all (and, often enough, those women's bastard children by previous husbands or lovers) – under the preposterous rubric of what passes for "child support" in modern, western courts. A fellow can easily be ordered to pay $2,000.00 monthly to support one child. No child on the planet costs that much to support, absent extraordinary medical needs (which would be paid by medical insurance in any event).

    "Child support" [sic] is pegged to a man's earnings (and it is virtually always the man saddled with it), without regard to actual beeds or even expenditures. If one is Paul Stanley ot Kobe Bryant, one's child magically "needs" $3,000,000.00 annually for "support." So sayeth the courts. All this really means, of course, is the kid wears the same huggies, eats the same carrots, and learns from the same schools as any other kid (how much, really, miney can you spend on an eight-year-old any way? he's not buying yachts!) and that, oh, incidientally, mommy lives like royalty because daddy happens to be one of the most talented people on the planet.

    It is only the tip of the iceberg. I could write a book. Others have.

    Nearly every man on the planet bitching about child support is 1) justified, 2) being raped, and 3) would gladly take physical custody of belived children being unjustly and cruelly deprived of sufficient contact with their father, asking
    nothing of their faithless wives, and yet they are denied this and instead forced to pay for lazy, bitter women who (by their own admission) cannot care for the children absent the sanctioned robbery of the men) monies astronomically beyond the actual costs of raiaing a child.

    One day, in a year, a decade, a century, or a millennium, this system will be looked back upon as madness, just as slavery now is.

    https://youtu.be/Epg-Z7D4InQ

    https://youtu.be/MN0lTSeJ-VQ

    https://youtu.be/SaC-2lj6HNg
    , @Dissident

    This is pretty much a women hating site. Go back and find the men’s comments about the Muslim terrorist who bombed the Arianna Grand concert in England a few years ago.

    Most of the men here applauded the bombing because of the way both the singer and the girl and women concert goers were dressed.
     

    I participated in what I believe is the thread to which you refer and what you wrote is a pretty wild distortion of anything that I recall reading. I do not recall anyone applaud or even attempt to justify the bombing. What some people did was to point-out and lament the disturbing degeneracy that Grande represented and promoted. Specifically cited were the lurid lyrics ("ride the d**k bicycle/ c**k carousel" or something to that effect) found in at least some of her songs, and the rather scandalous, sexually charged manner that characterized the attire worn by her audience-- one made-up mostly of early-adolescent girls.

    Your comments can be interesting and, at times at least, sensible. Unfortunately, however, if I may be so frank as to say it, you have also demonstrated what appears to be a rather chronic propensity toward excessively lashing-out at and gratuitously insulting other commenters. Specifically, you have repeatedly made rather wild and decidedly unflattering assumptions and assertions about the personal lives of individuals based on what seems to be nothing more than their having expressed views that were not to your liking.

    Consider, if you will, as a particularly instructive and egregious example the way you responded-to the poster "Moses" in this thread. Moses posted a comment (#58) in which he merely expressed a highly skeptical, negative view of hormonal contraceptives. He did not, so far as I could see, attack, scold, judge or presume to dictate or lecture to anyone concerning their personal choices. Rather than simply challenging or expressing your disagreement with the views Moses expressed, you responded to his post with a 200-word attack of personal insults, aspersions, contumely and non-sequiturs-- all, again, completely unprovoked.

    The most regrettable effect of this type of hostile and intemperate behavior (and Alden is by no means the only one guilty of such) is the way it can drag down entire threads. It starts with just one comment. Someone responds to it in kind and in a very short time, the readership is treated to a mud-flinging match.

  234. @Autochthon

    No farmers my brother knows wanted a dog around.
     
    The farmers your brother knows sound like a piece of work. No farmer I've known didn't swear by a good dog.

    https://phoenicianfarm.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/sable-chickens2.jpg

    Are we talking about the same thing?

    More and more I suspect perhaps your brother's crowd are the slimy agribusiness types who swear by gallons of antibiotics, irresponsibly depleting aquifers at all costs then bitching about daddy gubmint not impounding Moar Water! for them, an army of illegal aliens to shame any antebellum planter's slaves, and the holy church of Monsanto. I know about these types – I'm surrounded by them. They live in mansions adjacent to their fields, drive around town in $80,000.00 monster trucks, spend half their days in clatches at Starbucks bitching about the prices of commodities, and whatever is not automated gets done by their trusty Mexican slaves. They are rich because they inherited a lot land, not because they work it. They disgust me.

    The actual farmers I know (who all live back east in remnants of the U.S.A., rather than Mexinchifornia) live on small farms their families have owned for an age and have none of these predilections, nor the accompanying pathologies. They live modest lives. Some barely get by.

    Everybody who didn’t grow up farming or ranching tries chickens, ducks other poultry exactly as you described. But they get sick of coming out in the morning and seeing several dead birds.
     
    I don't know about "everybody." I do know the five people I know personally who do it have no such troubles. These people did not grow up farming and are not farmers. Just people with a bit of land who are not stupid (they are nothing like the hipster doofus "urban chicken" people you mention – I know those types, too, and I agree they are as hapless as you say.) One is a Russian emigre who grew up in Moscow (as urban as it gets!) and now lives in rural Santa Clara. She has an emu, too. It's ornery as Hell, and probably contributes more than her dog to keeping her chickens safe – I was afraid of the damned thing.

    http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwmu/files/styles/x_large/public/201603/emu.jpg

    My brothers a small dairy farmer in Sonoma county California. Usually about 50 60 cows.

    He and his neighbors don’t like dogs around livestock because they chase them and dairy cows are kind of delicate especially an hour before milking time when they get a calcium overload drained out of their bones and they can’t be chased. Their udders are extremely delicate and can’t be chewed by dog bites either.

    Dairy cows are way too docile to fight off dogs. Milk production depends somewhat on them having a peaceful life and not being scared.
    The cows are part of how he makes his living. The big milk producers are much more valuable than mediocre producers. And dogs kill calves and the calves and mothers like to be together in the field instead of the calves in the pen by the barn
    California has 50 pound male raccoons that attack dogs and lots of weasels and critters that destroy poultry Sonoma has a lot of mountain lions and bob cats as well.

    Why bother with poultry when they get killed anyway?

    I’m pretty sure that in most states it’s legal for a farmer to shoot a dog that’s harassing his livestock. Dog living is more of a sissy city boy than a farmers thing

    • Replies: @Jack D
    We always had dogs around the farm - great for catching rats and other varmints. Dogs are extremely intelligent and eager to please humans and wouldn't dream of chewing on or chasing your livestock unless you told them to. Of course a dog is like a child and needs to be socialized in order to know what is and is not permissible behavior, but they are extremely trainable.
    , @Autochthon

    He and his neighbors don’t like dogs around livestock because they chase them....
     
    You wrote this stuff once already, and answered yourself in the subsequent paragraph by pointing out that only properly bred, trained, and behaved dogs are appropriate for working on farms.

    Of course, you are correct with that second assertion, and your brothers and his pals remain goofballs for overgeneralising, categorically deeming dogs nuisances instead of employing the appropriate dogs appropriately (or, at least, conceding this approach is perfectly reasonable to those who select it). Your friends, for instance, don't even want a herding dog for dairy cows (or poultry) – a guardian dog is what's wanted for that: a Komondor, an Anatolian shepherd (the guy peacably guarding the chickens in the photograph I posted earlier is an Anatolian shepherd), a Maremma, or a mastiff. These dogs will not harass livestock. What they will do is destroy anything that threatens that livestock. I wouldn't bet on one against a bear or a great cat, but I'd feel sorry for a starved wolf thinking to snatch one of their charges. Their motivation is not "make those creatures do this and that" like, say, a collie's would be. Rather their motivation is "those creatures are MINE – if you don't belong near them, stay away." They are thus all about intrusive animals, really – only indirectly, as it were, interested in the livestock.

    Your farming friends are effectively a regiment of soldiers pinned down during the Great War and complaining about how vexing and worthless birds are because a lot of useless peafowl keeping strutting around the bivouac, shitting everywhere and giving away their position to enemy patrols with obnoxious calls, when, of course, if the men had any sense they'd have brought some homing pigeons along to send for help should they become cut off from their own lines....
  235. @Moses
    Ms. Alden - Your posts are full of silly hallucinations about the readers on this site.

    You rage against me for criticizing the pill. From that, you hallucinate that I am against all kinds of birth control. Then you rage against your imagination that all the men on this site are childless incels.

    Perhaps some are. I have no idea. I lack your powers of omnipotent clairvoyance.

    You clearly have some kind of strong emotional attachment to the pill.

    For the record, I'm married and have 4 children intentionally. My wife has never gone on the pill.

    Perhaps years of taking the pill is causing these hallucinations? You might reconsider it.

    The pills been around 60 years and no ones gotten cancer or any other disease from it.

    Instead of reading ignorant internet scare stories that vaccines cause autism and the pill causes cancer, why not ask a Dr or nurse, someone who knows what they’re talking about if the pill causes cancer and other disease?

    Idiots who believe the pill causes cancer usually don’t get their children get vaccinated and are in weird macrobiotic diets.

    Talk to a medical professional about the pill. Don’t read internet ignorance about it.

    • Replies: @Moses

    The pills been around 60 years and no ones gotten cancer or any other disease from it.
     
    I'm not interested in arguing with you, ma'am.

    I made the observation that medical beliefs/conventional wisdom has been proven wrong again and again in recent history.

    Messing around with the endocrine system, fooling a woman's body into thinking she's permanently pregnant, is a very big deal. It would not surprise me if there are long-term undesirable effects of which we are yet unaware. As such, I feel it's best to avoid the pill. My wife feels the same.

    If you or others wish to take it that's none of my business.

    Instead of reading ignorant internet scare stories that vaccines cause autism and the pill causes cancer,
     
    More omnipotent hallucinations from you.

    why not ask a Dr or nurse, someone who knows what they’re talking about if the pill causes cancer and other disease?
     
    My mother's OB told her she should formula-feed me instead of breast-feed. That was medical wisdom at the time. He was 100% wrong. There are plenty more examples where that came from.

    If you want to believe without question everything doctors tell you, again that's your business. I'm not trying to convince you.

    Idiots who believe the pill causes cancer usually don’t get their children get vaccinated and are in weird macrobiotic diets.

    Talk to a medical professional about the pill. Don’t read internet ignorance about it.
     
    I made no claim about the Pill causing cancer. Another of your hallucinations.

    Wow you seem REALLY attached emotionally to the pill. Extraordinarily sensitive.

    Any mild criticism or even questioning of this powerful drug has you lashing out and inventing all kinds of imagined accusations (such as not believing in birth control) of me and others.

    Could it be that you took the pill for years yourself? That would explain a lot.
  236. @Steve Sailer
    My rabbits survived for quite a few years living in a small walled-in backyard in Los Angeles, but I had to put out quite a lot of anti-hawk impedimenta like cafe umbrellas and shiny ribbons to distract the raptors. One male rabbit even dug himself a 20 foot long tunnel after almost being caught by a red hawk.

    A few nights ago I was out for a walk in the wee hours and I came upon two young coyotes trotting up the street. Usually coyotes are solitary, but these two were only about half (25 pounds) the normal size, so I imagine they were siblings about six months old. They were sleek, good-looking beasts.

    In contrast, a couple of weeks ago I ran into a possum. It reminded me of a John Updike story in "Penthouse" about "The Man Who Loved Extinct Mammals" about a scientist who specializes in early mammals from 50 million years ago who look primitively engineered compared to modern canids and, especially, felines. Possums still look like a beta release, Mammal 0.9.

    https://shortstorymagictricks.com/2017/06/29/the-man-who-loved-extinct-mammals-by-john-updike/

    I have coyotes in the alley because I live near the VA hospital. Wish we had some hawks around here to kill the seagulls. Coyotes are a pretty color

    After several trips to the vet with a big dog chewed up by a raccoon and a mountain lion stalking my brother’s cows, I’m getting sick of California wild life.

    Animal control won’t do anything about the raccoons either

    We had 2 really sweet rabbits when we were kids. They were house rabbits. Trained with a litter box in the utility room. But the next door neighbors dog got them when they were out in the yard in their cage . Mom put them out went inside and the dog ripped up the cage and the rabbits

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Raccoons are wildlife; absent some emergency wherein a human faces imminent harm, they are not any concern of animal control officers. ("But they keep hassling my pets or livestock" is not a qualifying exigency: in such a situation it is the owner's responsibility and prerogative to protect his animals from wildlife, not the animal control officers' responsibility to somehow prevent or punish the wildlife from its natural behaviour.)

    If a rabid coyote is menacing your toddler, for heaven's sake call animal control: they'll send someone out with a side-arm and a catch-pole right away. (Although, really, you should shoot the damned thing and call them afterward to collect the corpse).

    If a perfectly healthy coyote comes sniffing around your yard every night to tangle with Fluffy, though, it's your responsibility to build a fence that keeps the coyotes out or bring Fluffy inside at night.

    You may disagree with this arrangement, but it's the law and policy in nearly every jurisdiction that provides animal control services, and for good reason. I cannot tell you how many times friends of mine who are animal control officers have some apoplectic old lady screaming for them to "do something!" as they calmly regard a deer eating the crone's prized begonias or whatever.

    "But, it's in my yard!"

    "So are squirrels, robins, and probably a lot of snakes and lizards we cannot see right now. I'm not going to do anything about those either."

    "But, how did it get over the fence?!"

    "Ma'am, this fence is only six feet tall; whitetail deer have no trouble jumping over twelve-foot fences."

    "But...you aren't going to do anything?!

    "What would you want me to do, ma'am? I'm not going to shoot it. I'm not going to try to catch that thing – it won't fit in my truck, and, anyway, we have no facilities at the pound for it. If I did somehow catch it all I could really do is move it to the other side of the fence, but it could easily jump over the fence again in an hour, a day, or a week. No, I'm not going to do anything. It's no danger to you or anyone else. In a few minutes or a few hours it will get thirsty or bored and it will move along, jumping right back over your fence into the woods ... where it lives. If you are truly traumatised by the deer my best advice is that you install a much higher fence or else even reconsider whether you want to live on the edge of the forest. Have a nice day, ma'am."

     

    Animal control have a very specifically defined mandate to keep people safe and keep developed areas free from becoming overrun with domesticated but unkept animals that might otherwise block streets and sidewalks, strew garbage everywhere, and shit all over the place (which, actually, is just another aspect of keeping humans safe).

    They are not a governmental Orkin-man with a mandate to hunt and kill wildlife just running around...being wildlife. Nor should they be.

    I'm not unsympathetic. I had beloved cats damn near get the business from crazed, stray dogs; ornery tomcats; and, once, from a snake. But in each case I was responsible. I was watching my charges and the minute I saw one in a Mexican standoff with a snake, I scooped him up to fight another day. Another time a tomcat bit the paw of my kitten before he could quite run past me to safety – but that cat got punted a good twenty feet in the air for his trouble. Still another incident led to my kicking in Cujo's teeth with my flight-deck boots because my hands were each holding a terrified cat. Apart from the snake, these were cases within animal control's purview, but, like the police, when seconds count, they are minutes away; so you shouldn't look to them for any help anyway. And so on. I'm sorry about the loss of any beloved pet, but it should be a reminder 1) they need watching after and 2) the world is a dangerous place.
  237. @Alden
    There was plenty of food in Ireland but the Irish raised it on the English estates. Irish Catholics were not allowed to own more than 2 cows or I think 3 pigs and only 1 horse of low value. So they couldn’t breed livestock. Only reason they were allowed 2.cows is because cows alternate pregnancy birth milk producing and pregnancy. The Catholic Irish were forbidden to own bulls and had to pay a big fee to the English to breed their cows.

    They were forbidden to rent enough land even if they had the money to raise cash crops or varied food crops. They were allowed to fish in the sea but not in rivers lakes and ponds. 3 acres of land could produce enough potatoes to feed a family for a year. They weren’t allowed to hunt.

    It was a conscious genocide or ethnic clearance program pursued by the English for centuries. The Irish were starved out of Britain.

    Some Scots were forcibly removed when sheep able to survive in cold damp Scotland were finally bred. They were marched to the harbors loaded on ships and sold as indentured servants in Colonial America. It’s called the Highland Clearances

    One thing most people don’t realize is that the big 1948 potato famine was widespread all over Northern Europe, France Germany Belgium Austria Netherlands Scandinavia Poland etc

    But no one starved and there was no famine BECAUSE there was other food to eat and the governments especially the city governments were prepared.

    Since early medieval times city and local governments kept track of the harvest and had stores of grain, dried fish dried fruit and vegetables to feed the population in bad times.

    When. news of the blight came in May those cities and national governments ordered rice from S Carolina Louisiana and S America. The warehoused rice arrived quickly. That years harvest arrived in the fall. Grain was ordered from Russia, Argentina and the USA. Dried fish was preserved stored and ordered from Portugual and Spain. Dried fruit was bought from S Europe and the Arab countries.

    That hoarding supplies had been ongoing from early medieval times. It was already organized.

    But most important, there was other food than potatoes to eat in the rest of Europe for even the poorest. In Ireland the Catholic Irish were legally prevented from fishing hunting breeding livestock and raising either cash crops or much of a varied diet.

    Many countries sent food to the starving Irish. But the English didn’t allow the ships to land in Ireland. The ships were forced to land in English ports.and charged much higher than usual harbor fees . Then the ships were unloaded very, very slowly to English ships and after further delay went tonIreland after a month 6 weeks delay in England.

    The potato blight was widespread all over Europe. But the famine was only in Catholic Ireland because:

    1 there was food other than potatoes to eat in other countries.
    2 The other countries kept track of crops. So when the harvest failed in September is wasn’t a surprise. Supplementary food was already ordered and ready for distribution according to a thousand year custom.

    The food grown on the Protestant Ascendancy estates was not sold in Ireland. It was sent to England.

    And with all that, by 1900 the average working class English man had shrunk from 5’6 in the 1640s to to 5’3 in 1900 due to malnutrition hard physical at age 8 or 10 and using more calories in hard labor than their bodies took in. Working class women shrunk as well, Even in the 1930s many working class girls didn’t mature enough to start menstruating till 17 or 18 a sure sign of starvation.
    By 1900 middle class English men were 5 inches taller than working class men.

    Potatoes are a lot more nutritious than bread bacon grease and strong tea and sugar. By 1900 despite periodic famines for 300 years the Irish poor were the same size they were in 1600 due to better food less child labor and peat home heating while the English poor expended more calories trying to keep warm in cold homes in winter.

    No matter how much the English hated the Irish for their catholic religion, England treated its own Anglo Saxon English working class far worse by child labor, malnutrition long hours of hard physical labor with too little to eat.

    And the Irish Catholics did practice birth control. They delayed marriage because of poverty.While the average age of marriage in England was about 22 for women and 28 or 30 for men, the Irish Catholic women married at 28 or 29 men early to mid thirties.

    And few used birth control till the 1930s. The Anglican and most Protestant churches forbade birth control as much as the Catholics did till the early mid 20th century. It was illegal to sell birth control devices in the Puritan state of Connecticut till the 1960s.

    Needless to say, this is a one sided view of history. The Penal Laws (which prohibited Catholics from owning land) had been repealed a couple of decades before the famine. When the famine struck, they repealed the Corn Laws, which had exacted tariffs on imported grain. The peasants were partly at fault for not only depending on one crop for their calories but depending on one variety. The Indians of Peru also depended on the potato but they planted hundreds of varieties so at least some of them were always resistant to whatever disease was going around. The population had risen from about 3 million in 1700 to over 8 million by 1840 so they were already at the Malthusian edge when the famine pushed them over.

    The British did attempt some public works programs to give the destitute some income but for the most part they diddled and delayed inconclusively. They resorted to secretly distributing free corn imported from America because they did not want to undermine private enterprise but facilities to grind the corn were lacking and it was an unfamiliar food not well accepted as a food by the populace. In the middle of the famine, a new government was elected that was even more laissez faire than the previous one – they believed that the invisible hand of the market would take care of any shortages and cut the relief that the previous government had started. It’s not clear that the British government was being malicious – incompetence is a sufficient explanation.

    There was plenty of blame to go around – the biggest one was that the absentee landlords did not feel any noblesse obige toward their tenants as was the case in England and elsewhere in Europe. Decisions were made strictly on the basis of economics without a glimmer of compassion toward what they regarded as an alien race. We think of Irish as being more or less white people but to the English of the time they might as well have been black. I think that the plantation owners of the American South liked their black sharecroppers more and treated them better than the English landlords treated their Irish tenants, but in the US we weren’t living at the Malthusian edge to begin with so the system was not under the same stress.

  238. @Alden
    My brothers a small dairy farmer in Sonoma county California. Usually about 50 60 cows.

    He and his neighbors don’t like dogs around livestock because they chase them and dairy cows are kind of delicate especially an hour before milking time when they get a calcium overload drained out of their bones and they can’t be chased. Their udders are extremely delicate and can’t be chewed by dog bites either.

    Dairy cows are way too docile to fight off dogs. Milk production depends somewhat on them having a peaceful life and not being scared.
    The cows are part of how he makes his living. The big milk producers are much more valuable than mediocre producers. And dogs kill calves and the calves and mothers like to be together in the field instead of the calves in the pen by the barn
    California has 50 pound male raccoons that attack dogs and lots of weasels and critters that destroy poultry Sonoma has a lot of mountain lions and bob cats as well.

    Why bother with poultry when they get killed anyway?

    I’m pretty sure that in most states it’s legal for a farmer to shoot a dog that’s harassing his livestock. Dog living is more of a sissy city boy than a farmers thing

    We always had dogs around the farm – great for catching rats and other varmints. Dogs are extremely intelligent and eager to please humans and wouldn’t dream of chewing on or chasing your livestock unless you told them to. Of course a dog is like a child and needs to be socialized in order to know what is and is not permissible behavior, but they are extremely trainable.

    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @Alden
    It’s not your dog that harasses cows. It’s other people’s dogs. So it’s good if there’s no dogs around. I know dogs are easy to train but it’s other people’s dogs. Once they start harassing dairy cows it’s all over.
  239. @Moses

    Given their ignorance of family life, household maintenance, and raising children it’s obvious that most of the sad young, middle aged and old bachelors here have practiced total complete abstinence all their lives.
     
    You are a very angry woman. Full of hate for other readers of this site.

    Getting off the pill might help.

    I don’t take the pill.

    I’m only reacting to the overall We Hate Women theme of this site.

    Given the hatred of women it’s hard to believe any men on this site are married or even heterosexual. Hatred of women is an indication of homosexuality you know.

    • Replies: @Moses

    I don’t take the pill.
     
    I believe you. Have you ever taken it?

    I’m only reacting to the overall We Hate Women theme of this site.
     
    Ok.

    You tank your own credibility, however, when you characterize any skepticism of the "pill has no negative long-term effects" as "the overall We Hate Women theme of this site."

    You come across like an unhinged blue-hair, not as a stable mother of 4. Many of your posts be like:

    https://media0.giphy.com/media/5a8EuLzNwgjgQ/giphy.gif?cid=790b7611353c796e159fb2851410944ab2e871e16190a3d3&rid=giphy.gif
    , @Moses

    I don’t take the pill.

    I’m only reacting to the overall We Hate Women theme of this site.

    Given the hatred of women it’s hard to believe any men on this site are married or even heterosexual. Hatred of women is an indication of homosexuality you know.
     
    Erm, yeah...

    https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FearlessThoseBrant-poster.jpg
  240. @Jack D
    We always had dogs around the farm - great for catching rats and other varmints. Dogs are extremely intelligent and eager to please humans and wouldn't dream of chewing on or chasing your livestock unless you told them to. Of course a dog is like a child and needs to be socialized in order to know what is and is not permissible behavior, but they are extremely trainable.

    It’s not your dog that harasses cows. It’s other people’s dogs. So it’s good if there’s no dogs around. I know dogs are easy to train but it’s other people’s dogs. Once they start harassing dairy cows it’s all over.

  241. @Alden
    My brothers a small dairy farmer in Sonoma county California. Usually about 50 60 cows.

    He and his neighbors don’t like dogs around livestock because they chase them and dairy cows are kind of delicate especially an hour before milking time when they get a calcium overload drained out of their bones and they can’t be chased. Their udders are extremely delicate and can’t be chewed by dog bites either.

    Dairy cows are way too docile to fight off dogs. Milk production depends somewhat on them having a peaceful life and not being scared.
    The cows are part of how he makes his living. The big milk producers are much more valuable than mediocre producers. And dogs kill calves and the calves and mothers like to be together in the field instead of the calves in the pen by the barn
    California has 50 pound male raccoons that attack dogs and lots of weasels and critters that destroy poultry Sonoma has a lot of mountain lions and bob cats as well.

    Why bother with poultry when they get killed anyway?

    I’m pretty sure that in most states it’s legal for a farmer to shoot a dog that’s harassing his livestock. Dog living is more of a sissy city boy than a farmers thing

    He and his neighbors don’t like dogs around livestock because they chase them….

    You wrote this stuff once already, and answered yourself in the subsequent paragraph by pointing out that only properly bred, trained, and behaved dogs are appropriate for working on farms.

    Of course, you are correct with that second assertion, and your brothers and his pals remain goofballs for overgeneralising, categorically deeming dogs nuisances instead of employing the appropriate dogs appropriately (or, at least, conceding this approach is perfectly reasonable to those who select it). Your friends, for instance, don’t even want a herding dog for dairy cows (or poultry) – a guardian dog is what’s wanted for that: a Komondor, an Anatolian shepherd (the guy peacably guarding the chickens in the photograph I posted earlier is an Anatolian shepherd), a Maremma, or a mastiff. These dogs will not harass livestock. What they will do is destroy anything that threatens that livestock. I wouldn’t bet on one against a bear or a great cat, but I’d feel sorry for a starved wolf thinking to snatch one of their charges. Their motivation is not “make those creatures do this and that” like, say, a collie’s would be. Rather their motivation is “those creatures are MINE – if you don’t belong near them, stay away.” They are thus all about intrusive animals, really – only indirectly, as it were, interested in the livestock.

    Your farming friends are effectively a regiment of soldiers pinned down during the Great War and complaining about how vexing and worthless birds are because a lot of useless peafowl keeping strutting around the bivouac, shitting everywhere and giving away their position to enemy patrols with obnoxious calls, when, of course, if the men had any sense they’d have brought some homing pigeons along to send for help should they become cut off from their own lines….

  242. @Alden
    I have coyotes in the alley because I live near the VA hospital. Wish we had some hawks around here to kill the seagulls. Coyotes are a pretty color

    After several trips to the vet with a big dog chewed up by a raccoon and a mountain lion stalking my brother’s cows, I’m getting sick of California wild life.

    Animal control won’t do anything about the raccoons either

    We had 2 really sweet rabbits when we were kids. They were house rabbits. Trained with a litter box in the utility room. But the next door neighbors dog got them when they were out in the yard in their cage . Mom put them out went inside and the dog ripped up the cage and the rabbits

    Raccoons are wildlife; absent some emergency wherein a human faces imminent harm, they are not any concern of animal control officers. (“But they keep hassling my pets or livestock” is not a qualifying exigency: in such a situation it is the owner’s responsibility and prerogative to protect his animals from wildlife, not the animal control officers’ responsibility to somehow prevent or punish the wildlife from its natural behaviour.)

    If a rabid coyote is menacing your toddler, for heaven’s sake call animal control: they’ll send someone out with a side-arm and a catch-pole right away. (Although, really, you should shoot the damned thing and call them afterward to collect the corpse).

    If a perfectly healthy coyote comes sniffing around your yard every night to tangle with Fluffy, though, it’s your responsibility to build a fence that keeps the coyotes out or bring Fluffy inside at night.

    You may disagree with this arrangement, but it’s the law and policy in nearly every jurisdiction that provides animal control services, and for good reason. I cannot tell you how many times friends of mine who are animal control officers have some apoplectic old lady screaming for them to “do something!” as they calmly regard a deer eating the crone’s prized begonias or whatever.

    “But, it’s in my yard!”

    “So are squirrels, robins, and probably a lot of snakes and lizards we cannot see right now. I’m not going to do anything about those either.”

    “But, how did it get over the fence?!”

    “Ma’am, this fence is only six feet tall; whitetail deer have no trouble jumping over twelve-foot fences.”

    “But…you aren’t going to do anything?!

    “What would you want me to do, ma’am? I’m not going to shoot it. I’m not going to try to catch that thing – it won’t fit in my truck, and, anyway, we have no facilities at the pound for it. If I did somehow catch it all I could really do is move it to the other side of the fence, but it could easily jump over the fence again in an hour, a day, or a week. No, I’m not going to do anything. It’s no danger to you or anyone else. In a few minutes or a few hours it will get thirsty or bored and it will move along, jumping right back over your fence into the woods … where it lives. If you are truly traumatised by the deer my best advice is that you install a much higher fence or else even reconsider whether you want to live on the edge of the forest. Have a nice day, ma’am.”

    Animal control have a very specifically defined mandate to keep people safe and keep developed areas free from becoming overrun with domesticated but unkept animals that might otherwise block streets and sidewalks, strew garbage everywhere, and shit all over the place (which, actually, is just another aspect of keeping humans safe).

    They are not a governmental Orkin-man with a mandate to hunt and kill wildlife just running around…being wildlife. Nor should they be.

    I’m not unsympathetic. I had beloved cats damn near get the business from crazed, stray dogs; ornery tomcats; and, once, from a snake. But in each case I was responsible. I was watching my charges and the minute I saw one in a Mexican standoff with a snake, I scooped him up to fight another day. Another time a tomcat bit the paw of my kitten before he could quite run past me to safety – but that cat got punted a good twenty feet in the air for his trouble. Still another incident led to my kicking in Cujo’s teeth with my flight-deck boots because my hands were each holding a terrified cat. Apart from the snake, these were cases within animal control’s purview, but, like the police, when seconds count, they are minutes away; so you shouldn’t look to them for any help anyway. And so on. I’m sorry about the loss of any beloved pet, but it should be a reminder 1) they need watching after and 2) the world is a dangerous place.

    • Replies: @Dissident
    Just wanted to note my appreciation for this and a number of your other posts in this thread. I found much wisdom and sense demonstrated in them.
  243. @Alden
    “ Some readers are young persons who have not yet wed”. So why are these young bachelors telling other people to have 4 or 5 children?

    What gives them that right??’

    It’s what philosophers would call a natural right. It’s commonly codified as “freedom of speech” in modern democracies. A fallacious argument underlies your implied position: “If Joe does not have direct experience of x, he’s no business opining about it, or, in any event, his opinion is invalid.”

    It’s nonsense, of course, not only because it is illogical, but the evidence it all around you. An elderly orthopoedist with two left feet may nevertheless be an outstanding authority about the best way for an Olympic gymnast or a professional dancer to avoid injuries. A childless bachelor may quite validly and sensibly exhort other men not to beat their wives and children. A blind cripple unqualified for service may nevertheless rebuke a deserter for cowardice or a mutineer for disloyalty.

    Suppose the unwed reader is a fellow in his early twenties, finishing a doctorate in medicine or petrochemical engineering. Or even a high-schooler. He has every intention of marrying and having a family. Why, it may be his dearest dream. He may even already be in excited discussions about it with his sweetheart. But he’s no fool; he knows the last thing he needs is to be juggling the stress of caring for a newborn – or even a new marriage – with the horrors of his completing his residency or defending his dissertation! Nevertheless, he is perfectly warranted in criticising women who reject marriage and children.

    As to your other remark about how you are “able to deduct things about a poster from their writings” because you were “in law enforcement” and “learned to tell when people are not telling the truth” – well, I’ll dispute none of it, nor even your sincerity and honesty in asserting it…but that’s not to say I am entirely convinced of it, either.

  244. @Alden
    The pills been around 60 years and no ones gotten cancer or any other disease from it.

    Instead of reading ignorant internet scare stories that vaccines cause autism and the pill causes cancer, why not ask a Dr or nurse, someone who knows what they’re talking about if the pill causes cancer and other disease?

    Idiots who believe the pill causes cancer usually don’t get their children get vaccinated and are in weird macrobiotic diets.

    Talk to a medical professional about the pill. Don’t read internet ignorance about it.

    The pills been around 60 years and no ones gotten cancer or any other disease from it.

    I’m not interested in arguing with you, ma’am.

    I made the observation that medical beliefs/conventional wisdom has been proven wrong again and again in recent history.

    Messing around with the endocrine system, fooling a woman’s body into thinking she’s permanently pregnant, is a very big deal. It would not surprise me if there are long-term undesirable effects of which we are yet unaware. As such, I feel it’s best to avoid the pill. My wife feels the same.

    If you or others wish to take it that’s none of my business.

    Instead of reading ignorant internet scare stories that vaccines cause autism and the pill causes cancer,

    More omnipotent hallucinations from you.

    why not ask a Dr or nurse, someone who knows what they’re talking about if the pill causes cancer and other disease?

    My mother’s OB told her she should formula-feed me instead of breast-feed. That was medical wisdom at the time. He was 100% wrong. There are plenty more examples where that came from.

    If you want to believe without question everything doctors tell you, again that’s your business. I’m not trying to convince you.

    Idiots who believe the pill causes cancer usually don’t get their children get vaccinated and are in weird macrobiotic diets.

    Talk to a medical professional about the pill. Don’t read internet ignorance about it.

    I made no claim about the Pill causing cancer. Another of your hallucinations.

    Wow you seem REALLY attached emotionally to the pill. Extraordinarily sensitive.

    Any mild criticism or even questioning of this powerful drug has you lashing out and inventing all kinds of imagined accusations (such as not believing in birth control) of me and others.

    Could it be that you took the pill for years yourself? That would explain a lot.

  245. @Alden
    I don’t take the pill.

    I’m only reacting to the overall We Hate Women theme of this site.

    Given the hatred of women it’s hard to believe any men on this site are married or even heterosexual. Hatred of women is an indication of homosexuality you know.

    I don’t take the pill.

    I believe you. Have you ever taken it?

    I’m only reacting to the overall We Hate Women theme of this site.

    Ok.

    You tank your own credibility, however, when you characterize any skepticism of the “pill has no negative long-term effects” as “the overall We Hate Women theme of this site.”

    You come across like an unhinged blue-hair, not as a stable mother of 4. Many of your posts be like:

  246. @Alden
    I don’t take the pill.

    I’m only reacting to the overall We Hate Women theme of this site.

    Given the hatred of women it’s hard to believe any men on this site are married or even heterosexual. Hatred of women is an indication of homosexuality you know.

    I don’t take the pill.

    I’m only reacting to the overall We Hate Women theme of this site.

    Given the hatred of women it’s hard to believe any men on this site are married or even heterosexual. Hatred of women is an indication of homosexuality you know.

    Erm, yeah…

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    I have a beautiful wife and an amazing son. God bless you!
  247. @Autochthon

    No farmers my brother knows wanted a dog around.
     
    The farmers your brother knows sound like a piece of work. No farmer I've known didn't swear by a good dog.

    https://phoenicianfarm.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/sable-chickens2.jpg

    Are we talking about the same thing?

    More and more I suspect perhaps your brother's crowd are the slimy agribusiness types who swear by gallons of antibiotics, irresponsibly depleting aquifers at all costs then bitching about daddy gubmint not impounding Moar Water! for them, an army of illegal aliens to shame any antebellum planter's slaves, and the holy church of Monsanto. I know about these types – I'm surrounded by them. They live in mansions adjacent to their fields, drive around town in $80,000.00 monster trucks, spend half their days in clatches at Starbucks bitching about the prices of commodities, and whatever is not automated gets done by their trusty Mexican slaves. They are rich because they inherited a lot land, not because they work it. They disgust me.

    The actual farmers I know (who all live back east in remnants of the U.S.A., rather than Mexinchifornia) live on small farms their families have owned for an age and have none of these predilections, nor the accompanying pathologies. They live modest lives. Some barely get by.

    Everybody who didn’t grow up farming or ranching tries chickens, ducks other poultry exactly as you described. But they get sick of coming out in the morning and seeing several dead birds.
     
    I don't know about "everybody." I do know the five people I know personally who do it have no such troubles. These people did not grow up farming and are not farmers. Just people with a bit of land who are not stupid (they are nothing like the hipster doofus "urban chicken" people you mention – I know those types, too, and I agree they are as hapless as you say.) One is a Russian emigre who grew up in Moscow (as urban as it gets!) and now lives in rural Santa Clara. She has an emu, too. It's ornery as Hell, and probably contributes more than her dog to keeping her chickens safe – I was afraid of the damned thing.

    http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwmu/files/styles/x_large/public/201603/emu.jpg

    Nice photos. Dog is beautiful and appears remarkably well-groomed.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Not mine! I'd have to upload stuff someplace like imgur then link; too doxy otherwise. As with every image, I just find something representative. Thanks, though, and I agree: a happy pup and birds at an outfit called Phoenician Farms in Texas....
  248. @Autochthon
    Raccoons are wildlife; absent some emergency wherein a human faces imminent harm, they are not any concern of animal control officers. ("But they keep hassling my pets or livestock" is not a qualifying exigency: in such a situation it is the owner's responsibility and prerogative to protect his animals from wildlife, not the animal control officers' responsibility to somehow prevent or punish the wildlife from its natural behaviour.)

    If a rabid coyote is menacing your toddler, for heaven's sake call animal control: they'll send someone out with a side-arm and a catch-pole right away. (Although, really, you should shoot the damned thing and call them afterward to collect the corpse).

    If a perfectly healthy coyote comes sniffing around your yard every night to tangle with Fluffy, though, it's your responsibility to build a fence that keeps the coyotes out or bring Fluffy inside at night.

    You may disagree with this arrangement, but it's the law and policy in nearly every jurisdiction that provides animal control services, and for good reason. I cannot tell you how many times friends of mine who are animal control officers have some apoplectic old lady screaming for them to "do something!" as they calmly regard a deer eating the crone's prized begonias or whatever.

    "But, it's in my yard!"

    "So are squirrels, robins, and probably a lot of snakes and lizards we cannot see right now. I'm not going to do anything about those either."

    "But, how did it get over the fence?!"

    "Ma'am, this fence is only six feet tall; whitetail deer have no trouble jumping over twelve-foot fences."

    "But...you aren't going to do anything?!

    "What would you want me to do, ma'am? I'm not going to shoot it. I'm not going to try to catch that thing – it won't fit in my truck, and, anyway, we have no facilities at the pound for it. If I did somehow catch it all I could really do is move it to the other side of the fence, but it could easily jump over the fence again in an hour, a day, or a week. No, I'm not going to do anything. It's no danger to you or anyone else. In a few minutes or a few hours it will get thirsty or bored and it will move along, jumping right back over your fence into the woods ... where it lives. If you are truly traumatised by the deer my best advice is that you install a much higher fence or else even reconsider whether you want to live on the edge of the forest. Have a nice day, ma'am."

     

    Animal control have a very specifically defined mandate to keep people safe and keep developed areas free from becoming overrun with domesticated but unkept animals that might otherwise block streets and sidewalks, strew garbage everywhere, and shit all over the place (which, actually, is just another aspect of keeping humans safe).

    They are not a governmental Orkin-man with a mandate to hunt and kill wildlife just running around...being wildlife. Nor should they be.

    I'm not unsympathetic. I had beloved cats damn near get the business from crazed, stray dogs; ornery tomcats; and, once, from a snake. But in each case I was responsible. I was watching my charges and the minute I saw one in a Mexican standoff with a snake, I scooped him up to fight another day. Another time a tomcat bit the paw of my kitten before he could quite run past me to safety – but that cat got punted a good twenty feet in the air for his trouble. Still another incident led to my kicking in Cujo's teeth with my flight-deck boots because my hands were each holding a terrified cat. Apart from the snake, these were cases within animal control's purview, but, like the police, when seconds count, they are minutes away; so you shouldn't look to them for any help anyway. And so on. I'm sorry about the loss of any beloved pet, but it should be a reminder 1) they need watching after and 2) the world is a dangerous place.

    Just wanted to note my appreciation for this and a number of your other posts in this thread. I found much wisdom and sense demonstrated in them.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    You are very kind.
  249. @Moses

    I don’t take the pill.

    I’m only reacting to the overall We Hate Women theme of this site.

    Given the hatred of women it’s hard to believe any men on this site are married or even heterosexual. Hatred of women is an indication of homosexuality you know.
     
    Erm, yeah...

    https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FearlessThoseBrant-poster.jpg

    I have a beautiful wife and an amazing son. God bless you!

  250. @Dissident
    Nice photos. Dog is beautiful and appears remarkably well-groomed.

    Not mine! I’d have to upload stuff someplace like imgur then link; too doxy otherwise. As with every image, I just find something representative. Thanks, though, and I agree: a happy pup and birds at an outfit called Phoenician Farms in Texas….

  251. @Alden
    Most of the men in this site are totally absolutely against child support.

    This is pretty much a women hating site. Go back and find the men’s comments about the Muslim terrorist who bombed the Arianna Grand concert in England a few years ago.

    Most of the men here applauded the bombing because of the way both the singer and the girl and women concert goers were dressed.

    Most women who happen upon UNZ get tired of the woman hating after a few months and stop reading it

    I stay because of Steve Sailer. I’ve followed him for about 25 years.

    If you like fighting with idiots it’s kind of fun to harass and insult the woman haters.

    Most UNZ readers only post things they find on the internet. Anything you write based in personal knowledge from having been there or known the person gets slammed.

    UNZ isn’t for most women

    I’ve never met a man in my life – not one, and I’ve known some real pieces of work! – who was opposed to supporting his children, or the idea of men supporting their children in the abstract.

    What men do oppose is supporting faithless wives – women who have abandoned them, whether for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all (and, often enough, those women’s bastard children by previous husbands or lovers) – under the preposterous rubric of what passes for “child support” in modern, western courts. A fellow can easily be ordered to pay $2,000.00 monthly to support one child. No child on the planet costs that much to support, absent extraordinary medical needs (which would be paid by medical insurance in any event).

    “Child support” [sic] is pegged to a man’s earnings (and it is virtually always the man saddled with it), without regard to actual beeds or even expenditures. If one is Paul Stanley ot Kobe Bryant, one’s child magically “needs” $3,000,000.00 annually for “support.” So sayeth the courts. All this really means, of course, is the kid wears the same huggies, eats the same carrots, and learns from the same schools as any other kid (how much, really, miney can you spend on an eight-year-old any way? he’s not buying yachts!) and that, oh, incidientally, mommy lives like royalty because daddy happens to be one of the most talented people on the planet.

    It is only the tip of the iceberg. I could write a book. Others have.

    Nearly every man on the planet bitching about child support is 1) justified, 2) being raped, and 3) would gladly take physical custody of belived children being unjustly and cruelly deprived of sufficient contact with their father, asking
    nothing of their faithless wives, and yet they are denied this and instead forced to pay for lazy, bitter women who (by their own admission) cannot care for the children absent the sanctioned robbery of the men) monies astronomically beyond the actual costs of raiaing a child.

    One day, in a year, a decade, a century, or a millennium, this system will be looked back upon as madness, just as slavery now is.

  252. @Alden
    Most of the men in this site are totally absolutely against child support.

    This is pretty much a women hating site. Go back and find the men’s comments about the Muslim terrorist who bombed the Arianna Grand concert in England a few years ago.

    Most of the men here applauded the bombing because of the way both the singer and the girl and women concert goers were dressed.

    Most women who happen upon UNZ get tired of the woman hating after a few months and stop reading it

    I stay because of Steve Sailer. I’ve followed him for about 25 years.

    If you like fighting with idiots it’s kind of fun to harass and insult the woman haters.

    Most UNZ readers only post things they find on the internet. Anything you write based in personal knowledge from having been there or known the person gets slammed.

    UNZ isn’t for most women

    This is pretty much a women hating site. Go back and find the men’s comments about the Muslim terrorist who bombed the Arianna Grand concert in England a few years ago.

    Most of the men here applauded the bombing because of the way both the singer and the girl and women concert goers were dressed.

    I participated in what I believe is the thread to which you refer and what you wrote is a pretty wild distortion of anything that I recall reading. I do not recall anyone applaud or even attempt to justify the bombing. What some people did was to point-out and lament the disturbing degeneracy that Grande represented and promoted. Specifically cited were the lurid lyrics (“ride the d**k bicycle/ c**k carousel” or something to that effect) found in at least some of her songs, and the rather scandalous, sexually charged manner that characterized the attire worn by her audience– one made-up mostly of early-adolescent girls.

    Your comments can be interesting and, at times at least, sensible. Unfortunately, however, if I may be so frank as to say it, you have also demonstrated what appears to be a rather chronic propensity toward excessively lashing-out at and gratuitously insulting other commenters. Specifically, you have repeatedly made rather wild and decidedly unflattering assumptions and assertions about the personal lives of individuals based on what seems to be nothing more than their having expressed views that were not to your liking.

    Consider, if you will, as a particularly instructive and egregious example the way you responded-to the poster “Moses” in this thread. Moses posted a comment (#58) in which he merely expressed a highly skeptical, negative view of hormonal contraceptives. He did not, so far as I could see, attack, scold, judge or presume to dictate or lecture to anyone concerning their personal choices. Rather than simply challenging or expressing your disagreement with the views Moses expressed, you responded to his post with a 200-word attack of personal insults, aspersions, contumely and non-sequiturs– all, again, completely unprovoked.

    The most regrettable effect of this type of hostile and intemperate behavior (and Alden is by no means the only one guilty of such) is the way it can drag down entire threads. It starts with just one comment. Someone responds to it in kind and in a very short time, the readership is treated to a mud-flinging match.

  253. Only 12% of all births are to women who already have three (or more) children and only 2.3% are born to women who already have five or more. Many of those who do have an ample number of children are Mormons, old-school Catholics, and quiver-full evangelicals who know what they’re doing. (That wench in Wichita should be told to get stuffed).

    A woman who pops six children sired by men she isn’t married to is a hard case and Chetty is almost certainly wasting his time trying to straighten out her life. It would be a surprise to discover she’s capable of thinking three days ahead. The decline in her looks and fertility as she ages is just about the only antidote one could imagine in her case.

    There shouldn’t BE neighborhoods with bad schools, few jobs, blighted housing, no parks, few community resources, and bad policing (too much, too little or just based on the wrong policies and hiring practices).

    1. No clue what she means by ‘community resources’; sounds like an excuse to hire social workers.

    2. Lots of places have little parkland within walking distance, but people get along passably. As for slum neighborhoods, there commonly are parks and schoolyards, but not ones an ordinary person would wish to frequent.

    3.There are ‘few jobs’ in any predominantly residential area. As for the slums, retail trade tends to be sparse because of (1) security issues and (2) depressed purchasing power.

    4. You have bad schools because schools are run according to shticks which please (1) education professors and associated accreditors, (2) state and federal apparatchiki, (3) public interest lawyers and their collaborators in the judiciary, (4) the parents of bad kids; (5) black politicians, who reflexively run interference for the worst elements in the black population; and (6) on-site school psychologists, administrators, and (commonly) teachers, who buy into the social ideology of the teacher-training faculties.

    5. You have ‘blight’ because (1) lumpen types tend to trash their surroundings, (2) the same sort of person (and people adjacent on the social scale) behave in ways that add frictional costs to the project of providing rental housing, often with the blessing of local courts; (3) property taxes incorporate incentives which promote environmental damage; (4) public housing is not well cared for, and this is all but baked in the cake of using public agency as a delivery vehicle.

    6. You have unsafe streets because you have a great many hoodlums and hoodlums whose criminality is comparatively promiscuous. If you want less of that, you need to hire more cops, deploy them optimally, and establish institutional cultures which promote vigorous and pro-active policing. Since all liberals do is complain about police and shiv them whenever there is controversy, you will not get this. Police departments run to please officious judicial nuisances, self-promoting journalists, and malevolent black chauvinists will be ineffective police forces.

    If you want meliorist policy, you have to do a half-dozen things this woman wouldn’t wish to do.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Dissident
    I had to register my appreciation for this post. Quite possibly the best, most thorough, comprehensive and incisive response to Chetty's folly. Pity it came so late, when few are likely to be following the thread anymore.
  254. @Hypnotoad666
    If Trump was sponsoring the Seattle program, this same commenter would have said it was a racist atrocity.

    If he were….

  255. @Expletive Deleted

    Proving my point.
     
    Proving nothing at all. You tried, in a painfully womanish way, to ringfence your witless "solution" from criticism with a premature demand that nobody be mean to you. And then squealed "Aha! Gotcha!" when praise wasn't forthcoming.
    Pissy and hormonal? Projecting harder than CineWorld there, madame.

    Condoms would solve a good 80-90% of the unwanted pregnancy problem.
     
    What you seem unable to grasp, in your UMC fairyland, is that the overwhelming majority of these breeders desperately WANT to get pregnant, as soon as they are physically able. Serially, by any means necessary.

    The father is essentially irrelevant and will be rejected if he attempts to stick around. It's actually preferable to them that he's in jail. Or dead. Because he also is vanishingly unlikely to have any sort of legal income and consumes resources, and can impede access to the gibs-trough for various bureaucratic reasons.

    It's the only career open to underclass females, certainly in Europe and also Over There from what I read.

    Ask them. They're often quite smug about how clever they're being. Particularly when trolleyed on airline booze, on the Easyjet to Alicante (several times a year, from what they loudly boast).
    Pays way better than any job they might get even if gloriously child-free. The jackpot is a "disabled" child, gets you a free and frequently replaced vehicle of people-carrier type, in UK at least. Easy to come by, given how much they drink (etc.) while preggers.
    Guaranteed income, copious (when all the bennies and subs are totted up), and lasts for leisurely decades, if she times it right.

    I'm not even mad, girl. If these meatbags want to vegetate like sub-par cattle in the iron grip of the State instead of having actual lives, well, that's a bit sad. But not my problem.
    Don't even mind the taxes, our gov.uk pisses away more than they could ever cost up the wall, on the most ridiculous stuff. Often to do with War, far away, somewhere hot and sandy that nobody cares about.

    There. Did you get enough attention yet?

    Damn it – that was meant to be the laughter business; in fact I could not agree more with your assessment of it all!

  256. @Dissident
    Just wanted to note my appreciation for this and a number of your other posts in this thread. I found much wisdom and sense demonstrated in them.

    You are very kind.

  257. @Art Deco
    Only 12% of all births are to women who already have three (or more) children and only 2.3% are born to women who already have five or more. Many of those who do have an ample number of children are Mormons, old-school Catholics, and quiver-full evangelicals who know what they're doing. (That wench in Wichita should be told to get stuffed).

    A woman who pops six children sired by men she isn't married to is a hard case and Chetty is almost certainly wasting his time trying to straighten out her life. It would be a surprise to discover she's capable of thinking three days ahead. The decline in her looks and fertility as she ages is just about the only antidote one could imagine in her case.



    There shouldn’t BE neighborhoods with bad schools, few jobs, blighted housing, no parks, few community resources, and bad policing (too much, too little or just based on the wrong policies and hiring practices).

    1. No clue what she means by 'community resources'; sounds like an excuse to hire social workers.

    2. Lots of places have little parkland within walking distance, but people get along passably. As for slum neighborhoods, there commonly are parks and schoolyards, but not ones an ordinary person would wish to frequent.

    3.There are 'few jobs' in any predominantly residential area. As for the slums, retail trade tends to be sparse because of (1) security issues and (2) depressed purchasing power.

    4. You have bad schools because schools are run according to shticks which please (1) education professors and associated accreditors, (2) state and federal apparatchiki, (3) public interest lawyers and their collaborators in the judiciary, (4) the parents of bad kids; (5) black politicians, who reflexively run interference for the worst elements in the black population; and (6) on-site school psychologists, administrators, and (commonly) teachers, who buy into the social ideology of the teacher-training faculties.

    5. You have 'blight' because (1) lumpen types tend to trash their surroundings, (2) the same sort of person (and people adjacent on the social scale) behave in ways that add frictional costs to the project of providing rental housing, often with the blessing of local courts; (3) property taxes incorporate incentives which promote environmental damage; (4) public housing is not well cared for, and this is all but baked in the cake of using public agency as a delivery vehicle.

    6. You have unsafe streets because you have a great many hoodlums and hoodlums whose criminality is comparatively promiscuous. If you want less of that, you need to hire more cops, deploy them optimally, and establish institutional cultures which promote vigorous and pro-active policing. Since all liberals do is complain about police and shiv them whenever there is controversy, you will not get this. Police departments run to please officious judicial nuisances, self-promoting journalists, and malevolent black chauvinists will be ineffective police forces.

    If you want meliorist policy, you have to do a half-dozen things this woman wouldn't wish to do.

    I had to register my appreciation for this post. Quite possibly the best, most thorough, comprehensive and incisive response to Chetty’s folly. Pity it came so late, when few are likely to be following the thread anymore.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2