The Manchester Attacks Megathread

[Tolerant Fellow]

White babies, will, for the first time ever, be the minority in America in 2017.
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/07/ ... ensus-says

Well I'm pretty fucking sure they were a minority before 1492, but keep pushing this white supremacist angle.

Loving your own people doesn't make you a white supremacist. A white supremacist would think that whites were better than all other races. That's not true. Every race is good at different things, and I think we should preserve the diversity of that by having racial nationalist and anti-immigration policies.

[Ifreann]

Jesus this is some white supremacist bullshit rhetoric if I've ever read any before.

Also, I love your hypocritical stance of closing the borders in Europe but at the same time opening Israel's borders.

It's a joke, do you know why it's funny?

Totally irrelevant reasons?

[Salandriagado]

>demographic genocide

wait what

Also how in the name of all that is holy did you get any of that from what I posted?

Whites will be a minority in their own countries in about 50-100 years or so, and after that, all races will eventually cease to exist, leading to a new race of atomized brown people.

Whites babies are already a minority, it's just a matter of time before the 64% white population in America goes down to 55%, and then 50, and then 45, and then 40, and so on.

And why will this happen? Immigrants have been proven to have more children, plus, the massive amounts of non-whites flooding Europe and North America will overtake whites in a couple of years.

And on top of all that, the media has greatly encouraged whites to either remain single or breed with other races.

But at least we got rid of the evil white man, right?

That's not how biology works. Also, immigrants only have higher fertility for the first generation or two.

[Torrocca]

You mean the worlds' superpowers can't have at all caused ANY problems in the Middle East despite having an impressive presence in the Middle East throughout all the 20th and 21st centuries?

Uhm... I'll quote myself again:

And often, actually, against us, as these were mostly actions supported by the Soviets.

As well as:

Again, this isn't a denial of Western incompetence and terrible activity in the Mid-East (like the 1953 Iranian coup, or the US pact with the Saudis), but, again, we're not the Alpha and Omega of Islam's problems. We never were, and never will be.

Wow, color me shocked that imperialist policies all across the Middle East as well as international lust for oil could never have been a major problem in the Middle East! Nope, it's just all their problems! The division of the Ottoman Empire by the French and British could never have caused issues by tossing ethnic groups forcibly into the same regions nor could it have caused any other issues with the Arabs who were promised their independence! Gee golly, those Muslims did it all to themselves with absolutely zero foreign meddling in their countries at all.

[Conserative Morality]

Whites will be a minority in their own countries in about 50-100 years or so, and after that, all races will eventually cease to exist, leading to a new race of atomized brown people.

Whites babies are already a minority, it's just a matter of time before the 64% white population in America goes down to 55%, and then 50, and then 45, and then 40, and so on.

And why will this happen? Immigrants have been proven to have more children, plus, the massive amounts of non-whites flooding Europe and North America will overtake whites in a couple of years.

And on top of all that, the media has greatly encouraged whites to either remain single or breed with other races.

But at least we got rid of the evil white man, right?

As a mixed-race individual, I approve of this.

[Fartsniffage]

Went to a restaurant in the Printworks tonight. It was empty, so quiet that we were the last group in by 8:30pm and they actually closed up at 9.

I've never seen the Printworks and the places in it even less than half full and that includes about half an hour after they open.

Edit: I also saw a guy stop to offer a couple of bobbies a crisp from his pack, so that was nice.

[Torrocca]

Well I'm pretty fucking sure they were a minority before 1492, but keep pushing this white supremacist angle.

Loving your own people doesn't make you a white supremacist. A white supremacist would think that whites were better than all other races. That's not true. Every race is good at different things, and I think we should preserve the diversity of that by having racial nationalist and anti-immigration policies.

Actually a non-racist, non-white supremacist would see that races are literally just a bullshit social construct developed during the Colonial Era to make whites seem supreme. They also wouldn't spew this nonsense of any race being good at one thing or another because that's also not fucking true and is just used as a means to lowkey justify racism. They also also would not at all support "racial nationalist" and anti-immigration bullshit because they actually realize that's super fucking stupid because at the end of the day we're literally all just human and not defined by our physical characteristics all that much but you know let's just instead keep spewing that menial bullshit because it's easier than actually thoroughly looking into things and stuff and smartly addressing them.

[Tolerant Fellow]

Honestly, fixing the birth rate really isn't that hard from a policy perspective.

You just have to make it make economic sense to have children again. Paid parental leave is a quick way to make that happen, and if you need more incentive, paying parents to be parents (like it's a job) would work well too.

Give tax cuts to couples with children like Hitler did to promote birth rates. The more children, the higher the cut.

Agreed.

[Gallia-]

The best solution is probably industrializing birth,

Explain.

I didn't intend for that off-hand comment to be so digressive, but here you go:

Consider that we don't know how or why people actually have kids. We haven't been able to crack this mystery of nature yet, and we're probably nowhere near close. There are a lot of ideas on how to grow people in demography, but we don't actually know the mechanism or evolutionary reasons why people have children. It's not economic. If it were economic, you could incentivize growth meaningfully by giving tax breaks or subsidies. These do not appreciably increase the overall TFR, though. Neither does peer pressure, appeals to social responsibility or cultural values, or actual demographic crisis.

The closest correlation might be "stability". In the baby boom era in the USA, it was characterized by strong birth rates and full employment. People had jobs, and these jobs were relatively well paid, but it's not really clear why it happened. It had nothing to do with WW2. There wasn't a commensurate increase in birth rates after WW1 in Western Europe, and the USA actually had a large birth decline after WW1. Britain had a big spike from below replacement rate just before WW2, that dipped in the '50s, and spiked again in the '60s. That said, the general trend has been downwards, and extremely so since the 1960s.

Sometime around 1900, the collective Western economies just decided they didn't want to have children anymore. The TFRs tanked to below replacement rate in the most industrialized countries, like UK. They sometimes go above TFR, but they're not in the 4-5 children per woman they used to be in agrarian societies. No one knows why and TBH I don't think we ever will know why, but that's really important beyond knowing that there is something inside humans in the West (and in all developed economies, for that matter) that clicks "on" when you reach a particular point in economic development that turns off the baby making drive.

I don't think there's anything, public policy wise, you can do to make people want to fuck anymore. The availability of condoms and contraception is too large, consumerist cultures shun child-rearing, individualism abhors long-term relationships, divorce rates are too high, whatever you want to blame it on I guess.

The solution will probably have to be technological to deal with the birth rate gap: that means artificial birth. No more women being used as incubators for 9-months. Instead, you go to the local Birth Factory No. 059 (or Babies, Inc., or National Birth Center, etc.), donate some genetic material, and the child is produced in 9 months in an artificial womb in a factory. You might even be paid for it, or it might be compulsory, who_knows.

You'd probably need to combine it with some sort of kibbutz-style creches to raise the children collectively, because I doubt that future families will be willing to care for children if they're not willing to make them. Otherwise, adoption rates of small Chinese, Kenyan, and Nigerian children would be through the roof (and they aren't).

I don't have any really serious policy proposals or anything, but that's basically a rough idea of what I'd assume you'd need to do to dodge extinction. The alternative is being led on by Mother Nature for another 200 years and then she never puts out and we're all left collectively blue-balled and childless.

And TBH, I think that it would be a real shame if Humanity vanishes from the Earth because Homo Hikikomori supplanted Homo Sapiens.

Give tax cuts to couples with children like Hitler did to promote birth rates. The more children, the higher the cut.

Agreed.

If we assume it had any effect at all, you might just see TFR drop below 1, let alone the 2.1 you need to replace a generation!

Germany's greatest birth rate increase was during the Wirtschaftwunder in the 1950s. The entire Western World, more or less, experienced a hiccup after WW2 where it suddenly decided to start fucking at a slightly less prodigious rate than it did in the 1890s.

The 1930s were an era of stagnation and decline, including (especially!) the fascist economies.

Public policy has little to zero effect on large scale birth rates. It's something entirely different and probably unconnected to deliberate policy.

[Tolerant Fellow]

Loving your own people doesn't make you a white supremacist. A white supremacist would think that whites were better than all other races. That's not true. Every race is good at different things, and I think we should preserve the diversity of that by having racial nationalist and anti-immigration policies.

Actually a non-racist, non-white supremacist would see that races are literally just a bullshit social construct developed during the Colonial Era to make whites seem supreme. They also wouldn't spew this nonsense of any race being good at one thing or another because that's also not fucking true and is just used as a means to lowkey justify racism. They also also would not at all support "racial nationalist" and anti-immigration bullshit because they actually realize that's super fucking stupid because at the end of the day we're literally all just human and not defined by our physical characteristics all that much but you know let's just instead keep spewing that menial bullshit because it's easier than actually thoroughly looking into things and stuff and smartly addressing them.

Yep, it's not like there are any morphological differences in the races right? It's not like different races originated from different areas right? It's not like there are differences in racial IQ right?

Jesus, mate. You're really going for the "race is a social construct line?"

So are there absolutely no differences between people in any way based on race?

[Olerand]

Uhm... I'll quote myself again:



As well as:

Wow, color me shocked that imperialist policies all across the Middle East as well as international lust for oil could never have been a major problem in the Middle East! Nope, it's just all their problems! The division of the Ottoman Empire by the French and British could never have caused issues by tossing ethnic groups forcibly into the same regions nor could it have caused any other issues with the Arabs who were promised their independence! Gee golly, those Muslims did it all to themselves with absolutely zero foreign meddling in their countries at all.

... Who are you arguing with? Not me. So... Who, exactly?

I, certainly, haven't denied that Western involvement has made things worse. I have, however, and I am confident in this, since history supports this, said that we are not the evil white man coming to the noble savage and ruining his otherwise idyllic existence.

As for "making these countries", again, what a denial of agency for the indigenous peoples. The only countries you can genuinely say we "made", were Lebanon and Israel (and the latter's creation was a dual project between the Brits and Jews, and did in fact cause quite a lot of upheaval of course). All the rest are Arab creations. Syria, including what would become Lebanon, existed before us, in roughly those borders. Iraq and Jordan were Hashemite creations. The Arabian Peninsula, purely Arab. Egypt as well, going back to Albanian Muhammad Ali's era. Libya was a collection of tribes, certainly not a nation, but a distinct entity from Ottoman Tunisia and Algeria. Contrary to sub-Saharan Africa, where we did genuinely impose creations that had no prior existence, most of the Arab, and Muslim worlds, did have some coherence to their shapes, if they weren't shaped by Arab and Muslim will (such as Pakistan deciding to break from Hindu India).

[Vassenor]

Give tax cuts to couples with children like Hitler did to promote birth rates. The more children, the higher the cut.

Agreed.

Give tax cuts to couples with children like Hitler did to promote birth rates. The more children, the higher the cut.

Except this didn't work:



If it were as simple as "one weird trick", the West wouldn't need to bring in millions of randoms from places in the world that are still growing.

It is a dying civilization. Immigration isn't the cause, it's merely a symptom of a century long malaise.

[Ifreann]

Went to a restaurant in the Printworks tonight. It was empty, so quiet that we were the last group in by 8:30pm and they actually closed up at 9.

I've never seen the Printworks and the places in it even less than half full and that includes about half an hour after they open.

Edit: I also saw a guy stop to offer a couple of bobbies a crisp from his pack, so that was nice.

Bribery of police officers in broad daylight!

---

Actually a non-racist, non-white supremacist would see that races are literally just a bullshit social construct developed during the Colonial Era to make whites seem supreme. They also wouldn't spew this nonsense of any race being good at one thing or another because that's also not fucking true and is just used as a means to lowkey justify racism. They also also would not at all support "racial nationalist" and anti-immigration bullshit because they actually realize that's super fucking stupid because at the end of the day we're literally all just human and not defined by our physical characteristics all that much but you know let's just instead keep spewing that menial bullshit because it's easier than actually thoroughly looking into things and stuff and smartly addressing them.

Yep, it's not like there are any morphological differences in the races right? It's not like different races originated from different areas right? It's not like there are differences in racial IQ right?

Jesus, mate. You're really going for the "race is a social construct line?"

So are there absolutely no differences between people in any way based on race?

Do you have trouble reading or do you just not give a fuck about staying on-topic?

[Italios]

Actually a non-racist, non-white supremacist would see that races are literally just a bullshit social construct developed during the Colonial Era to make whites seem supreme. They also wouldn't spew this nonsense of any race being good at one thing or another because that's also not fucking true and is just used as a means to lowkey justify racism. They also also would not at all support "racial nationalist" and anti-immigration bullshit because they actually realize that's super fucking stupid because at the end of the day we're literally all just human and not defined by our physical characteristics all that much but you know let's just instead keep spewing that menial bullshit because it's easier than actually thoroughly looking into things and stuff and smartly addressing them.

It's not like there are differences in racial IQ right?

yeah

[Torrocca]

Actually a non-racist, non-white supremacist would see that races are literally just a bullshit social construct developed during the Colonial Era to make whites seem supreme. They also wouldn't spew this nonsense of any race being good at one thing or another because that's also not fucking true and is just used as a means to lowkey justify racism. They also also would not at all support "racial nationalist" and anti-immigration bullshit because they actually realize that's super fucking stupid because at the end of the day we're literally all just human and not defined by our physical characteristics all that much but you know let's just instead keep spewing that menial bullshit because it's easier than actually thoroughly looking into things and stuff and smartly addressing them.

Yep, it's not like there are any morphological differences in the races right? It's not like different races originated from different areas right? It's not like there are differences in racial IQ right?

Jesus, mate. You're really going for the "race is a social construct line?"

So are there absolutely no differences between people in any way based on race?

There's really not, bar a few unimportant things like skin color (the really big one). There's not actually any sort of difference in morphology between people (although some physical traits might be more common to a region than another), and skin color changed in humans over time depending on geography and climate, not "hurr durr we just originated from here" and no, there's not differences in racial IQ, there's differences in IQ across cultures because of how differently cultures operate.

[Torrocca]

Wow, color me shocked that imperialist policies all across the Middle East as well as international lust for oil could never have been a major problem in the Middle East! Nope, it's just all their problems! The division of the Ottoman Empire by the French and British could never have caused issues by tossing ethnic groups forcibly into the same regions nor could it have caused any other issues with the Arabs who were promised their independence! Gee golly, those Muslims did it all to themselves with absolutely zero foreign meddling in their countries at all.

... Who are you arguing with? Not me. So... Who, exactly?

I, certainly, haven't denied that Western involvement has made things worse. I have, however, and I am confident in this, since history supports this, said that we are not the evil white man coming to the noble savage and ruining his otherwise idyllic existence.

I certainly never said that Muslims are noble savages and that the West ruined any idyllic existence for them, but you can't deny that the West has been the most major driving factor for the Middle East's problems these past hundred years.

[Vassenor]

It's not like there are differences in racial IQ right?

Your next line will involve the standard misquoting of the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study.

[Olerand]

... Who are you arguing with? Not me. So... Who, exactly?

I, certainly, haven't denied that Western involvement has made things worse. I have, however, and I am confident in this, since history supports this, said that we are not the evil white man coming to the noble savage and ruining his otherwise idyllic existence.

I certainly never said that Muslims are noble savages and that the West ruined any idyllic existence for them, but you can't deny that the West has been the most major driving factor for the Middle East's problems these past hundred years.

Wow, color me shocked that imperialist policies all across the Middle East as well as international lust for oil could never have been a major problem in the Middle East! Nope, it's just all their problems! The division of the Ottoman Empire by the French and British could never have caused issues by tossing ethnic groups forcibly into the same regions nor could it have caused any other issues with the Arabs who were promised their independence! Gee golly, those Muslims did it all to themselves with absolutely zero foreign meddling in their countries at all.

... Who are you arguing with? Not me. So... Who, exactly?

I, certainly, haven't denied that Western involvement has made things worse. I have, however, and I am confident in this, since history supports this, said that we are not the evil white man coming to the noble savage and ruining his otherwise idyllic existence.

As for "making these countries", again, what a denial of agency for the indigenous peoples. The only countries you can genuinely say we "made", were Lebanon and Israel (and the latter's creation was a dual project between the Brits and Jews, and did in fact cause quite a lot of upheaval of course). All the rest are Arab creations. Syria, including what would become Lebanon, existed before us, in roughly those borders. Iraq and Jordan were Hashemite creations. The Arabian Peninsula, purely Arab. Egypt as well, going back to Albanian Muhammad Ali's era. Libya was a collection of tribes, certainly not a nation, but a distinct entity from Ottoman Tunisia and Algeria. Contrary to sub-Saharan Africa, where we did genuinely impose creations that had no prior existence, most of the Arab, and Muslim worlds, did have some coherence to their shapes, if they weren't shaped by Arab and Muslim will (such as Pakistan deciding to break from Hindu India).

I have edited my post for further clarification.

We've made things worse, rather than better? Yes absolutely. We've caused this problem? We're to blame for the IS, al-Qaeda, Islamism, Islamic fundamentalism, Jihadism, etc.? Absolutely not.

[Torrocca]

I certainly never said that Muslims are noble savages and that the West ruined any idyllic existence for them, but you can't deny that the West has been the most major driving factor for the Middle East's problems these past hundred years.

... Who are you arguing with? Not me. So... Who, exactly?

I, certainly, haven't denied that Western involvement has made things worse. I have, however, and I am confident in this, since history supports this, said that we are not the evil white man coming to the noble savage and ruining his otherwise idyllic existence.

As for "making these countries", again, what a denial of agency for the indigenous peoples. The only countries you can genuinely say we "made", were Lebanon and Israel (and the latter's creation was a dual project between the Brits and Jews, and did in fact cause quite a lot of upheaval of course). All the rest are Arab creations. Syria, including what would become Lebanon, existed before us, in roughly those borders. Iraq and Jordan were Hashemite creations. The Arabian Peninsula, purely Arab. Egypt as well, going back to Albanian Muhammad Ali's era. Libya was a collection of tribes, certainly not a nation, but a distinct entity from Ottoman Tunisia and Algeria. Contrary to sub-Saharan Africa, where we did genuinely impose creations that had no prior existence, most of the Arab, and Muslim worlds, did have some coherence to their shapes, if they weren't shaped by Arab and Muslim will (such as Pakistan deciding to break from Hindu India).

I have edited my post for further clarification.

We've made things worse, rather than better? Yes absolutely. We've caused this problem? We're to blame for the IS, al-Qaeda, Islamism, Islamic fundamentalism, Jihadism, etc.? Absolutely not.

You mean Al-Qaeda didn't have any base whatsoever in Cold War politics?

[Vassenor]

I have edited my post for further clarification.

We've made things worse, rather than better? Yes absolutely. We've caused this problem? We're to blame for the IS, al-Qaeda, Islamism, Islamic fundamentalism, Jihadism, etc.? Absolutely not.

You mean Al-Qaeda didn't have any base whatsoever in Cold War politics?

Given that the main reason Bin Laden went off his trolley was how the Saudi government treated his band of mercenaries during Desert Storm, not really.

[Torrocca]

You mean Al-Qaeda didn't have any base whatsoever in Cold War politics?

Given that the main reason Bin Laden went off his trolley was how the Saudi government treated his band of mercenaries during Desert Storm, not really.

Except for the whole Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.

[Olerand]

I have edited my post for further clarification.

We've made things worse, rather than better? Yes absolutely. We've caused this problem? We're to blame for the IS, al-Qaeda, Islamism, Islamic fundamentalism, Jihadism, etc.? Absolutely not.

You mean Al-Qaeda didn't have any base whatsoever in Cold War politics?

Al-Qaeda the institution or Al-Qaeda the thought?

The problem with how the United States handles terrorism is actually precisely this. There is no connection made between terrorism the ideology, and terrorism the insurgent groups. That's why America plays wack-a-mole with terrorists. "Beat" them in Afghanistan, fight them in Iraq, "beat" them in Iraq, fight them in Syria, "beat" them in Syria, fight them in Libya, "beat" them in Libya, fight them in Mali, "beat" them in Mali, fight them in Nigeria, "beat" them in Nigeria, fight them in Somalia, "beat" them in Somalia, fight them in Pakistan, and so on and so forth until eternity. I want to end this for good, not wack a mole.

Though I do suppose this is excellent business for the American military-industrial complex. So maybe if I were America, I wouldn't want to solve this either.

[Vassenor]

Given that the main reason Bin Laden went off his trolley was how the Saudi government treated his band of mercenaries during Desert Storm, not really.

Except for the whole Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.

Thought that was the Taliban.

[Uxupox]

You mean Al-Qaeda didn't have any base whatsoever in Cold War politics?

Al-Qaeda the institution or Al-Qaeda the thought?

The problem with how the United States handles terrorism is actually precisely this. There is no connection made between terrorism the ideology, and terrorism the insurgent groups. That's why America plays wack-a-mole with terrorists. "Beat" them in Afghanistan, fight them in Iraq, "beat" them in Iraq, fight them in Syria, "beat" them in Syria, fight them in Libya, "beat" them in Libya, fight them in Mali, "beat" them in Mali, fight them in Nigeria, "beat" them in Nigeria, fight them in Somalia, "beat" them in Somalia, fight them in Pakistan, and so on and so forth until eternity. I want to end this for good, not walk a mole.

Though I do suppose this is excellent business for the American military-industrial complex. So maybe if I were America, I wouldn't want to solve this either.

United States isn't in NIgeria nor in Mali. It's presence in Somalia is very minor as part of AFRICOM it's only purpose is to provide organization and training support for the local forces in the area.

[Torrocca]

Except for the whole Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.

Thought that was the Taliban.

I mean it was a mess of Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the actually good Mujahideen led by Ahmad Shah Massoud.