July 22, 2012

Eight Is Enough

In the U.S. in this century, the conventional wisdom has become that the problems posed by the poor, since they must be 0% genetic in origin, are best addressed by taking poor children away from their families for as many of their waking hours as possible and turning them over to intensely dedicated Ivy League graduates in Teach for America and similar programs. 

One unanticipated consequence of relieving poor children's parents of many of the time-consuming burdens of parenting, however, is that this leaves the poor parents with more time, energy, and lack of disincentive to hit the clubs and conceive even more poor children. (Meanwhile, the demands for long hours upon the middle class professionals to whom their children are entrusted reduces the fertility of the MCPs.)

Of course, the entire topic of differential fertility is simply not on the mental radar of American conventional wisdom propagators.

In the wake of last summer's shameful English riots, however, the Brits are starting to talk about how, you know, just maybe it would be a good idea if people who already had more kids than they could handle wouldn't have any more. And, even, if you can believe such a thing, that government social workers might occasionally be so bold as to hint to "problem families" that enough is enough. From The Telegraph:
Problem families 'have too many children’ 
Mothers in large problem families should be “ashamed” of the damage they are doing to society and stop having children, a senior government adviser warns today. 
By Robert Winnett, and James Kirkup
Louise Casey, the head of the Government’s troubled families unit, says the state should “interfere” and tell women it is irresponsible to keep having children when they are already struggling to cope. 
She told The Daily Telegraph that the Government must not be a “soft touch” but instead be prepared to “get stuck in”, challenge taboos and change lives. 
Britain’s 120,000 problem families cost taxpayers an estimated £9 billion in benefits, crime, anti-social behaviour and health care. A fifth of them have more than five children. Miss Casey is leading a scheme to turn their lives around after they were blamed for last year’s riots. 
“There are plenty of people who have large families and function incredibly well, and good luck to them, it must be lovely,” she said. “The issue for me, out of the families that I have met, [is that] they are not functioning, lovely families. 
“One of the families I interviewed had six social care teams attached to them: nine children, [and a] tenth on the way. Something has to give here really.” 
Miss Casey warns that the state must start telling mothers with large families to take “responsibility” and stop getting pregnant, often with different, abusive men. 
“The responsibility is as important as coming off drugs, coming off alcohol, getting a grip and getting the kids to school. 
“So for some of those women the job isn’t to go and find yourself another violent, awful bloke who you will bring a child into the world with, to start the cycle all over again.” 
Miss Casey has travelled the country and has analysed the problems of 16 of the worst families, who cost the state up to £200,000 each a year. ... 
She recently visited a family court, where she watched a young woman lose her ninth child to care. The woman, a drug addict, was expected to get pregnant again and the state would intervene again to take the child away shortly after birth. ...

Keep in mind that Miss Casey's comments are news appearing in a newspaper.

John Craig comments:
By criticising problem families who "have too many children", Louise Casey is saying what senior politicians would like to - but dare not. ... 
Politicians have got into serious trouble in the past when they've criticised the lifestyle of poor families or single mothers who are living off the taxpayer. 
Most famously, Sir Keith Joseph destroyed his Tory leadership ambitions with a speech in 1974 in which he talked about mothers of low intelligence "who were first pregnant in adolescence in social classes 4 and 5". 
In 1993, John Redwood was accused of vilifying single mothers after he said that before they receive state hand-outs the father should be contacted and asked to make a financial contribution. 
And more recently, Tory peer Howard Flight sparked a political storm in 2010 when he said George Osborne's child benefit changes would discourage the middle classes from "breeding" and give "every incentive" to those on benefits.

But Louise Casey is an adviser - and an outspoken and controversial one at that - and so she can get away with it. 
Despite her controversial style, she has been an adviser to the last three prime ministers, so clearly she's highly valued in Whitehall. She was Tony Blair's "Asbo Tsar", then Gordon Brown appointed her "Victims' Champion" - taking over from Sara Payne - and then after last summer's riots, David Cameron appointed her to head the Government's "troubled families" unit.

88 comments:

Anonymous said...

The problem is not that they are having "too many children" per say. That's just feminist propaganda to hide the underlining the problem.

The problem is that:

1 - These women are have lots of sex with different men since feminist liberation has been about slutting it up and these women are going after sexy men who may not necessarily be stable providers, or going after the gina tingles as Roissy would say.

2 - Minorities are typically not as smart as SWPL (liberal whites).... so rich Jews getting out of troubles does not bode well for the lowerclasses. They don't have the same outcomes.

3 - So you end up with women who have lots of babies, and UNMARRIED, from DIFFERENT FATHERS, e.g. a girl that has 3 babies from 3 different fathers. Yikes!

It's promiscuicuty, poverty and illegitimacy (cohabitation or just being a strong single woman) rolled up in one. But nobody wants to touch that so it's about having too many children.

What about Ann Romney? She has 5 boys from Mitt Romney and she's fine. Ron Paul's children seem okay.

Even that Duggar family living on a farm with 18 children don't have moral dysfunction.

Anonymous said...

We have celibate priests and NFP from traditional Catholic families. They're doing alright.

anonimo said...

Everyday I fear that liberals will be hit by reality far before they're hit by realization.

They'd rather die in a dream then awake in a nightmare.

I fear the West is simply doomed for brazillification in race and economy.

anony-mouse said...

Are dumb people having too many children or are smart people having too few?

The upside-down generational pyramids that belong to many smart families will lead to fewer smart people whatever actions are taken with regard to dumb families.

And since dumb people will continue to do dumb things, because, well, maybe because they are dumb, focusing on smart families may lead to a better result.

The only practical way of reducing the size of dumb families would be to pay them to accept passive forms of sterilisation (norplant implants). Unfortunately such implants can also be removed.

Whiskey said...

Steve, here's the translation from Newspeak to English:

"Too many Whites on Welfare! We need that money for patronage for our Black, and Muslim voters! Whites stop having kids! Abdullah has four wives, all pregnant! We need to support him!"

There. Hoped that helped everyone.

Whiskey said...

Oh, let me add, the probability that the nice White ladies will EVER tell Mohammed, or Jakeem, not to have so many kids (or the mothers of their kids, often multiple mothers) is so close to zero to be statistically insignificant.

This is all about getting rid of those awful "Wrong Sort of White people" and pushing even more diversity. Because poor non-Whites are magical and poor Whites an atrocity, or something.

Anonymous said...

You don't think it might have something to do with being paid to have children would you - along the lines of economy of scale? What good is welfare socialism if it can't be gamed by the government employed, social workers' constituency. Just keep reloading that EBT card.

Anonymous said...

Liberalism's greatest "triumph," which of course is a civil society's greatest defeat, is the removal of the concept of shame from human behavior.

The only time a progressive wishes to visit shame upon another is if that person thinks humans are not all the same or if that person owns a firearm.

While Chris Christie is too soft on issues like illegal immigration (probably he's uneducated about it), I like that he shames people.

I say the only way society works is if there's behavior that is considered shameful and taking money from your neighbors in the form of welfare and not feeling shamed by it, is, well, shameful.

Shame is an incentive.

Anonymous said...

There is alot of dysgenic going on in Britain right now.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309128/new-normal-municipal-bankruptcy-michael-auslin

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/305062/americas-intellectual-capital-michael-auslin

Anonymous said...

"There is alot of dysgenic going on in Britain right now."

Waged by high IQ people in the name of low IQ people against middle IQ people.

Same in the US.

Mr. Anon said...

If we stopped paying for it, it would stop happening, or at least greatly diminish. No more welfare, of any kind. Stop it all.

JerseyGuy said...

"There is alot of dysgenic going on in Britain right now."

I've long held the idea that Britain has the most dysgenic fertility out of any Western nation. Does anyone have data to support this?

Also, what Western country has the least dysgenic fertility? I suspect that the United States actually isn't too bad (we just have an awful immigration policy). In Northern New Jersey at least, it doesn't appear that lower class whites have significantly more children. Is this more of a rural thing for lower class whites?

MarthaStewart said...

This grand experiment of the last 50 years is coming to an end--multi-cult, feminism, etc. Fewer states can afford it and soon it will be none. That's what this article is all about. It's already starting to unwind in Europe, and will accelerate in the next 10 years, with massive contractions of economies and social welfare. It will be ugly in Europe, but I don't think it will be terribly violent. Europe seems to survive social upheaval fairly well. Now in the US . . .

Anonymous said...

Yeah, some people forget that SOMEONE'S GOTTA PAY!

Anonymous said...

ann coulter has crossed the rubicon:
DEMOCRATS' IDEAL VOTER: ILLEGAL ALIEN, SINGLE MOTHER, CONVICTED FELON
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-18.html

Anonymous said...

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////'#].;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;?~'.
5412

Daisy (my dog) jumped on the laptop just now. I felt it was too good to delete.

corvinus said...

or going after the gina tingles as Roissy would say.

Actually, that term is courtesy of one of Roissy's posters/friends, "Great Books For Men" (or "GBFM").

Anonymous said...

In New Zealand, we're fortunate enough to have a right-flavoured government in power with some common sense being shown - until the next cycle undoes it all.

This article discusses some of the positive noises being made in New Zealand in the direction of curbing mega-families sustained by state welfare: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10819669

Would you believe, it even includes a statement from the Minister for Social Development which uses the words "self-responsibility".

In other news, drug-users on welfare benefits in NZ who continue to fail job applications due to failed drug tests will have their benefits cut: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10817004

Having said that, drug addicts are exempt from the welfare cut. Seems a perverse incentive to take the next step in one's drug use, but it's a step in the right direction.

I never thought I'd see the day in this country...

Anonymous said...

Mothers in large problem families should be "ashamed" of the damage they are doing to society and stop having children, a senior government adviser warns today.

Well such a government adviser would not last more than few hours here in the USA. Because that would be sooo racist thing to say.

Anonymous said...

Most of the problem families in the UK aren't minorities.

Anonymous said...

'hate' is enough... to get thrown in jail.

Anonymous said...

"Most of the problem families in the UK aren't minorities."

But ratio is higher among blacks.

Anonymous said...

Ending welfare has to happen sooner or later. Exponential growth of the criminal class via wealth transfer from functioning society is unsustainable.

Anonymous said...

Coulter:

'A 1990 study by the Progressive Policy Institute showed that after controlling for single motherhood, the difference in black and white crime disappeared.'

Bullshit.

Anonymous said...

Stories like this indicate just how clueless liberals are about the damaging effects of their own beliefs and programs.

It reminds me of Putnam's five year multimillion dollar study showing that multiculturalism created alienated fractured society.

Do these people have an ounce of common sense?

Anonymous said...

So now they are going to get a good talking to. Maybe even a strongly worded letter! I guess it is a start.

Eventually the money for this system is going to run out and it's going to be ugly. Zombie apocalypse, here we come. Better sooner rather than later.

Anonymous said...

These comments are appearing in the Daily Telegraph. There is a hierarchy of PC in the British Press with the Guardian at the top and the Daily Mail at the bottom. The people who actually control the social services (not the politicians) all read the Guardian and are still smoking weed in cloud cuckoo land.

Conatus said...

Theodore Dalrymple was a Doc in Britain’s penal system and has written a boatload of books about the British poor. He can go on at length about them, their foibles and even their twisted metaphysics because most of them are white, therefore they are fair game for analysis.
Generally I would say his ideas come down to the poor are self destructive and have a nostalgie de la boue(love of the gutter) because they know the state will ultimately take care of their every need so for the poor they sort of back assedly choose screwed up lives to escape boredom.



From this essay in City Journal which is more about people in well off industrialized societies rejecting the bourgeois life.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/8_3_a1.html

“An extreme and terminal case, no doubt, but I encounter milder forms of the malady every day. Untold numbers of my patients, with every opportunity to lead quiet, useful, and tolerably prosperous lives, choose instead the path of complication and, if not of violence and physical danger exactly, at least of drama and excitement, leading to sleepless nights and financial loss. They break up marriages, form disastrous liaisons, chase Chimeras, and behave in ways that predictably will end in disaster. Like moths to the flame, they court catastrophe. As many have told me, they prefer disaster to boredom.”

Anonymous said...

"In the wake of last summer's shameful English riots"

English riots - isn't that a bit of a misnomer? Sure, the riots happened in England, but an awful lot of the rioters weren't English...

Anonymous said...

As Charles Murray says, don't pay unmarried women to have illegitimate children. Pay for abortions or orphanages but don't give them apartments and money.

Anonymous said...

"Most of the problem families in the UK aren't minorities."

Yes they are - they're just never shown on TV.

.
"Steve, here's the translation from Newspeak to English..."

Whiskey is correct. One of the funny - in the kafkaesque nightmare definition of funny - things about the level of media censorship and filtering in the UK is *only* the White underclass are ever shown on TV.

The non-white underclass appear in the statistics used to supposedly prove racism, discrimination etc but they are *never* shown visibly and therefore don't exist in the minds of the public outside the poorer urban area. Hence you can get these kind of calls from politicians who mean, and are taken to mean by the audience, the White underclass.

However if they ever came to implement the policies they'd find the majority of people effected wouldn't be White and they'd backtrack almost instantly.

Anonymous said...

@Mr. Anon "If we stopped paying for it, it would stop happening, or at least greatly diminish. No more welfare, of any kind. Stop it all."

This is the only approach that has a chance of succeeding, unless we want to go with a totalitarian state a la China.

- A Solid Citizen

San Franciscan non-monk said...

OT: the young men still have honor and valor. Note McQuinn's piercings and modified goth look - that stuff doesn't matter much. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/aurora-shooting-died-bullets-sweeties-article-1.1119395

Anonymous said...

Meanwhile, the demands for long hours upon the middle class professionals to whom their children are entrusted reduces the fertility of the MCPs.)

It is the middle class taxpayer that must sacrifice having children to support both the poor and the government bureaucrats that mind the poor. Your quote makes it sound like the school teachers are not making any money at it. I suspect school teachers are not delaying parenthood either once they get tenure.

Anonymous said...

Merely decreasing/eliminating welfare would not significantly lower the fertility of the absolute down-and-out. They just don't give a fuck and/or lack the ability to exert self-control.

Perhaps bribes (of a non-trivial nature) for voluntary sterilization (focused on women) in conjunction w/ reduced welfare would work.

Point being, money is going to continue to have be spent in one way or another. Drawing a line in the sand on the $$$ issue is the worst of both worlds-- politically inflammatory (to the point of being untenable) all the while doomed to be ineffective, should it even if implemented.

Anonymous said...

"OT: the young men still have honor and valor. Note McQuinn's piercings and modified goth look - that stuff doesn't matter much. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/aurora-shooting-died-bullets-sweeties-article-1.1119395"

Those guys deserve major respect. Meanwhile, Jamie Rohrs DROPPED his baby on the theater floor and ran out like a little bitch, leaving his girlfriend and their two kids to fend for themselves. He actually got in his car and drove away before she called him on a stranger's cell phone. And he had the nerve to propose to her in the hospital (she was hit in the leg by shrapnel and helped out of the theater with her baby and toddler by a heroic black teenager) and sob on camera to every newscaster in the country.

Anonymous said...

Most of the problem families in the UK aren't minorities.

That might be true in absolute terms, whites are the majority of the population. But per capita? I doubt that your claim holds up so well.

Peutrillo said...

It seems to me that wealthier whites, doctors, lawyers, wall st. guys have multiple kids. It seems that it is the middle class whites who are getting the fertility pinch. Much like the economic pinch.

Hail said...

Ann Coulter's silly partisanism is...aggravating, but this is gloves-off stuff that would get a White charged with race crimes in much of Europe:
"1965 Immigration Act was expressly designed to change the ethnic composition of America to make it more like Nigeria"

"The 'browning of America' is not a natural process. It's been artificially imposed by Democrats"

She cites statistics that 6-in-10 Nonwhite Immigrants get some form of federal welfare, compared to fewer than 3-in-10 Native Whites (or so is a fair supposition from that stat she provides, which includes all Natives, Black and White [Blacks probably h aving higher welfare-rates than Nonwhite Immigrants] -- see article).

Anonymous said...

It is worth echoing some of these comments, that it is economic ruin and not common sense or courage that will bring the leftoid globo-insanity and PC nightmare to an end.

We - the White West - might survive, but not because of anything we did.

Shame on us.

Anon.

Truth said...

Hey Whiskey, I'm glad to see you post on this topic. We hadn't heard from you since James Holmes got arrested; not implying anything.

Truth said...

"@Mr. Anon... No more welfare, of any kind. Stop it all."

Are you really prepared for your wife to stop having sex with you?

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Coulter:

""A 1990 study by the Progressive Policy Institute showed that after controlling for single motherhood, the difference in black and white crime disappeared.""

Bullshit."

I too found that highly suspect. What are the chances that the Progressive Policy Institute just cooked the numbers? And why is Ann Coulter all of a sudden quoting a group called the "Progressive Policy Institute"?

The rate of illegitimacy among blacks is now, what, about 70%? So if one controls for single motherhood, you're looking at what fraction of the black populace? 15%, perhaps (if one also factors out divorcees and widows)? I'm guessing, but I don't imagine that number is too far off. That's hardly representative of blacks as a whole. Sure, you can say that blacks in America behave just as whites do, if you manage to exclude anywhere from 70% to 90% of the blacks in the country.

Maya said...

"OT: the young men still have honor and valor. Note McQuinn's piercings and modified goth look - that stuff doesn't matter much. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/aurora-shooting-died-bullets-sweeties-article-1.1119395"

Doesn't surprise me at all. I am absolutely sure that my husband would take a bullet for me. Actually, I've never been in a relationship where I wasn't certain that my man would protect me with his life. Thinking of my brothers and of my closest friends' boyfriends/husbands, it's a pretty safe bet that they'd react in the same way as the young men in the article.

I don't know where the people on the internet and some of my coworkers keep finding all these jerks they keep talking about. Sure, I know a couple of pathetic assholes, but they seem to be members of a rare breed. From what I observe, men (including young men who laugh at rape jokes and play video games a lot), tend to be, overall, honorable, respectable and caring people.

Anonymous said...

"That's just feminist propaganda to hide the underlining the problem."

"Miss Casey is leading a scheme to turn their lives around after they were blamed for last year’s riots."

Feminism creates the problem that a feminist then provides solution to. How convenient!

"Meanwhile, Jamie Rohrs DROPPED his baby on the theater floor and ran out like a little bitch,"

Well, like Mr. George Costanza, he is a winner at life.

"And he had the nerve to propose to her in the hospital"

alpha!

Anonymous said...

" helped out of the theater with her baby and toddler by a heroic black teenager"

Really? She got out, but how remains pretty murky. Not too many details to the hero story. The damsel in distress doesn't even explicitly collaborate the story.

So, was he a hero? Maybe, he certainly didn't set a comical standard for cowardice like Rohrs, but the verdict is still out. I wouldn't risk spelling out exactly what happened just yet. Personally, I'd prefer that the recipient of my heroics point them out, maybe I'm just too humble.

Heroes are rare, duh. Most heroes are trained soldiers who are conditioned not to panic. I'm glad I haven't been put to the test, I can't say how I'd react.

Anonyia said...

"The problem is not that they are having "too many children" per say. That's just feminist propaganda to hide the underlining the problem."

Feminist propaganda which encourages promiscuity is only PART of the overall problem. In the modern era, with our low mortality rates and the fact that larger numbers of people are becoming irrelevant in an increasingly automated economy, there is absolutely no reason to promote families larger than replacement rate. It's simple arithmetic that five billion is a more ideal world population than say, nine billion.

NOTA said...

Underclass dysfunction and black dysfunction are hard to separate here, where blacks make the most visible part of the underclass. In other places, it's presumably easier to separate these two kinds of dysfunction.

It sure seems to me like black culture in the US is broken in a way that would be pretty easy to talk about, if not for the racial issues that get raised when you do. (13% of the population accounts for nearly half the crime.)

Now, outside any concern with race, it seems clear to me that the country would be better off if smarter, more functional people were having relatively more kids, and dumber, less functional people were having relatively fewer kids. It's hard for me to see how anyone could really doubt this. Even if you believe genes control nothing important at all and that every human is a blank slate in every way, you'd still like smarter, better-functioning people wrting on those nice, fresh blank slates, right?

And this is consistent with the actions of educated middle class people with kids. Would you want to let your kids be raised by some white aging skank and her white perpetuallly-in-trouble-with-the-law biker boyfriend in their trailer park? Nope, no chance. My class of people sends our kids to private schools or buys insanely expensive houses to get our kids into the best school districts, precisely in hopes of raising them with something like our values and in the company of functional, smart people.

It's not easy to see how to turn the sentiment into a good set of laws or policies, but it's hard for me to see how anyone can disagree with the sentiment that the world would be improved if more kids came from smart, functional parents, and fewer from dumb, nonfunctional ones. And yet, in American political discourse, that's about half a step from strapping a swastika to your arm and goosestepping down the street.

Anonymous said...

If cowardice is defined as abandoning your children to fate, Rohrs has plenty of NAM company.

Anonymous said...

NOTA,

Do you think a guy like Obama is basically a blank slateist? Or does he know the people with whom he identifies (blacks) or does he know their dysfunctional culture is, in large part, a result of genetic propensities? Obviously he pursues policies that are based on the blank slate, but that means nothing when it comes to telling us what he actually believes.

Anonymous said...

"@Mr. Anon... No more welfare, of any kind. Stop it all."

Truth responded,

"Are you really prepared for your wife to stop having sex with you?"______________________________

And the purpose of your statement to Anon is what, Truth? As a quip, a joke, it's the stuff of junior high school boys so since you're not a junior high school boy, I figure you mean much more than this.

So, say it.

NOTA said...

Anon 6:34:

But the underclass had a lot fewer babies out of wedlock when there was less welfare. That's true for both black and white underclasses. Charles Murray's first time painting a big target on his chest was basically pointing this out, publishing a book that said that all the poverty programs that had been implemented with a lot of fanfare and pride in our collective compassion didn't seem to track with any obvious improvement in the well-being of the poor, and in fact, often tracked with things getting worse at the bottom, and then trying to explore why.

Some of that is probably direct financial incentives. More is surely culture, which represents a kind of crystalized wisdom born of painful experience.

I know several single mothers in my educated middle class circle. (None planned to be single mothers--the dads ran out on them.) To raise children to white middle class standards as a single mother is an incredibly hard, gruelling job--those women are always runing like hell, leaning on family and friends, shorting their own sleep and personal lives to give their kids what they can. Most people in my social class know women in that position. We can see what it's likesw vicarious experience informs us and probably our kids, when they get old enough to care. It says "being a single mother is a bad life, so you should try to avoid it." And so relatively few educated middle class people want to be single moms.

My impression is that in poorer communities, especially poor black communities, it's the default. Most mothers are single mothers. So while a kid paying attention may see the intact familes and think "that'd be nice, having the dad of my kids stick around and raise them with me," they probably don't have the burned in idea that single motherhood is a one-way ticket to a rotten life. And so a lot more underclass girls are pretty much okay with being single moms, just like their mothers and grandmothers were.

NOTA said...

Anon:

We will never know till his political career is over. After that, maybe he'll write or say some interesting stuff, since he will no longer have anything to lose--you can't really do much after you've been president, and Michelle doesn't seem likely to run for office any time soon. (Though perhaps they can do the Bill/Hillary or Nestor/Cristina thing and find her a safe seat to run for congress in, when he's out of the white house.)

I would expect him to have some interesting insights into race and culture, since he grew up in such a completely different culture than normal American black culture, but married into a middle-class black family and immersed himself in black communities in Chicago. But who knows what he thinks, or whether he'd ever say what he thinks?

medvedev said...

Those guys deserve major respect

Only in pussified USA. In the most of the rest of the world, those guys did what is normal of them to do under the circumstances. "Major respect" ought to be reserved for majorly unusual acts of bravery.

Anonymous said...

20% of 13% commits 40% of the crime. So, 2.5% of the American population commits 40% (or "nearly half") of the crime.

This is a math fail on par with the earlier math fail about bastardy rates among black Americans.

Black Americans do commit crime at higher rates than most other subpopulations in America, but it's still a minority of a minority.

Anonymous said...

"We - the White West - might survive, but not because of anything we did."

Our race is often wont to chase widely held idiocies to their logical conclusions rather than wait for an outbreak of common sense. Popular delusions and the madness of crowds. When was the last time there was an outbreak of common sense that shattered an incorrect belief almost universally held?

To shatter such beliefs, you either need to control the educations and media diet of people from the cradle, or a point in time is reached when the widespread delusion is no longer tenable.

Look at it this way: mathematics dictates that the belief will be shattered soon enough; we don't have to rely on converting or birthing a generation of people to shatter at least one tenet of the PC religion: that welfare to non-productive people when combined with unfettered immigration is something to be encouraged.

Anonymous said...

Another problem is that the British state, since the genesis of compulsory education and social welfare has become s surrogate parent for the more feckless types.
Basically, many of these types regard school as little more than a 'free' baby-sitter - and moan loudly when school holidays force them to look after their own children. Now they moan and moan and moan for 'free universal childcare' for very young children, so another one of their responsibilites is shucked off on to the state. And then you have the enormous number of unmarried mothers who are, in effect, married to the state.
From the dawn of humanity till the late 19th century, it was always the deal that parents were responsible for bringing up their own children - people at that time would have thought it monstrous that any extension of state powers would mean that the state had priority claim over their kids.
Now we are exactly 180 degrees opposed. Apparently many parents demand to the point of screaming that strangers take over the raising of their kids so that they can have an easier life.

Anonymous said...

Well, that's the way of this world - casting innumerable seeds to the wind, and not giving a flying f*ck (literally) whether a seed lands on hard ground or soft ground. Forgive the blasphemy, ((RC educated Steve and all), but didn't Christ say something similar?
Anyhow, isn't this the way all lower sea life propagates, clouds and clouds and clouds of eggs, sperm, zygote, plankton?, aren't the chavs just rediscovering ancient and primal truths?

Lugash said...

I am Lugash.

Here's an excellent(although scary) blog about UK social services for young adults:

http://winstonsmith33.blogspot.com/

I am Lugash.

Anonymous said...

Goddamm it Whiskey you're right again.

Welfare reform: no more welfare after two kids, pursue and penalise fathers fianancially until off-spring is/are 18, even if it measntaking a chunk of their dole money.

The latest horror in the UK is this: Muslims, in this case mainly Pakistanis and Bengalis, marry their 'cousins' which has resulted in 3% of the population having 25% of the disabled children.

Hundreds of these children are now being married off for citizenship purposes.

Anonymous said...

I loved the use of the word "scheme" rather than plan or program- very apropos.

So let's recap: The more children you have the more dysfunctional they are, the higher the income, however they should not notice this relationship (between dysfunction and reward) and rather "be responsible" because it had somehow escaped their notice that irresponsibility has its rewards.

Did I miss anything?

No wonder these people are always in charge, they are brilliant.

Yael said...

"20% of 13% commits 40% of the crime. So, 2.5% of the American population commits 40% (or "nearly half") of the crime.

This is a math fail on par with the earlier math fail about bastardy rates among black Americans.

Black Americans do commit crime at higher rates than most other subpopulations in America, but it's still a minority of a minority."



Or maybe its not. Your math fail that seems to suggest it is only the uncommon 1 in 5 black up to no good seems to be based upon assuming that the 20% of blacks is evenly distributed over the genders, whereas it is overwhelmingly from black males. Thus its not really 20% of 13% committing the crimes but closer to 40% of 6.5% (40% of black men). In other words, based upon the information you give, its closer to half of black men. Not quite such a rare bird after all...

jeanne said...

Thanks for the link, Lugash. Too bad it looks like Mr. Smith has signed off. But they will be interesting archives to read.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Anyhow, isn't this the way all lower sea life propagates, clouds and clouds and clouds of eggs, sperm, zygote, plankton?, aren't the chavs just rediscovering ancient and primal truths?

r-selection vs. K-selection.

Reward r-selection, drive up the cost for k-selection and yes, we KNOW how this ends up as surely as gravity.

Like Peter Brimelow said in another context, it will all end in tears.

Sword said...

anony-mouse said...
SNIP
The only practical way of reducing the size of dumb families would be to pay them to accept passive forms of sterilisation (norplant implants). Unfortunately such implants can also be removed.
-----
Norplants an be taken out. However, if the state offers big bribe money for hysterectomies, then there is no going back. Heck, fork up 1 million bucks, tax-exempt, to any woman that is less than 40 years old and has accepted handouts during the last year. The more functional women would probably not take the bait, and those that are down and out but have functional relatives might use the option as a way to start a bidding war with relatives that want them to remain fertile. Non-functional women without a safety net in the form of relatives would be the most likely to take the bait/stipend, and that is just fine.

One could also match that with a money offer for men who get the tubes tied. That would not be as effective in controlling population, but it might be a good thing to CYA with regard to gender equality.

One side effect of this might be that lesbians who are sure that they do not want kinds might go for the easy money. I see no downside with that.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

And the purpose of your statement to Anon is what, Truth? As a quip, a joke, it's the stuff of junior high school boys so since you're not a junior high school boy, I figure you mean much more than this."

No, there is no more to what he says than adolescent snark. Perhaps he only operates mentally at the level of a junior-highschool pupil. He's a stupid a**hole, who has nothing substantive to offer.

Anonymous said...

it seems clear to me that the country would be better off if smarter, more functional people were having relatively more kids, and dumber, less functional people were having relatively fewer kids. It's hard for me to see how anyone could really doubt this.

Nazi! You want to killsixmillionjews!!!

NOTA said...

anon 10:59:

Good catch, you're right there. Blacks account for about 40% of crime despite making up about 13% of the population, not half. And obviously, that's only a minority of blacks--most blacks are not criminals. Still, it's also a pretty huge signal that something is going wrong in American black culture. (It could be genetic differences, except that a lot of what's going wrong seems to have changed faster than genetics seem like they could have changed.) Blacks have about twice the rate of unwed births here, and from the same source, about twice the rate of teen births. (Though those aren't always a sign of dysfunction.) From here, poverty rates for lacks are also about twice as high as for whites.

The point of these numbers is that they're a lot more objective than just saying "Hip-hop music sounds like crap to me, I'm annoyed by names like Trayvon and LaShawn, and you kids get the hell off my lawn." And I don't think there's any real debate that blacks in the US are doing rather badly as a group, even though there are plenty of blacks who are doing well.

pat said...

I'm probably the only regular reader of this blog who is a former AFDC Social Worker. I have seen close up all of the things that most readers just imagine. I've been in their houses. I've talked to them.

Much to my surprise I found that black people were really quite terrible people. For example, they beat their kids in public. I never saw a white parent do that (and I never saw an Asian on AFDC at all). Black parents routinely beat the hell out of their kids. Somehow the Sunday talk shows never take up the problem of child abuse by blacks.

Black people fall easily into deep dependence. White parents on welfare often prosper. They get free money, free food and free housing. I remember a young white couple who had decorated their apartment with hand crafts, discarded items and a bit of paint. All welfare recipients had TVs and most had cars. These two white kids with the unexpected baby lived a life of hope and dignity. They were probably off welfare within a year.

Black families in contrast wallowed in squalor. Their homes were chaotic. When you went inside your feet stuck to the floor. Everything was dirty and/or broken.

It was impossible to ignore the racial differences and that drove most of the young white liberal Social Workers mad. I remember a guy in my unit two desks down from me, who just cracked. He went to the stairwell and collapsed in a crying jag. He kept repeating over and over that everything was unfair.

I was, it seems, made of sterner stuff. I began to see things differently. I came to the opinion that we should abolish AFDC and similar programs altogether. When Gingrich forced Clinton to enact welfare reform there were all these terrible predictions as to what would happen. The press predicted starving babies. In fact the whole thing was pretty uneventful. The welfare mothers just got jobs.

I worked for most of my time at the welfare department in the jobs oriented programs. I knew hundreds of unemployed men and women whose employment status was the basis of their welfare eligibility. I never met anyone who I thought couldn't get and hold a job. Never.

The welfare department had declared all of these people "unemployable". That's a class bias. For a college educated office worker like a public social worker there are certain expectations. First the workplace will be clean, well lit and orderly. The boss will be polite and just. The pay will be generous and you as a worker will get respect. For the class of people who end up on welfare none of these things is true. When such a person gets a job the boss is likely a fool or a monster. The work will be arduous and dirty. The worker will be treated with contempt and they will try to cheat him or her out of their wages.

Work for a Social Worker is a source of self esteem. This is not the case for welfare recipients. Their self esteem is assaulted every time they go to work. The result is that the Social Workers judge that no one should have to work under those conditions and they decide that the welfare recipient is unemployable.

The job market is competitive and welfare recipients don't get the good jobs. That doesn't mean they can't work, only that some bureaucrat wants to save them from working.

As is well known welfare dependency is a trap. My contribution to this discussion is to dare to mention that black people are particularly easy to trap. In my experience, whites generally get in and get out, Asians don't even get in when they have real hardships, but blacks once they are in stay for generations.

There is a frieze on an Egyptian temple showing men force feeding a hyena. They are trying to domesticate it. Hyenas didn't take to it, dogs did. Similarly we have given food to people and encouraged them to quit being independent (wild). Most races have resisted, not blacks.

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

the poor are self destructive and have a nostalgie de la boue(love of the gutter) because they know the state will ultimately take care of their every need

"Nostalgie de la boue" is a middle- and upper-class phenomenon, a kind of vicarious thrill-seeking by the pampered and cocooned. A few well brought-up people end up in the gutter, but most low-class scum are just doing what comes naturally to them.

Anonymous said...

"are best addressed by taking poor children away from their families for as many of their waking hours as possible and turning them over to intensely dedicated Ivy League graduates..."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18952579

"Some 2,000 new summer schools running across England will attempt to put 65,000 poorer children on an "equal footing" with their wealthier peers, Nick Clegg said today.

The deputy prime minister said the "brain training" camps would help struggling primary pupils make a good start at secondary this September.

The schools are being funded by £50m targeted at disadvantaged pupils.

They will focus on literacy and numeracy, and art, music and sport.

There will also be sessions to help youngsters get to know their new teachers.

About £50m has been made available to schools through the "pupil premium" - extra funding for disadvantaged children - to run the camps this year."

Anonymous said...

Until we face the fact that eugenics is not a dirty word, that it was invented by Americans (at least in its classsical form) and that Hitler had nothing to do with its founding and was a poor eugenist, at best, anyway, there is no possible rational discussion of the issues.

Truth said...

"And the purpose of your statement to Anon is what, Truth? As a quip, a joke, it's the stuff of junior high school boys so since you're not a junior high school boy, I figure you mean much more than this."

No. no deeper meaning, just effective junior high ridicule.

Truth said...

"...he only operates mentally at the level of a junior-highschool pupil. He's a stupid a**hole, who has nothing substantive to offer."

I know you are but what am eyyyyye?

Anonymous said...

"Until we face the fact that eugenics is not a dirty word...there is no possible rational discussion of the issues."

You can have a disguised discussion though. The prime reason prison works - well historically it was execution but prison can work the same way - is eugenic. You reduce the number of children impulsive people have because a lot fo their life locked up.

So you can defend prison in whatever terms work the best but privately because you understand the eugenic effect.

Another example would be full employment. In full employment the most attractive males in bluecollar environments are the steadiest males. With mass unemployment and the creation of an underclass the steadiest males lose all pride and self-confidence (and money) and the only males that still behave like men (and have spending money) are the criminals.

So the full employment policy decreed by the older, i wouldn't say benigh exactly but certainly less malign, elite was eugenic. Again you can believe the eugenic argument yourself but use whatever argument works best.

.
"Still, it's also a pretty huge signal that something is going wrong in American black culture. (It could be genetic differences, except that a lot of what's going wrong seems to have changed faster than genetics seem like they could have changed.)"

The genetics haven't changed too fast a *restraining* culture that *reduced* the effects of the base genetics was removed and replaced by an *enabling* culture that maximized the effects of the genetics.

One example, segregation, black crime was as bad* but back then the police's job was to beat it back inside designated areas away from white folks. Now things like Section 8 are used to drive black violent crime into white meighborhoods.

*I think the percentage of violent criminals has been going up both during the segregation time and now besically because the same rule of law isn't applied in black areas so the impulsively violent ****heads have more kids.

(Although i think the removal of a cultural brake and it's replacement with an enabling culture can explain it (just) i do wonder if there is another piece of the puzzle as well, maybe related to cochran's germ theory and promiscuity. This is because the dysfunction in the white underclass - from a much lower base - seems to be happening too fast for a purely genetic explanation.)

Anonymous said...

To commenter # 1: If you type "per say" in your first sentence, you lose the trust of all but those as poorly literate as you.

Anonymous said...

"You reduce the number of children impulsive people have because a lot fo their life locked up."

"the only males that still behave like men (and have spending money) are the criminals."

Not so fast

Anonymous said...

I found it interesting that in Mexico, the average woman has 2.4 children, while the average Mexican woman in America has 4.2 children. What is the difference? I guess in Mexico the Gringos are not paying the hospital bills.

Anonymous said...

Cconjugal visits in prison is literally probably the stupidest idea ever.

Anonymous said...

I found it interesting that in Mexico, the average woman has 2.4 children, while the average Mexican woman in America has 4.2 children. What is the difference? I guess in Mexico the Gringos are not paying the hospital bills.

In Mexico most indias and mestizas give birth at home or a "maternity hospital" of modest technology and price.

Inquiring Jew said...

--------------- "In the U.S. in this century, the conventional wisdom has become that the problems posed by the poor, since they must be 0% genetic in origin, are best addressed by taking poor children away from their families for as many of their waking hours as possible and turning them over to intensely dedicated Ivy League graduates in Teach for America and similar programs. ----"

Hyperbole allowed, this state of affairs does not exist and has rarely existed in America historically speaking. Conventional wisdom has rather insisted that "the poor" raise their own kids. This was so before the welfare statism interlude of the mid 60s and 1970s, and became that wisdom again during the Reaganaut era, and was still that under Dem Bill Clinton's welfare reform program. In fact it is a testimony to the power of "conventional thinking" that enabled or pressured Dem Clinton to sign off on welfare reform. And in THIS 21st century- the old welfare statist is not at all the conventional wisdom.


------------------ "In the wake of last summer's shameful English riots, however, the Brits are starting to talk about how, you know, just maybe it would be a good idea if people who already had more kids than they could handle wouldn't have any more. -------------------- "

COuld be but this bit of Brit "conventional wisdom" about "too many kids" as the cause of riots is not only dubious but irrelevant. Riots are nothing special in England- as its long history of football and other white hooliganism show.

The more relevant factor in the riots than "excess kids" were (a) sloppy policy work via the precipitating shooting, and (b) a plodding police response when widespread trouble started. Hooliganism is always waiting to happen in England, and whites are its main perpetrators. This time non-white hooligans used a window of opportunity to do their "wild" thing. Equal opportunity...

--------------- "Minorities are typically not as smart.. So you end up with women who have lots of babies, and UNMARRIED, from DIFFERENT FATHERS, e.g. a girl that has 3 babies from 3 different fathers. Yikes! ---------------

Nothing at all unusual for white people. The white Irish were notioious for "baby making" back in the day. And "higher IQ" white people do pretty well in violence. WHy just the other day one of them wounded over 70 people, and killed 12, including a 6-year old girl in a shooting rampage. In fact over 95% of such shooting "sprees" are carried out by "higher IQ" whites.

Anonymous said...

"Riots are nothing special in England- as its long history of football and other white hooliganism show"

Not so, they're a modern phenomenon.

The American anthropologist Geoffrey Gorer, in his 1955 "Exploring English Character", compared the post-war English with their early Victorian forebears of 120 years previously:

"One of the most lawless populations in the world has turned into one of the most law-abiding; ...a fiercely and ruthlessly acquisitive society has turned into a mildly distributive society; general corruption in government has been replaced by an extraordinarily high level of honesty... in public life today the English are certainly among the most peaceful, gentle, courteous and orderly populations that the civilized world has ever seen. ... you hardly ever see a fight in a bar (a not uncommon spectacle in most of the rest of Europe or in the U.S.A.)... football crowds are as orderly as church meetings.."


That was 1955. Not so now.

Anonymous said...

If Eugenics has a negative connotation, re-label it. Libs do it all the time. So, anti-white discrimination is called 'affirmative action'.

How about we call it Generational Enhancement?

Anonymous said...

Genetic Advancement?

Anonymous said...

In fact over 95% of such shooting "sprees" are carried out by "higher IQ" whites.


Okay, but even accounting for the truly insane, whites have lower rates of violence than "normal" sane NAM's.

Anonymous said...

That just gave me an idea.

Could libs, SWPLs, I don't care who come up with some PC program that would provide "services" to young "at risk" NAM's that would include some kind of incarceration during teens and 20's disguised and rebranded as rehabilitative. They could be given recreation "therapy" or "education" or whatever, but would be out of society and unable to reproduce.

NOTA said...

Clearly, mass shooters and serial killers are another example of occupations from which women are kept by discrimination, social convention, and white male privilege. Clearly, it's time for a federal program to help more women advance in the mass killing field.