Ask.fm address:
http://ask.fm/spandrell
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Howard J. Harrison on A sad day for diversity
- spandrell on A sad day for diversity
- Garr on A sad day for diversity
- Flavia on A sad day for diversity
- Flavia on A sad day for diversity
Top Posts
Archives
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
Pingback: The case for voting for Clinton | Neoreactive
It’s like Saudi Arabia sending off their craziest Wahhabis to go fight jihad or be Madrassa Imams, just so long as they do it over there.
It’s a good idea, but the Beast is wise to it. For at least the last 25 years, promoting population control and abortion in the third world has been a little… icky. Don’t get me wrong: justice, liberty, and human flourishing demand that white women in rich countries have a lot of abortions. But, to try to impose that on the third world, well, that’s cultural imperialism at the least, and possibly even racist eugenic pseudoscience.
Pingback: The case for voting for Clinton | Reaction Times
heh, Spandrell, wouldn’t it be easier to quit subsidizing their high TFR by ending incentives like open-borders and foreign-aid?
In the framework of the progressive state, it’s way easier to just increase funding to an existing agency which is ostensibly working for a progressive cause.
Cutting foreign aid would mean dismantling a huge business which employs thousands of good progressives and their idle daughters. Can’t do that. What you can do is tell them that the new thing in foreign aid fashion is helping wise latinas to fight for their feminist rights by refusing to breed, instead of just giving them food.
Practically speaking when has this ever worked – using progressive means to undermine progressive goals? Progs have an uncanny ability to completely forget their principles when they contradict the progressive project (mussleman immivasion and feminism, frex).
This is bordering dangerously on “liberals are the real racists” strategy.
Stalin?
Spandrell, perhaps you’re right. Don’t fight the tide, ride the wave. Maybe they should promote Jennerism while they’re at it:
“Why breed when you can grow a set of bodacious tatas instead—we can make it happen!”
The ever growing budget leads to bankruptcy. It seems inevitable because so many of the decision makers come from inside the system. But if you cut off their checkbook and stop obeying them, you will soon find they are just a bunch of inept fools.
So, we should send them foreign aid in manifold forms, and then also subsidize their abortion industries?
Or, we could keep our dignity, refrain from proactively joining in with the murder of millions, and simply stop subsidizing their otherwise impossibly high fertility rates.
*yawn*
The only thing your dignity is worth for is making pointless signaling in some stranger’s blog. Good job man.
Admittedly though, massive capital misallocation in the form of aids research, mosquito nets, food, clean water and efforts to combat sickle cell anemia cause huge market distortions in the form of low-IQ-population-bubbles.
What does that Breitbart article have to do with Trump. I though Trump had a longe pro abortion history, Oh googling it just then he has recently gone back that for evangelical votes seems like a tactical flip flop for Cuckstian votes. A bit of a dodgy move I doubt his honesty but that also I don’t expect him to pursue anti abortion that vigorously. He still has my vote… if I was an American.
Progressives have never pursued birth control etc in the third world very vigorously they want the hoards of low IQ brown people to destroy civilization. And you are never going to turn Africans into low fertility progressives anyway the only way to stop growing Africans is to stop sending them food.
Breitbart have been extremely pro-Trump since the beginning. And this article is just evangelical style anti-abortion hysteria. Nobody knows what Trump would do about abortion if he wins the election, but this kind of campaigning makes me feel uneasy.
The way to keep from having refugees destroy your country is not to destroy their cultures with evil Cathedral birth control propaganda. You’ve already lost that war, since your culture has been infected for a lot longer (and their aggression and stupidity provides them with a decent measure of immunity.)
The strong are put on this planet to rule the weak, and the smart are here to rule the stupid. Not to destroy them. If you want to keep your country from being destroyed by third world refugees, close the borders. It’s not hard. If you want to address the root cause, it is that their home countries are very poorly run (and sustained through Cathedral aid). So export good governance, and Africa and the Middle East will once again be nice places to live, producing way more than it takes to sustain their populations. You will benefit, they will benefit, everyone will be happy.
There’s no human way to have Egypt feed its people for much longer. Let alone Africa.
How the hell are we going to export something we don’t have? Exporting good governance is pointless and expensive; we learned that 200 years ago. Using the third world to send their idle daughters for virtue signaling is a more profitable proposition for the ruling class.
Egypt would be able to feed the rest of Africa if it were properly managed.
It is, sadly, not properly managed, thus unproductive and incapable of feeding its own population.
>How the hell are we going to export something we don’t have?
Well, there’s your answer. You should focus on getting you some.
Either you know something I don’t know about farming, or the 3 million hectares around the Nile can’t feed infinite amounts of people. It’s good land, but there’s a lot of Egyptians. And they gotta grow some cotton for export too.
This sort of thinking was heavily promoted in the 60s and 70s by the likes of Paul Ehrlich, and then discredited by the Green Revolution. But nobody who was anybody paid any attention.
The reality is that even if the Egyptians engaged in zero productive activity aside from growing food, if they used modern technology efficiently, their land would be way more than necessary:
http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/9582/how-many-people-can-you-feed-per-square-kilometer-of-farmland
There also are many, many other productive ways of using Egyptian natural resources. And the population is quite sufficiently smart for manufacturing operations (given a foreign managerial cadre.)
The Green Revolution already happened, and it was applied to Egypt and beyond. It’s not like they don’t know about new crops, fertilizers, precise irrigation or even GM seeds.
With all the technology in the world, at some point you run to the limit of land productivity. Japan’s agriculture is extremely productive and well managed. The land is great and well watered. They still can’t feed themselves without imports.
Now if you actually know something about farming, and you’re saying that presently Egypt’s farming techniques are backward and there’s still room for improving crop yields by doing X or Y, I’d like to see some figures. But there’s no freaking way you can feed 2 billion people with the farming land around the Nile. You could clone Borlaug and make 1 thousand copies and you still couldn’t pull that off. Mentioning Ehrlich as if I were some retard doesn’t make it so.
>It’s not like they don’t know about new crops, fertilizers, precise irrigation or even GM seeds.
You know, there were studies showing that in the 19th century, Indian weavers, working on the same exact equipment as British weavers, in factories built and run on the British model,were something like an order of magnitude less productive. I know Egyptian farmers are not near as efficient as they could be, because they are Arabs. Reasoning by analogy, I’ve seen Arab SF and SWAT guys operate. They had the same kit as Americans, and had had the same training (actually, more) and amount of experience (actually, much more) than the typical American equivalent. Yet even with Americans holding their hand, they were maybe 1/20th as effective. So why would the farmers be comparable to their american counterparts in productivity?
The “limit of land productivity” is a constantly moving target. Using 19th century farming techniques, the world population of the 1960s would have starved. Using 1960s farming techniques, today’s world population would starve. To assume that the world population in 2040 will be using today’s farming techniques and thus will starve is shortsighted.
How about fewer abortions for white Europeans & Americans?
Go preach it to them. But don’t change the law.
Pingback: Alles dat je als Nederlander over Donald Trump moet weten | Alfa NL