“A primary cause of low fertility in the Greco-Roman world was a male culture that held marriage in low esteem.” -Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity
A problem with legalized pornography is that if you allow pornography to become too widely consumed, its degraded vision of women will eat away at the capacity of men to fall in love with members of the opposite sex. This reduced capacity for romantic love will make the men of a society less interested in the joys and challenges of stable pair bond based reproduction. Pornography encourages recreational sex rather than marriage and children.
Also, pornography will discourage men from participating in stable pair bonds by tricking their Limbic Systems into thinking they’re getting so much sex that there’s no need to settle down.
Given that stable pair bond based sex is by far the most valuable from the standpoint of increasing the birth rate, I decided to do some research on whether legalized pornography correlates with a country having reduced fertility.
From Wikipedia I found a list of 45 Countries where it was possible to assign their pornography laws to one of three categories: Pornography Banned, Semi-Legalized Pornography, or fully Legalized Pornography.
Then I looked at the 2000 TFR Rates for these countries as provided by the CIA World Factbook:
N Total Fertility Rate
Pornography Banned 19 2.73
Pornography Semi-Legal 5 1.69
Pornography Fully Legal 21 1.67
As can be seen, there’s a stunningly large gap in fertility between countries where pornography is banned and countries where it is wholly or partially legal. In fact, the gap is great enough that even with a sample size of only 45 countries, the Mann-Whitney test of the difference between two means gives a P Value of only .000005.
Could this discrepancy be driven by White countries almost all having legal pornography while having low Fertility for other reasons?
No it couldn’t, as the discrepancy is almost exactly the same even after we throw the White countries out of the equation!
N Total Fertility Rate
Pornogrpahy Banned 17 2.85
Pornography Semi-Legal 1 3.11
Pornography Legal 6 1.79
But what about the possibility that Muslims countries almost all have illegal pornography while at the same time having higher Birth Rates for other reasons?
That can’t be what’s driving the result either, as the correlation remains nearly as strong even after throwing out all the Muslim countries:
N Total Fertility Rate
Pornography Banned 19 2.35
Pornography Semi-Legal 5 1.69
Pornography Legal 10 1.63
At the same time there might be more subtle differences between countries where pornography is banned and countries where it is not that could be partially driving this result.
The real question from a practical standpoint is whether legalizing pornography in a country will drive down fertility. If that is the case, we can rightfully conclude that reversing the legalization of pornography in a country would be of great benefit to its Birth Rate.
From the CDC I found tables showing the Total Fertility Rate for America in the years 1940 to 2000.
Then I decided to look up the Total Fertility Rate for the 5 years before and 5 years after two key Supreme Court rulings that made it essentially impossible to arrest an American for distributing or possessing obscene materials, and which opened never before seen floodgates of pornography.
Jacobellis v. Ohio Stanley v. Georgia
TFR For 5 Years Before 3.53 2.62
TFR For 5 Years After 2.77 2.04
As can be seen, America’s Total Fertility Rate suffered a profound decline in response to the Supreme Court’s two most important rulings in favor of the pornography industry.
Also, when I put whether a year came before or after Jacobellis v. Ohio and Stanley v. Georgia as Dummy Variables in a Multiple Regression, together they explained a staggering 77% of the variation in American fertility from 1940 to 2000!
I think the implications of these findings to White Advocates should be loud and clear: The use of pornography by Whites should be fought tooth and nail, and the banning of pornography in White majority countries and states should be set as a central long-term goal.
Notes: Jacobellis v. Ohio was a 1964 ruling by the Supreme Court that the exhibitor of a film judged obscene by the state of Ohio could not be prosecuted. This had the effect of making it nearly impossible for States to punish people for disseminating pornography.
Stanley v. Georgia was a 1969 ruling by the Supreme Court that invalidated all state laws forbidding the private possession of materials judged obscene. This effectively gave everyone in the country the legal right to buy and hold as much pornography as they could their hands on, thus creating a state of affairs never before seen in American history.
Reginald Thompson is the Pen Name of an Advisor to an International Software Company. He lives on the American East Coast and is proprietor/manager of a recently created Blog called Statsaholic.
Facing the Future as a Minority
What is important for white people to have children, is that they have affordable livingconditions to raise a family in.
For instance the white countryside still today produce a surplus population, while children become very expensive in cities.
From the article:
As can be seen, America’s Total Fertility Rate suffered a profound decline in response to the Supreme Court’s two most important rulings in favor of the pornography industry.
It’s an intriguing correlation, and although there were no doubt many factors involved in the decline of the white birth rate, I would doubt that pornography is among the most important. For one thing, in the era you are discussing (the 60s and early 70s, roughly), really hard core pornography still wasn’t readily available. The culture as a whole was still prudish, and interracial marriage was rare. In the 60s, couples could not be shown on TV sleeping in the same bed, pregnant women could not be shown, and even Barbara Eden’s belly button was off limits, always covered up in “I Dream of Jeannie” (1965-70). Recall, too, that the first issue of Hustler wasn’t printed until 1974. Before that, men’s magazines pretty much limited themselves to shots of titties. Very mild stuff compared to today’s fare.
The most direct and provable cause of the decline in white fertility is the advance of scientific methods of birth control, especially the Pill (first approved for contraceptive use in 1960) and therapeutic abortion. It will never be known how many millions of white children were never born because their potential mothers were taking birth control pills, but it is estimated that about 33 million white American children have been killed in the Abortion Holocaust since Roe v. Wade in 1973.
The rise of scientific methods of birth control also coincides with the rise of feminism, and the reason is obvious. Feminism as we’ve known it would have been inconceivable without such a technological development. All of the disastrous cultural changes that have flowed from feminism — the collapse of the white nuclear family being prime among them — were greatly exacerbated if not directly caused by this technological “advance”. Since feminist-induced changes to civil rights laws, marriage is financial suicide for men. I’d look to that as a cause of lack of interest “in the joys and challenges of stable pair bond based reproduction” much more than the availability of pornography.
Correlation is not causation.
I do believe Dr MacDonald would agree, when an alien species invades the habitat an area then due to reduced living area, food, etc, the original inhabitants have less offspring. I’ve seen it with flora and fauna in this nation. Flailing about looking to pin the blame on something other than evolutionary displacement is a waste of time and effort.
Adam,
“It’s an intriguing correlation, and although there were no doubt many factors involved in the decline of the white birth rate, I would doubt that pornography is among the most important. For one thing, in the era you are discussing (the 60s and early 70s, roughly), really hard core pornography still wasn’t readily available.”
From the standpoint of Fertility Suppression, the important thing with Pornography is not how hardcore it is. Once it reaches the threshold of inspiring the men who watch it to masturbate, while being enjoyable enough that it positively reinforces their latent desire to have socially meaningless sex with women they barely know, the only thing that really matters is how widely available it is and whether it can be obtained by men without fear of serious negative reinforcement.
If you were more familiar with the dark side of American Film History, you’d realize that even before the 60’s there were rather explicit “Sexploitation” films available (often showing more than just “titties“). It just is that relatively few men saw them because of their illegality, and just as importantly even the men with access to these films could usually only watch them infrequently.
Jacobellis v. Ohio, and to a greater extent Stanley v. Georgia, changed all that. And a serious collapse in American Fertility coincided almost perfectly with this change.
“The most direct and provable cause of the decline in white fertility is the advance of scientific methods of birth control, especially the Pill (first approved for contraceptive use in 1960) and therapeutic abortion.”
I think you failed to look closely enough at the American Fertility data I linked to in the article.
Yes, there was a decline in fertility that appears to have been in response to The Pill being declared a legal means of contraception in 1960. But there were greater declines in fertility corresponding to the Pro-Pornography Supreme Court Rulings.
There’s a 41.6% Correlation between the TFR for a year and whether it came before or after The Pill. But impressive though this may be, it’s dwarfed by the 75% Correlation between TFR for a year and whether it came before or after Stanley v. Georgia!
Also, it is lower than the 67.3% Correlation between TRF for a year and whether it came before or after Jacobellis v. Ohio.
It just doesn’t make sense that the impact of The Pill on the Fertility Rate would get stronger as you got further away from its being introduced, and it doesn’t make sense that it’s impact would just happen to strengthen at the exact same time the Pro-Pornography Court Rulings came down.
I agree that the legalization of Abortion had an important Fertility Suppressing effect. But it was more the (near) coup de grace that stormed in after The Pill and to a greater extent the Pro-Pornography Court rulings had done their dirty work.
By which I mean, most of the decline in fertility occurred before Abortion was Legalized.
And if we look at Roe v. Wade as a dummy variable in a Regression, it’s 67.9% correlation with the Fertility Rate is actually less than Stanley v. Georgia’s correlation with the Fertility Rate!
“Since feminist-induced changes to civil rights laws, marriage is financial suicide for men. I’d look to that as a cause of lack of interest “in the joys and challenges of stable pair bond based reproduction” much more than the availability of pornography.”
Which rulings are you specifically referring to?
Shiva,
Most of the decline in the White Birthrate occurred before White Americans faced serious competition for resources from non-White Immigrants.
The White TFR in America has never been lower than the 1.65 figure recorded for 1976, a year when America was still 85% White.
Now I admit that before 1976 Whites faced an increase in the Black Crime rate that may have hurt the White Birthrate by making it more difficult for our kind to raise children in Urban Areas.
But this can’t be a primary explanation for the 1960 to 1976 decline in the White Fertility Rate, as that time period also saw significant decline in the White Fertility Rates of Rural Areas.
I believe that pornography is a good barameter to measure the decline of a society. It is no accident that freedom of political dissent and freedom of speech have declined as pornography and increasing graphic sexualization of children has increased. Both are the work of Jewish groups
Kevin Macdonald, i believe did point out that jews have always pushed for the softening of pornography laws as they saw the restrictions as a reflection of chrsitian ethos.
I also recall that a jewish academic did an in depth paper demonstrating that jews saw pornography as weapon with which to destroy our society.
Look at the white fertility rate and look at real earnings for whites over the last 45 years. Look at welfare handouts to blacks and now latinos and look at their birthrates over the decades. The average mexican woman in the US has more children than the average mexican woman in mexico. The economy has a lot more to do with low birth rates than pornography. The Japanese have much the same problem.
Other societal changes helped spur the decline, with hateful jewish racists leading the way with “women’s lib”, designed to split the sexes, keep women in the work force rather than having and raising children. Again the economy comes into play with whites in many cases forced to have husband and wife work, while blacks and latinos can sit around the house, foal, have all it paid for by Uncle Sam, meaning it’s paid for by whites.
Reginald says:
From the standpoint of Fertility Suppression, the important thing with Pornography is not how hardcore it is.
I disagree. But I also think that it would be very difficult or impossible to find an objective standard for rating porn, and that’s the only way this statement could be proved one way or the other.
It just doesn’t make sense that the impact of The Pill on the Fertility Rate would get stronger as you got further away from its being introduced, and it doesn’t make sense that it’s impact would just happen to strengthen at the exact same time the Pro-Pornography Court Rulings came down.
I think it makes perfect sense. The use of the pill was at first controversial, and it’s only natural that it took a while for its use to become accepted and commonplace. This seems so obvious to me that I’m unwilling to expend a lot of time trying to prove it to you. If you doubt it though, and you think that the use of the Pill has stayed stable or even declined since the day it was introduced, I’ll be impressed if you can back that view up with any data.
I agree that the legalization of Abortion had an important Fertility Suppressing effect. But it was more the (near) coup de grace that stormed in after The Pill and to a greater extent the Pro-Pornography Court rulings had done their dirty work.
By which I mean, most of the decline in fertility occurred before Abortion was Legalized.
We need to take into consideration, too, that abortion was widely available before Roe v. Wade. California legalized abortion on demand in 1970, as did New York, and as with the legalization of marijuana, the law was flouted for years before the practice was formally legalized. Roe was a Texas case and the South was generally culturally “backward” in those years.
Just under 25% of pregnancies in the US end in abortion. That is a direct, provable, unarguable link to decline in fertility. So is the use of other contraceptive methods, although the total impact there is difficult to estimate. Let’s keep in mind that these techniques are designed to lower fertility. That’s the whole point of using them!
The correlation between pornography being legal and lowered fertility is intriguing, but you need a control to solidify a causal connection. If you could find a country or even a demographic segment where pornography was in wide use but scientific birth control was not, it would be interesting to see what that did to the fertility rate. If such a country or demographic segement showed low fertility, I’d be more inclined to believe in your hypothesis. It is known that segments of the white populace that don’t use scientific birth control (FLDS, Amish, and to a lesser extent, Catholics) also have higher fertility, at least the first two groups well above replacement level. Of course, for the FLDS, that may soon change, as quite a few of their children have now been introduced en masse to modern technology.
“Since feminist-induced changes to civil rights laws, marriage is financial suicide for men. I’d look to that as a cause of lack of interest “in the joys and challenges of stable pair bond based reproduction” much more than the availability of pornography.”
Which rulings are you specifically referring to?
No specific case. I am referring generally to the government’s push for Equal Opportunity for women in the workplace, which has led to a steep increase in the number of women in jobs formerly filled by men, and an overall depression in wages as a result of almost doubling the labor force by adding women to it, so that now it takes both spouses working to make the money formerly earned only by the husband. This disempowers men, and the upshot is that a divorce is financially much more difficult for a man to recover from now than previously. This is a sociological side effect of feminism which would not have been possible without scientific birth control techniques.
1. Rodney Stark is an academic shill for the Bible-thumping Judeo-philes. according to him, Christianity [i.e., the Judaism] is responsible for everything good everywhere. Horse hockey. If you believe Stark, then 1950s Kansas City was unquestionably superior to Athens. If that’s your idea of “white culture” then I say to Hell with it.
2. Shove the statistical rigamarole. Just explain to me how “pornography” [e.g., Henry Miller] causes sterility. If more mouths are needed, then let reproduction be required by law, as in Athens. Problem solved.
Or, of course, we could leave our White citizens alone and concentrate on eliminating the Others…
3. The White race doesn’t need more babies or baby daddies. These judeo-bourgeois concepts of births for the sake of births are our greatest poison. As racial theorist Julius Evola says, the Future Aryan Warrior “by adopting an attitude of militant and absolute commitment, should be ready for anything and almost feel that creating a family is a ‘betrayal’; these men should live sine impedimentis, without any ties or limits to their freedom.” [Men Among the Ruins].
4. If we lived in a state energized by the Racial Idea then laws against “pornography” would be irrelevant. As it is, “legalizing pornography” is about getting Jewish lawyers and judges off my back.
In Ride the Tiger Julius Evola cites a passage from fellow White man Henry Miller’s Tropic of Capricorn to illustrate the “moment of liberation realized in the midst of [secular] disintegration. Jew judges in Boston banned Miller’s book as “pornography.” Who do you support, “white” man?
“The correlation between pornography being legal and lowered fertility is intriguing, but you need a control to solidify a causal connection. If you could find a country or even a demographic segment where pornography was in wide use but scientific birth control was not, it would be interesting to see what that did to the fertility rate. If such a country or demographic segment showed low fertility, I’d be more inclined to believe in your hypothesis.”
Adam,
In every society I’m aware of, Scientific Birth Control came first and Widespread Pornography after. (Though I’ll post if I manage to find an exception to this.)
What I have found is a case of two very racially and culturally similar Countries, both of which have been saturated with Scientific Birth Control, but only one of which has Legalized Pornography. These Countries are Japan and China.
If anything Birth Control has a greater reach in China, but Japan has widespread legalized Pornography.
Guess which one has the Lower Fertility Rate? The answer is Japan, the Country with both Scientific Birth Control and Legalized Pornography.
Whereas China, the Country with Scientific Birth Control and sternly enforced laws against Pornography, has a Fertility Rate that’s a remarkable 28% higher than Japan‘s.
This strongly suggests that Widespread Pornography has a “Piling On” effect when combined with Scientific Birth Control, and that it would be far better from a demographic standpoint to have Scientific Birth Control without Legalized Pornography, as opposed to having both of them.
James O’Meara,
I didn’t quote Rodney Stark because I necessarily agree with him on everything he’s ever said. I quoted him because I think his statement about the cause of Pagan Demographic Decline was accurate.
Pagan Men looked down on Marriage, and this left a lot of Pagan Women to unhappy futures as childless old maids (and sometimes as Prostitutes).
The Christians, on the other hand, had men much more interested in Marriage, and this helped to expand their numbers rapidly.
Now you may think this Demographic Triumph of the Christians was a bad thing, but that doesn’t change the fact that it happened. And it doesn’t change that if we don’t want to go extinct, we should try to learn from the mistakes our Pagan Ancestors made.
“Shove the statistical rigamarole. Just explain to me how ‘pornography’ [e.g., Henry Miller] causes sterility.”
To put it crudely: The more of your semen goes into a sock, the less of your semen goes into your wife.
Also, exposure to Pornography discourages men from bothering to get married in the first place, by giving them a cheap sexual release that makes marriage feel less physiologically necessary to them.
And finally, through masturbatory pleasure, it positively reinforces a sexual rubric centering on the conquest of women you barely know and who aren’t married to you. This is bad for fertility because by far the most reproductively valuable form of sex you can have is sex with your wife, and the second best kind of sex you can have is with someone you’ve had a relationship with.
“The White race doesn’t need more babies or baby daddies. These judeo-bourgeois concepts of births for the sake of births are our greatest poison. As racial theorist Julius Evola says, the Future Aryan Warrior “by adopting an attitude of militant and absolute commitment, should be ready for anything and almost feel that creating a family is a ‘betrayal’; these men should live sine impedimentis, without any ties or limits to their freedom.” [Men Among the Ruins].”
If you want to do some great deed for our race that requires you to not have a family, such as stealing Nuclear Secrets from our enemy Israel and giving them to Iran (a Country admirably Pro-White in its foreign policy), go forth fully confident that you have my hearty regard.
We can’t have most of our White Men taking on such a heavy load, though, as for one thing there aren’t that many deeds requiring childlessness to be done, and more importantly because it would lead to a situation where the great deeds will have turned out to be utterly fruitless chores done on behalf of a Race that went Extinct.
“If we lived in a state energized by the Racial Idea then laws against “pornography” would be irrelevant.”
Don’t be so sure. There will always be those in a race who will fall prey to the temptations of purely narcissistic and barren pleasure if left unprotected from sexualized sensory assaults, no matter how good the Government might one day be at instilling Whites with Racial Pride.
Also, cut the baloney about Henry Miller. You know that isn’t the kind of “Pornography” I’m talking about.
Reginald,
Do you have any idea how we could get rid of pornography if we wanted to?
In the old days (1970s), men who wanted pr0n had to go to special shops, and it was often stigmatized to go into them; or perhaps to the back room of a regular newsstand (where it was also stigmatized to go); or go to a nasty and very unsanitary theater in a bad part of town, where it was especially stigmatized. Now the kind of porn men found in these shops and much harsher porn (once available only by special order) is available to every Internet user within seconds. Most of the porn shops and nearly all of the porn theaters are gone.
The 1980s brought the VCR and nearly every video store had a “back room.” The 1990s brought porn to the computer of every user willing to upgrade to SVGA color, a fast modem, and a large hard drive. In the 2000s, every computer shipped was porn-ready.
How do we go back?
Triple-exthnics: Nathan Abrams on Jews in the American porn industry
Nathan Abrams
Jewish Quarterly, Winter 2004
An excerpt from the article:
I think you’ll find a much better correlation of low fertility rates with the imposition of ‘women’s lib’ in any particular society.
The correlation with pornography is probably not causally linked since educated and democratic societies (ie those most likely to have the feminista agenda imposed upon them), are the most tolerant of pornography.
There is a danger of taking porn too seriously – basically it’s a load of nonsense and the main consumers are the ‘Beavis and Butthead’ demographic ie immature, testosterone loaded, silly adolescent boys, a demographic hardly likely to take marriage seriously.
Every other race is subjected to the same porno as the rest of us. All things considered they probably see more of it than we do.
The focus should not be upon White fertility rates which are relatively reasonable. The focus should be upon the fertility rates of the other races who have children they cannot feed, the Earth cannot sustain and that White people end up caring for.
If we wish to take action that will make the White birth rate a positive thing for us then we simply cut off all aid to other races.
Haitians are already pouring into our state. A local tv channel, contacted our congressman on behalf of a Haitian woman who abandoned her children to come here several years ago and is now using the Earthquake as an excuse to bring her entire family here.
You’d think the United States was a magical place where problems are automatically solved and money really does grow on trees and God walks in our Garden of Eden which can be visited after you’ve seen Disneyland.
How blind can people be that they don’t understand that White people are what made America the land where the streets are paved with Gold? Its not magic. WE are the ones who take care of you which is why you come here. But, we don’t want to take care of you so you can trash our cities and drain our wealth.
What the local tv channel did shows how far journalism is perverted from being about objective investigative reporting of the facts we need to know in order that we may govern ourselves to nothing but anti White propaganda for every other race. I have been permanently banned from the forum at the local newspaper for upholding the interests of White people because they care about all non Whites especially Jews and if you speak for White people than you’re a racist, a Nazi, an anti Semite, a Klanner and a hater.
When the A3P is running the government all aid to these people will stop. Rather than a welfare check they will get the opportunity to use a ticket, courtesy of the White taxpayer, that will take them back to where they came from or they can stay here and starve. If they choose to have a dozen children THEY can figure out how to house and feed them.
When these other races have to care for their own families and not have Whitey do it for them, then and only then will we see positive changes for the White race.
btw Asian Muslims have told White Australians to assimilate into Asia and expect Muslims to immigrate to Australia because Muslims are waging a “peaceful” expansion because they need more land for their huge numbers.
If the USA is not in a position to support and defend White Australia then the same thing will happen to them that happened in South Africa. We need people in our government who care about OUR White people rather than Israel and jews.
“The Christians, on the other hand, had men much more interested in Marriage, and this helped to expand their numbers rapidly.”
Not to mention, prior to Christianity, infanticide was common in pagan cultures- Rome included. Decadence and declining fertility (and declining civilization) go hand in hand. Decadent cultures are ripe for collapse. If james o’mera would take an honest look at history, he’d realize that.
Look at the whites who ARE breeding: mormons, amish- -what do they have in common.
But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.
Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites……[b] that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. [/b]Their passions forge their fetters.”
Edmund Burke
I’m sure everyone has heard the old chestnut about how do you define pornography?
Barbara, Rassengenoßin, our people are deeply poisoned with liberal inanities and self-destructive behavior. Porno is just one of the manifest afflictions that are racially killing us. The White tards who steep themselves in porno and recreational sex never stop to think that the White females being degraded and defiled are some one’s sister, daughter, or mother. Degeneracy of any kind is socially and racially destructive, period. Interracial porn is worse than criminal, it’s high racial treason, yet many denatured Whites pretend to think it’s “normal”.
Regarding the Haitian/Negro disaster, witness the Jewish vetted “humanitarian” stories in the MSM about Negro Haitian babies being adopted by fawning, slobbering White renegades and dumb fools. The constant guilt tripping and altruistic media appeals to Whites to donate money and help the disaster plagued Negroes is constant, yet I noticed that a lot of the appeals are evidently falling on deaf ears, as the Hollywood musical telethon has only raised 78 million zogbuck$ so far. Not a large sum, really. Are the dispossessed White bunnies really that broke, or is there a deep ‘implicit’ resistance to the propaganda barrage, and maybe even a sense of resentmet about the inter-racial madhouse we are living in? Gawd, are they finally starting to racially wise-up??
I’m with O’meara on this. Here are two quotes that ought to (but of course,won’t) clarify the issue.
“The female not the male determines all the conditions of the animal family.Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” –Robert Briffault
“Unless we see that transgression is taking place we no longer have the feeling of freedom that the full accomplishment of the sexual act demands.” –George Bataille
Now do you get it?
Gotta love them French!
Very interesting perspectives, indeed. But: correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
I’m sure everyone has heard the old chestnut about how do you define pornography?
Answer:
I know it, when I see it. LOL.
Tom,
Justice Stewart was referring to obscenity, not pornography. Obscenity is a tricky concept that the justices finally gave up trying to decide and left to local communities in Miller v. California in 1973. Supposedly there were to be different standards for Times Square and the small towns depicted in Norman Rockwell paintings. The Internet has made this ruling obsolete.
Pornography has a simple definition. According to Webster’s: “Material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement.”
When a society begins to tolerate porn is surely a good indication that there has been a change in that society. If porn had to be legalized before it could affect birthrates then the legal decisions are surely a sign of some alteration in the ethos of the society.
Reginald makes a very good case for legalization having a negative effect on birthrate nonetheless.
“Supposedly there were to be different standards for Times Square ”
Yes and child pornography was being openly sold in cities, especially New York, during the mid seventies.
@ Love
The relationship between pornography and obscenity is not much different than asking which came first the chicken or the egg? Maybe the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden works for many, but, not all. :o)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_objections_to_pornography_in_the_United_States
me says:
Look at the whites who ARE breeding: mormons, amish- -what do they have in common.
What the FLDS and Amish have in common is that they don’t use scientific birth control. Moreover, they are demographic segments that attempt to exist outside of technological society. They are like islands of racial health in a poisoned sea.
Look, this is really quite simple, and recourse to advanced statistical analysis is not necessary to understand what is causing the decline. All you have to do is ask yourself the question, if methods of scientific birth control suddenly were not available, would the white birth rate go down or up? Answer: It would go up, WAY up, unless people stopped having sex. (Not likely). We can’t know for sure without trying it, but I suspect that under such circumstances, the widespread availability of pornography would likely make people hornier, if anything. The effect would probably be to increase the birth rate, not decrease it.
Further, believing pornography by itself causes a decline in white birth rates requires us to believe that white women are having less sex than they did in the past; that men are masturbating to pornography in lieu of having sex with women. I don’t see any evidence of that, and would be very surprised if that were the case.
I think Reginald makes a strong case that pornography does have an impact on lowering birthrates. Its one of several factors pushing this, including contraception and abortion, as Adam points out.
What is strange to me is that many WNs do not seem to understand the critical importance of the White birthrate as a factor in the survival of the race. Even figures such as Dr. Pierce seemed to miss this (he was focused on population control for other races). If White babies are not being born, then the race will eventually perish; why is that so difficult a concept to grasp?
The solution to the factors that decrease the birthrate are related to creating homes and communities that block out the influences from popular culture and the media. The most effective thing that individual families can do at present is to homeschool their children and throw out the TV, DVD player and Xbox. Its also critical that the young are taught the importance of family, raising children and so forth. Its useful to think of your family as under siege (by unhealthy influences), in which case you should raise the drawbridge (block them out as much as possible). Its also a great idea to move into a family-friendly environment, ideally a majority White town (these are still numerous).
In the future, we can hope (and I expect) that there will be WN political movements that will move toward secession in some shape or form (this may not necessarily be formal in nature, but could consist of states rights that allow states to make their own obscenity laws, for example).
Adam said: “…that men are masturbating to pornography in lieu of having sex with women. I don’t see any evidence of that, and would be very surprised if that were the case.”
Well, the rates of rape seem to be affected by the availability of porn (lots of porn available = lower rates of rape), and rape is one type of sex.
@ Eileen
Rape is mostly a crime of relatively young men, say 15 – 40. If you examine the graph in the article, in my opinion what you are seeing is the demographic lump of the young men of the Baby Boom Generation passing through. It stands to reason that rape would have been higher in 1973 – 1993 as a result. Now that the Boomers are past 40, rates have dropped. The stats reflect the overall aging of the American populace. A nation of geriatrics will have low rates of rape, no matter if there is a lot of porn around or not.
Also, what’s at issue here isn’t rates of copulation, but rates of birth. There can be plenty of people having sex, consensually or non-consensually (and I believe there are — I believe sex is at least as popular as it ever was, possibly more so), but unless children result from it, birth rates will decline. If white women are having as much sex as ever, but the white birth rate is still below replacement level, then it is clear that they aren’t having more children because they are using scientific birth control, not because of any other reason. Of course, one might argue that they use scientific birth control techniquesbecause of pornography or other sociological factors, but the fact remains that if they did not have access to these technologies, the birth rate would be as high as it ever was.
Adam,
You seem to be ignoring a major point that Reginald made. If young men are sexually satiated without marriage (using pornography), they have a substantially lower interest in marriage. Men’s drive and desire for an actual woman (not a video) is a major impetus in establishing a normal marriage. For Whites, children come overwhelmingly from married couples. Note that Whites are steadily marrying at an older age, and there are a lot of women now who never end up marrying in their life now or having children. According to 2004 U.S. Census Bureau data, the proportion of childless women 15 to 44 years old was 44.6 percent, up from 35 percent in 1976.
Children are much more likely to be conceived when:
1) A couple is married at a reasonable age when childbearing is an option.
2) The man greatly respects and values the woman, she has been “placed on a pedastal” to some degree.
3) The man’s view of women and sexual activity is more traditional (the opposite of what you would normally see in pornography).
While pornography is not the only factor, consider some influences it has on those who watch pornography:
1) They have another source of satisfying their natural reproductive drive, and so are less motivated to pursue women. This negatively impacts marrying at a younger age.
2) They are less affected by women who demand marriage in exchange for sex (historically, it was the powerful male sex drive that drove them into marriage as most mens’ only option to satisfaction).
3) They will distrust women more, and respect women less, seeing women continually engaged in lascivious and disreputable behavior with others.
4) They see sex more in terms of a wild activity divorced from procreation.
I think you are too quick to dismiss Reginald’s evidence, in favor of your own hypothesis. Surely you will admit that pornography helps to create dysfunction in our society at least to some extent, especially in the relations between men and women. Insofar as this dysfunction interferes with normal marriage relations, it will negatively affect the birth rate.
Certainly contraception and abortion plays a major role, but it is likely that pornography plays a part as well.
Andrew says:
Adam,
You seem to be ignoring a major point that Reginald made.
Not at all. I just think it’s obvious that if white women are having less children either A or B must be true.
A. They are having less sex. If so, this could be due to men being less interested in sex, or it could be due to other factors. Reginald’s data are insufficient to establish either that women are having less sex or, even if that is true, that pornography has caused this condition.
B. They are having just as much sex, or even more sex than ever, but are still having less babies. The only possible reason for this is the use of scientific birth control techniques.
Clear?
Surely you will admit that pornography helps to create dysfunction in our society at least to some extent, especially in the relations between men and women.
I certainly agree there are a lot of sociological reasons for a low birth rate, and pornography is probably an important one, though its exact effect is difficult to assess. But I doubt that the copulation rate for white women has fallen as a result of pornography, or for any reason. They are merely using scientific birth control technologies to avoid giving birth, either killing their children before they are born or preventing them from being conceived in the first place. If these technologies were not available, the white birth rate would skyrocket, unless people stopped having sex.
But I would not expect that to happen. ;-)
‘No sex please, we’re too busy’
Today’s women have less sex than their 1950s counterparts, say researchers.
Oz women today are getting less sex and more domestic violence
Australian women today are having less sex than they used to three decades ago and are increasingly becoming victims of sexual violence, says a new survey.
In fact, a survey of 15,000 women by The Australian Women’s Weekly….
Touted as the biggest survey of its kind undertaken in Australia , it has come up with important revelations about women living through the late nineties….
The survey discovered that women are having less sex than they did almost 30 years ago, with only 47pct saying they do it at least once a week, in comparison to 57pct in 1980….
“Do you have any idea how we could get rid of pornography if we wanted to?”
Lover,
Yes. We could get rid of Pornography the same way the Chinese do it, which is very similar to how the Italian Government is thinking about doing it:
http://www.miamiherald.com/business/technology/story/1440185.html
If you punish anyone in country who uploads Pornography, while blocking Pornographic sites from outside the Country, you’ll have effectively put an end to Internet Pornography.
Even the American Government already does just that with Child Pornography, which explains why there’s nothing close to easily accessible Child Pornography that can be reached through an American Internet Connection.
There is positively no reason the exact same thing couldn’t be done with other forms of Pornography.
And then with Non-Internet forms of Pornography, the methods that were used to keep it firmly clamped down in the days before it was legalized will suffice.
The type of conventional moral system that is in opposition to pornography is unlikely to sanction the courses of action necessary to reduce population levels of The Others.
“Not at all. I just think it’s obvious that if white women are having less children either A or B must be true.
A. They are having less sex…
B. They are having just as much sex…”
Adam,
You are forgetting about the highly significant fact that White Women are clearly averse to having children out of wedlock.
The evidence for this is that married white women have a far higher birthrate, and that there’s a powerful correlation between the Percentage of Women married in a year and the Average Completed Fertility for that year.
This link shows the Distribution of American Women 40 to 44 Years Old by Number of Children Ever Born and Marital Status from 1976 to 2006.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/fertility.html
Using this data I calculated a 55% Negative Correlation between the Completed Fertility Rate and the Percentage of Women aged 40 to 44 who had never married.
And probably it would’ve been an even greater negative correlation if I had only looked at White Women, who are less likely to have children out of wedlock than the women of other races are.
Thus if the Fertility Gap between Married and Unmarried White Women is caused by something other than the Married White Women having more sex, it follows that anything that caused less White Women to be Married would lower the White Birthrate without necessarily reducing the copulation rate.
NR,
You are conveniently forgetting that Adolf Hitler was strongly opposed to Pornography, even railing in Mein Kampf against artwork that was barely semi-pornographic.
@ Eileen
Very interesting. But even if women are having a little bit less sex than they used to (not sure I believe it, but I’ll grant it for the sake of argument), it’s still apparent to me that the white birth rate is being depressed by the use of scientific birth control techniques, and not just from lack of sex. That’s because it’s not really necessary for each woman to have much sex in order to bear a lot of offspring. In a state of nature, without access to scientific birth control, the birth rate would normally be very high. I seen it cited that each act of unprotected intercourse between partners of normal fertility carries about a 2% chance of pregnancy, and that seems about right. For example, see what this gynecologist says:
If the fertile, sexually active life of a woman is about 30 years, from age 15 to 45, and intercourse is only twice a week, then that means that the vast majority of such women would be pregnant after 1 year of unprotected intercourse. If even that modest rate of copulation were kept up, year after year, that would mean that such women would spend virtually their whole lives pregnant, and quite a lot of them would have 15 children or more. Women who only had sex once a week or so might take twice as long to get pregnant, but even at that rate they still could, in theory, have about 10 children each. In order for simple lack of sex to be the only factor in explaining the decline of white birth rates, rates of copulation would have to be extremely low for white women, likely somewhere around five times a year — and that’s lower than anyone is claiming. At a 2% rate of pregnancy per unprotected intercourse, a 5-times-a-year rate of copulation would mean that each woman would have 1.5 children over her 30-year reproductive life, not far off from our current, below-replacement levels.
To me, this is just more confirmation that white women aren’t having babies like they did in previous eras because they are now killing them in the womb through abortion, or using contraceptives to prevent them from developing in the first place.
Adam,
I still dont think you get the point I was trying to make.
“I just think it’s obvious that if white women are having less children either A or B must be true.”
I think this is a false dichotomy. Yes, birth control prevents pregnancies. But you seem to be ignoring how pornography affects the use of birth control and marriage relations. Most White couples plan their pregnancies; they wait to have children until they are in a stable, healthy marriage.
Please consider:
1) If marriage is delayed because men are not motivated to marry at a younger age, this reduces fertility. I do not have evidence on hand to prove this, but those who marry at a younger age will probably have more children. Certainly female fertility drops with age.
2) If marriages are not as strong (men have less regard for women), couples will be less inclined to have children. If pornography decreases the quality of marriage, then it will negatively impact the birth rate.
3) If pornography is a corruptive influence on some men, it will interfere with their marriages or probably decrease the likelihood they will marry.
Perhaps as you suggest, women are having just as much or more sex than in the past. However, if women are having relations outside of marriage, they are much more likely to be using birth control, and purposefully attempting to avoid becoming pregnant.
I dont know what evidence is available that can prove this, but reason suggests that pornography can only do harm to the institution of marriage. By decreasing the number of relationships where children are sought after, pornography is responsible for decreasing the birth rate. Yes, the direct cause may well be contraception or abortion, but pornography also plays an indirect role (its not A or B).
Andrew says:
Adam,
I still dont think you get the point I was trying to make.
“I just think it’s obvious that if white women are having less children either A or B must be true.”
I think this is a false dichotomy.
Look up the definition of a false dichotomy.
If I say something must either be black or white, then it’s a false dichotomy, since there are other colors. But when I say women are either having less sex, or they are having the same amount of sex as ever or even more, that is no false dichotomy. Those are the only three possibilities. Unless you can think of others?
Yes, birth control prevents pregnancies.
As it is designed to do, and does very effectively. Furthermore, we can surmise that if pornography were actually a more reliable means of birth control, people would use that instead, and save themselves the expense and possible medical problems that scientific birth control can often cause.
But you seem to be ignoring how pornography affects the use of birth control and marriage relations.
I’m not ignoring it at all. However, whatever effect it has is still open to question. Here you seem to be assuming that it has been proven to have some effect on birth control use. What effect? Are you aware of data showing that women are more likely to use birth control if pornography is prevalent? What about the FLDS and Amish women? They live in the US where pornography is prevalent, and yet they don’t have a low birth rate. What about Hispanic women? They live here too and don’t have a low birth rate. But then, the key is that these groups don’t use scientific birth control methods, or if they do use them, they use them very sporadically. And that’s no surprise, because that’s clearly the most important variable.
As I said, there are a lot of sociological issues that come into play in the decisions women make about whether to have children or not. For some people, the coarsening of society through pornography may come into play here in one way or another; that’s quite conceivable. But, married or not, if they are copulating at least once a week, the only real reason that the white birth rate is not well above replacement level must be because something is interfering with the natural outcome, and that something can only be scientific birth control.
Yes, the direct cause may well be contraception or abortion, but pornography also plays an indirect role (its not A or B).
It could well, but it’s not clear what that role is. I’m sure a lot of couples watch porn as part of their sex life together. It probably even stimulates a lot of sex, and has caused a lot of children to be born. Although one could probably find a few cases to the contrary, I don’t think it’s at all likely that the cause of the low white birth rate is that men are too busy masturbating to pornography to have sex with real, flesh and blood women. But that’s just my opinion. You are certainly free to disagree if you like.
Reginald says:
“Not at all. I just think it’s obvious that if white women are having less children either A or B must be true.
A. They are having less sex…
B. They are having just as much sex…”
Adam,
You are forgetting about the highly significant fact that White Women are clearly averse to having children out of wedlock.
Reginald,
I would not doubt that a falling marriage rate is probably among the sociological factors depressing the white birth rate. But there are a lot of factors involved in the falling marriage rate, not just the availability of pornography, if indeed that’s a factor at all. It is perhaps ironic that YOU should be the one raising this issue, because in my opinion one of the most important factors involved in depressing marrige rates is the widespread use of scientific birth control techniques. I think that a major reason the marriage rates are falling is that men no longer need to be married to have access to a woman’s body. The pleasures of sex have been decoupled by these techniques from reproduction, and are much more readily available than they used to be. Women have been placed thereby on an equal footing with men, free to enjoy sex without consequence — something never seen before in the whole history of the human race! Such a technology-caused change in man/woman relations was bound to be fraught with radical problems. The widespread use of effective scientific birth control is thus a key not only to understanding why the birth rate is falling, and why feminism became a sociological force, but also why marriage rates are falling and the nuclear family disintegrating.
“…we can surmise that if pornography were actually a more reliable means of birth control, people would use that instead, and save themselves the expense and possible medical problems that scientific birth control can often cause.”
Adam,
You are foolishly confusing Birth Control and Fertility Suppressant. The goal of Birth Control is to totally prevent Pregnancy for a set period of time, and in contrast the “goal” of Fertility Suppressant is to reduce the total number of children produced in a lifetime.
If watching Pornography reduces the number of children a White Man will father in his lifetime from 2.2 to 1.5, he could watch Pornography and it would only reduce his probability of fathering a child the next day by 32%, thereby making his viewing of Pornography essentially worthless as a form of birth control.
“I’m not ignoring it at all. However, whatever effect it has is still open to question. Here you seem to be assuming that it has been proven to have some effect on birth control use. What effect? Are you aware of data showing that women are more likely to use birth control if pornography is prevalent?”
You are misunderstanding the theory. Whether prevalent Pornography causes women to use more birth control or not, if it causes their Sexual Encounters to be concentrated in that part of their life cycle when they are more likely to be using birth control, namely before they are married, their Fertility will be gravely suppressed.
“It could well, but it’s not clear what that role is. I’m sure a lot of couples watch porn as part of their sex life together. It probably even stimulates a lot of sex, and has caused a lot of children to be born.”
That’s just stupid. The fact that couples feel the need to “spice up” their marital sex life with Pornography just shows the extent to which Pornography has warped their minds into something utterly different than what Evolution intended.
A man should be attracted enough to his fertile wife that he can orgasm off of her without the aid of watching some Harlot getting whatever remains of her soul ripped out on a movie screen.
If a married couple uses Pornography to have effective sex, it just means Pornography is solving a problem that Pornography caused in the first place.
“What about the FLDS and Amish women? They live in the US where pornography is prevalent, and yet they don’t have a low birth rate.”
In the same way that American Men in general were once protected from Pornography by the Law, FLDS and Amish Men today are protected from Pornography by Religious Taboos and their conviction that God would punish them for defiling their minds with filth.
“What about Hispanic women? They live here too and don’t have a low birth rate.”
Hispanic women are a different animal than White Women. White Women evolved in a harsh European environment where the breeding of bastards was brutally punished by natural selection.
Hispanic women, in contrast, have most of the ancestry going back to Tropical Dwellers who lived in a habitat where a woman could be knocked up by her drunken Uncle, who then went on to have nothing to do with her, and still have her child survive.
Therefore Hispanic women don’t need the spur of a close relationship with an attentive Man to want to have children.
This creates a situation where exposure to Pornography could drive Hispanic men to not want to get married, and to have less sexual interest in their wives even when they do get married, without having much of a reducing influence on the Hispanic birthrate.
And don’t think for a moment that Hispanics don’t have access to birth control. The difference between Hispanics and Whites is instead that Hispanics don’t mind breeding bastards, and in addition that the average Hispanic Woman lacks the typical White Female aversion to having children with a man who shows no signs of caring for her.
It is because White Women are so gentle and noble-minded in their notions of reproduction, that Pornography has so utterly devastated us.
“But, married or not, if they are copulating at least once a week, the only real reason that the white birth rate is not well above replacement level must be because something is interfering with the natural outcome, and that something can only be scientific birth control.”
You make a good case that scientific birth control is a necessary, but not sufficient, cause of below replacement level fertility.
There’s strong evidence, though, including the contrast between Japan and China, that birth control wouldn’t be anywhere near as harmful without its dark collaboration with Pornography.
“I think that a major reason the marriage rates are falling is that men no longer need to be married to have access to a woman’s body.”
I agree that the Birth Control fueled rise of Sluts has been a factor in reducing the marriage rate. But let us ask the question: “What exactly did these Sluts do to Unmarried Men to make them less likely to marry?”
The answer is fivefold:
1. They allowed Unmarried Men to gaze upon their Naked Bodies.
2. They allowed Unmarried Men to interact with the Naked Bodies in a Tactile Fashion.
3. They allowed Unmarried Men to Ejaculate in their presence.
4. They had sex drives strong enough that they had sex with Unmarried Men at a pretty high frequency.
5. They turned Unmarried Men on to Barren forms of Sex such as Sodomy.
Now guess what? 80% of those things Sluts did to Unmarried Men to lower the Marriage Rate were also done to Unmarried Men by Pornography!
Every one of them except for the Tactile Interaction part, and I tend to think this would’ve been made up for by Pornography EASILY beating Sluts in the Frequency department.
With a statistically insignificant fraction of George Clooney types as exceptions, even in a heavily Birth Controlled society most Unmarried Men have slumps they go through where they go a lot longer without sex than they would like to.
But when Pornography is available, an Unmarried Man can get a carnally satisfying Sexual Release anytime he wants, supplementing the Pornography with intermittent meaningless trysts just so he doesn’t feel like he’s missing out on the “Real Thing”.
Thus by releasing his primal desires enough that they fail to call out to him, demanding he find a more reliable means of keeping his sex drive satiated, Pornography puts Unmarried Men in a position where there is no need for Marriage.
“not just the availability of pornography”
pornography is both a symptom and cause. Do a quick google search for pornography addiction or read the (research based) book ‘the brain that changes itself’ – pornography is a very similar addiciton to drugs and gambling – which is why, traditionally both were highly regulated.
read up on some of the addicts- and their struggles – no one, except some crackpot libertarian, can seriously say widespread availability of such a vice is good for any society.
I don’t know if someone has mentioned this but women are very discriminatory when it comes to mate selection, they only find a minority of men desirable (the alpha males at the top). Could it be that in white nations the women don’t want children with the average guy?
If humans had no way of preventing pregnancy I would guess the top 10%-20% of men would be fathering well over half of all births.
Reginald says:
“…we can surmise that if pornography were actually a more reliable means of birth control, people would use that instead, and save themselves the expense and possible medical problems that scientific birth control can often cause.”
Adam,
You are foolishly confusing Birth Control and Fertility Suppressant. The goal of Birth Control is to totally prevent Pregnancy for a set period of time, and in contrast the “goal” of Fertility Suppressant is to reduce the total number of children produced in a lifetime.
If watching Pornography reduces the number of children a White Man will father in his lifetime from 2.2 to 1.5, he could watch Pornography and it would only reduce his probability of fathering a child the next day by 32%, thereby making his viewing of Pornography essentially worthless as a form of birth control. [emphasis added]
So in other words, the prevalence of pornography in a society doesn’t in itself prevent women from getting pregnant. It doesn’t work as a form of birth control.
You make a good case that scientific birth control is a necessary, but not sufficient, cause of below replacement level fertility.
I’ve already shown that in a state of nature, without using any form of scientific birth control, the white birth rate would be very high, just as it is among the Amish or FLDS. In such an environment, most women would probably be well above replacement level, and a lot of women would each have 15 children or more. And you admit above that the use of pornography is a lousy form of birth control, whereas by contrast it is easy to show that scientific forms of birth control are both highly effective and reliable. So how is the widespread use of scientific methods of birth control “not sufficient” to account for the low birth rate? If people are having about as much sex as ever — and the evidence shows that they are — then something is stopping babies from resulting from it. If it isn’t the use of scientific birth control, then what is it?
Adam said: “In order for simple lack of sex to be the only factor in explaining the decline of white birth rates….”
Well, that wasn’t my point, although having less sex certainly isn’t going to help.
I just wanted to point out that it is probably incorrect to “doubt that the copulation rate for white women has fallen as a result of pornography, or for any reason” as there is, in fact, evidence to suggest that the copulation rate for White women has indeed fallen over the last few decades. (The first news report was referring to a Kinsey Institute study, btw.)
The reason why white birth rates are falling are the falling real earnings of whites, while the cost of living is going up. A large portion of that is taxation that goes to support hostile non-whites on our dime, we are paying for their children while we’re being denied the right to have our own children. Outsourcing and the reign of destruction against jobs whites can support families is another major contribution and so is feminism, which has turned white men and women against each other. No-fault divorce laws is another culprit, and the relentless demonization and emasculation of white men does not make them attractive marriage partners in the eyes of white women either. Pornography is more a symptom than a cause, even though it does cause problems between men and women of it’s own. The fact is, Jews use it as a weapon against whites. It’s used to encourage white men and women to sleep around, and it’s used to encourage white women to sleep with non-white men as well.
“So in other words, the prevalence of pornography in a society doesn’t in itself prevent women from getting pregnant.”
It causes them to get pregnant less often, though, and that’s the important thing. For example, a 30% lifetime reduction in fertility is pretty much useless as a form of Birth Control, but still of profound demographic importance.
“I’ve already shown that in a state of nature, without using any form of scientific birth control, the white birth rate would be very high, just as it is among the Amish or FLDS.”
You haven’t actually shown that at all.
We have historical examples that utterly contradict your assertion:
“Yet despite the apparent absence of contraceptive practices, the birth rate in most preindustrial western European populations was low, at only thirty to forty births per thousand, because of the other features of the European marriage pattern. These were as follows:
1. A late average age of first marriage for women: typically 24-26.
2. A decision by many women to never marry: typically 10-25 percent.
3. Low illegitimacy rates: typically 3-4 percent of births.
The low illegitimacy rates imply large-scale abstinence from sex outside marriage, since the majority of women of reproductive age were unmarried.”
-Gregory Clark, “A Farewell to Alms”
What you don’t seem to get is that if sex outside of marriage is overly likely to result in Pregnancy, White Women will avoid it.
It’s only because of Birth Control that White Women are as promiscuous as they are, and if Birth Control was abolished, they would just go back to not having sex outside marriage like their racial predecessors so often did.
“So how is the widespread use of scientific methods of birth control “not sufficient” to account for the low birth rate?”
Because there’s no reason why people can’t go off of Birth Control when they want to have children. In no way does the mere availability of Birth Control explain why so many Whites choose to use Contraception for essentially the duration of their reproductive lives.
me says:
“not just the availability of pornography”
pornography is both a symptom and cause. Do a quick google search for pornography addiction or read the (research based) book ‘the brain that changes itself’ – pornography is a very similar addiciton to drugs and gambling – which is why, traditionally both were highly regulated.
read up on some of the addicts- and their struggles – no one, except some crackpot libertarian, can seriously say widespread availability of such a vice is good for any society.
I’ve never seen any data on regulation of drugs and gambling in the 19th century. From what I’ve always heard, they were virtually unregulated in this country until relatively modern times. That was in keeping with the principles of a free society, which America still had some claim to being back then.
As for “traditional” regulation of pornography, I note that the first federal laws against obscenity (the term is often used interchangeably with pornography) did not appear until the Comstock Law, in 1873, and, significantly, it was focused on preventing distribution of information on contraception and abortion:
It wasn’t until Roth v. United States, in 1957, that the Supreme Court decided that obscenity was material which “dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest” to the “average person, applying contemporary community standards,” and was, “utterly without redeeming social importance.” This reset the focus of the law from prevention of dissemination of information on contraception and abortion to the prevention of stimulating “prurient interest”, i.e., regulating public morals in an entirely different way.
What a strange twist history has taken! The Founders of the American republic, and their successors well into the 19th century, correctly recognized that abortion and contraception were extreme threats to public morals. They foresaw the devastation that would result if such techniques ever became commonplace, and the way things have developed has proved that their concerns were well founded. But their wisdom has been lost. Nowadays, even those who claim to be defenders of the white race are more worried about pictures than they are about contraception and abortion, which is no longer considered obscene at all. Rather, it’s become a sacred part of a woman’s “human rights”! LOL.
I have to admit, if the Christian God exists, he certainly has a sense of humor!
@ Reginald
To be sure, if contraceptives and therapeutic abortion were not available, many women would probably rediscover chastity. It would completely change society, and put man/woman relations back to where they were before their advent. But this only confirms my point that these technological innovations have, in themselves, had a devastating cultural effect. I suspect that would be the case whether pornography were prevalent or not.
Adam,
I never said I don’t think Abortion is obscene.
Certainly there is obscenity to be found in even the thought of a Woman choosing to killing her own child.
With Birth Control, on the other hand, I can’t bring myself to consider it obscene. The only real problem with Contraception is that the wrong people are the ones using it the most.
And, in fact, if there was a Charity devoted entirely to pumping the Third World with Birth Control, I would cut them a donation.
“To be sure, if contraceptives and therapeutic abortion were not available, many women would probably rediscover chastity. It would completely change society, and put man/woman relations back to where they were before their advent. But this only confirms my point that these technological innovations have, in themselves, had a devastating cultural effect. I suspect that would be the case whether pornography were prevalent or not.”
I entirely agree with you, with the only exception being that I have more confidence than you that Pornography was a major aggravating factor.
Reginald says:
“So how is the widespread use of scientific methods of birth control “not sufficient” to account for the low birth rate?”
Because there’s no reason why people can’t go off of Birth Control when they want to have children. In no way does the mere availability of Birth Control explain why so many Whites choose to use Contraception for essentially the duration of their reproductive lives.
Why they use it isn’t the question. The question is why the use of it isn’t sufficient to explain the low birth rate. It actually is quite sufficient. Those techniques are very reliable; 100% reliable when we factor in abortion for the comparatively rare case in which properly used contraceptives fail.
There are no doubt a lot of sociological reasons in play for why they choose to use scientific birth control, but that doesn’t change the fact that if those techniques were not available to them, they’d either have to abstain from sex (not likely in my opinion), or the birth rate would skyrocket. The availability of pornography may be a part of the reason they choose not to have more children, but there are a lot of other cultural factors involved too, many of which have been mentioned in this thread. I don’t see how you could possibly apportion, in a scientific or valid statistical way, what pornography’s contribution is here. If you asked women why, I would think that probably the most common excuse would be a perceived lack of money. Others might say they want to concentrate on their careers. Still others might say they just haven’t found the right man. How can you separate factors like that from pornography?
Adam,
You make some excellent points. And I want to note that you have converted me to the view that if there is actually a reasonable chance that we could successfully ban the use of contraception by Whites, we should put forth the efforts that would be needed to reach that goal.
Also, if any of us are of a Religious Bent, we should promote to Whites the Doctrine that the use of Contraception is a grave sin. Thus imitating the founders of the FDLS, who did so much good for our race.
But at the same time, I will not accede to the idea that we should expend effort trying to get Abortion once again banned.
The problem with banning Abortion is that there’s strong evidence indicating that such a measure would raise the Black Fertility Rate far more than it would raise the White Fertility Rate.
And what good could possibly come of that?
Now maybe if I was in Russia or Australia, two overwhelmingly White countries, I would’ve written an article advocating the banning of Abortion. But given that I’m in America, it made far more sense to write an article advocating the banning of Pornography.
“I don’t see how you could possibly apportion, in a scientific or valid statistical way, what pornography’s contribution is here. If you asked women why, I would think that probably the most common excuse would be a perceived lack of money. Others might say they want to concentrate on their careers. Still others might say they just haven’t found the right man. How can you separate factors like that from pornography?”
If they say money, they are certainly lying when you consider that rich Whites actually have less children.
And if they say they can’t find the right man, that could have a lot to do with Pornography degrading the minds and habits of men. Thus disentangling the effect of women not finding the right man from the effect of Pornography is going to be impossible.
But when it comes to Feminism making Women more career oriented, I can disentangle it from the effect of Pornography using data on what Percent of American Women were in the Workforce for different years.
http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1999/12/art1full.pdf
Using the above data, I got the Percentage of American Women over the age of 16 in the Labor Force for six well spaced years from 1950 to 1998.
Then I checked the correlations between the American TFRs for these years and the Percent of Women in the Workforce, and compared it to the correlation between the American TFRs and whether the year came before or after the two key Pro-Pornography Supreme Court Rulings.
What I found was that the Pro-Pornography Rulings had an incredibly strong 85% Correlation with the Fertility Rate, whereas the Percent of Women in the Workforce had a smaller 72.3% Correlation.
Also, when both are put in a Multiple Regression, with the Total Fertility Rate as the Dependent Variable, the Pro-Pornography Rulings claim the Lion’s Share of the Correlation:
Pro-Pornography Rulings = Explains 64.7% of the Variation in TFR
Workforce Participation of Women = Explains 22.4% of the Variation in TFR
Both Variables Together = Explain 87% of the Variation in TFR
Thus the Statistical Evidence powerfully testifies that the Legalization of Pornography has had a much more intensely negative effect on the American Birth Rate than the expanded Labor Participation of Women.
Actually, I forgot to try looking up the correlation between TFR and the Percentage of Women in their peak fertility years of 16 to 24 in the American Workforce.
When you restrict yourself to just looking those Young Women, the correlation with the Total Fertility Rate is strengthened, suggesting that we need to concentrate on keeping REALLY YOUNG White Women out of the Workforce, as opposed to wasting our efforts on trying to keep older White Woman out.
Here’s what I got when I put Workforce Participation Rate for Women 16 to 24 with the Pro-Pornography Rulings in a Multiple Regression, with TFR as the Dependant Variable:
Pro-Pornography Rulings = Explains 35.7% of the Variation in TFR
Workforce Participation of Women = Explains 57.6% of the Variation in TFR
Both Variables Together = Explain 93.3% of the Variation in TFR
So it appears that Women’s Liberation and its influence on Young Women may have had an even worse effect on Fertility than Legalized Pornography.
Nonetheless, consistent with the World Data showing Countries with Legalized Pornography having lower Fertility, it is clear the Pro-Pornography Court Rulings also had a profound effect.
Reginald, there’s no doubt Women’s Lib (which is actually women’s imprisonment) and the planned decline of earnings for Americans have had a bigger impact than pornography or possibly even the pill, which did pack a wallop but isn’t the sole source of the problem. Some of what’s happened over the last few decades would have resulted in greater condom use if the pill hadn’t been available, lol. Even without the pill, old style birth control methods would have been used and kept the white population growth down. Economics raises its ugly head no matter where we look.
The doomsday guys are right in a lot of ways. It won’t be anything like “Mad Max”, but this whole artificial situation is going go down in flames. White populations especially seem to breed at much higher rates when under threat is one way of putting it. It isn’t our raw population numbers we need to worry about yet. It’s getting whites aware that they’re targets.
The jews have done well with a very cohesive yet relatively small population. Their numbers aren’t as low as they claim (their worldwide population is probably triple what they claim) but they have an incredible group identity. You can see some of the same dynamics in Asian populations in CA and the Middle Easterners in the Detroit area. Group awareness is the first key to fixing things. The growing confidence, pushiness, demands and arrogance of non-whites and their jewish string pullers is going to go a long way toward instilling that awareness. It’s doing it already, among the smarter youngsters. Kids with more sense and more courage than their brainwashed parents have been trying to start up “European American Clubs” at high schools in CA and other places for example. That’s a prelude right there.
AC Turnbill,
Yes, the Statistics indicate that the Forced Capitalistic Enslavement of White Women has had more of an impact on the Fertility Rate than ALL OTHER FACTORS COMBINED.
Still, more than a Third of the variation in Fertility in the second half of the 20th Century is explained by Pornography being legalized.
That’s a big factor, and is consistent with the Pornography Banning Nation of China having a significantly higher TFR than Japan in spite of the Chinese Government’s strongly Pro-Birth Control and Pro-Abortion agenda.
The rest of your comment is also excellent, and I think likely to be proven right in its predictions.
Reginald,
With your background in statistics, perhaps you would be interested in a discussion going on at the blog Occidental Dissent. It has to do with an article in the supposedly Paleocon mag “the American Conservative”, which suggests that Hispanic crime is not much more than that of Whites. The article attempts to use a lot of statistical data to prove its case. A link to the article and discussion is here:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/01/26/jews-and-theamerican-conservative/
It would be useful if someone with a firm foundation in statistics could offer a rebuttal to the suggestion that after controlling for age, Hispanics have the same crime rate as Whites (a lot of potentially useful data is included in the “Color of Crime” report by Jared Taylor).
Reginald says:
Adam,
You make some excellent points. And I want to note that you have converted me to the view that if there is actually a reasonable chance that we could successfully ban the use of contraception by Whites, we should put forth the efforts that would be needed to reach that goal.
Reginald, you are a gentleman and a scholar. It has been an enlightening experience on my part as well.
Also, if any of us are of a Religious Bent, we should promote to Whites the Doctrine that the use of Contraception is a grave sin. Thus imitating the founders of the FDLS, who did so much good for our race.
But at the same time, I will not accede to the idea that we should expend effort trying to get Abortion once again banned.
I think we all are agreed that the perfect policy on scientific birth control would be no contraception or abortion for white women (except in cases of miscegenation), and mandatory contraception and (when it would occasionally fail) mandatory abortion for non-whites. The problem is how to implement this.
Actually, I forgot to try looking up the correlation between TFR and the Percentage of Women in their peak fertility years of 16 to 24 in the American Workforce.
When you restrict yourself to just looking those Young Women, the correlation with the Total Fertility Rate is strengthened, suggesting that we need to concentrate on keeping REALLY YOUNG White Women out of the Workforce, as opposed to wasting our efforts on trying to keep older White Woman out.
[...]
AC Turnbill,
Yes, the Statistics indicate that the Forced Capitalistic Enslavement of White Women has had more of an impact on the Fertility Rate than ALL OTHER FACTORS COMBINED.
A major part of the reason that contraceptives and abortion are so dysgenic is that by them women are enabled to be put into the work force. It is no mere coincidence that throughout the history of our race up until the perfection and wide availability of methods of scientific birth control, white women were confined to home life. When a woman is regularly getting pregnant and having to take time off to tend her children, she is unsuited for the work force. Thus, these technological innovations are not merely associated with this cultural change. They caused it! Feminism also had to wait until the technological means was found to empower it. None of the evils that flowed from feminism would have been possible without abortion and contraception “freeing” women from what evolution has best suited them for. Feminists like to style “a woman’s right to choose” as a rebellion against white male patriarchy, and in this at least they are quite correct. But their rebellion would never have gotten off the ground without the invention of scientific birth control.
We also need to recognize that cultural changes, driven by technological innovation, are very adversely affecting the underlying white gene pool. For example, keeping young women in school until they are 18 (high school) or 22 (college) or even older for those who pursue post-graduate work, for example, is in itself a dysgenic measure. While they are in school, they are constantly propagandized against getting pregnant, thus wasting their prime breeding years. Worse, white women, particularly the most intelligent ones, disproportionately heed this propaganda. One could even go so far as to say that the push to keep white women in school is itself a form of birth control, or “fertility supression”, as you have put it. Yet, most of them are having regular sex and can only remain in school, and later enter the workforce, because they are using scientific birth control.
Nor do we face merely a problem of reduced fertility. What is the effect on our white gene pool of giving women absolute discretion in deciding who gets born and who doesn’t? This is something that cannot but be fraught with great evolutionary consequence. For the first time in millions of years of evolutionary history, women have been given sole discretion to decide who gets born and who doesn’t; who will carry our race into the future, and whose lines will die out. The problem is that nobody really knows the full dysgenic effect. However, we do know, for example, that white women generally tend to be anti-racist, and politically liberal. 46% of the ones who voted even voted for Obama. In other words, they willingly gave a jive-talking communist negro the power of life and death over themselves, their parents, their husbands and even their children. We also know that they like to select breeding partners that share views similar to their own, and Rushton’s and KM’s genetic similarity theory would indicate there are some underlying genetics that are probably being affected as a result; they pick partners that are like themselves genetically. Since the biological basis of ethnocentrism (i.e., racism) has been demonstrated by the work of KM and others, we can conclude from this that racism is being actively bred out of the white race as we speak, another consequence of the widespread use of scientific birth control. The feminization of the white man that Dr. Pierce used to like to rail against is the natural result of the use of such methods.
Other deadly effects of Jewporn: economic and cultural exhaustion, bonds of
Western Civilization itself fraying and breaking. The Jews, from Freud down to today’s pornographers,, understood how large a part of economic and cultural productivity, and how much familial and broader social bonding, consists of sublimated sexual energy. Freud pretended – cf. CIVILIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS – that “liberating sex” would lead to less neurosis; probably true for Jews, with their notorious hypersexuality. But, as Freud intended, that anarchic, explosive liberation of sexual energy was a disaster for Western, Christian, Anglo-Saxon civilization….and the wreckage is all around us.
Seadragonconquerer says:
Other deadly effects of Jewporn: economic and cultural exhaustion, bonds of Western Civilization itself fraying and breaking.
Yes, the people are now ready for the next phase of the linear progression.
Just as abortion and contraceptives went from criminal activities to sacred rights, so too with all other carnal pleasures.
To enjoy pornography surely must be a human right of some kind, just like a woman’s right to choose, or the right of homosexuals to engage in sodomy. The only reason we haven’t heard detailed arguments to that effect is that nobody is serious about banning it. Access to porn is taken for granted in any “civilized” society. Only fanatics like the Taliban can possibly object to it. Isn’t that why we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? For the rights of women to vote and take contraceptives, homosexuals to bugger each other freely, and for every citizen over there to enjoy porn just like we do here in America? They hate us for our freedom, remember.
Now that abortion and contraception are a cherished right of women everywhere in the white world, homosexuals are marrying and, via the wonders of medical technolgy, men can become women and vice versa, the next step will be to mainstream incest and pedophilia. With Mackenzie Phillips’ recent revelation that she carried on an affair for years with her own father, the constant recurrence of stories about how this or that teacher has seduced his or her charges, and the great public boo-hoo-hooing that greeted serial pedophile Michael Jackson’s demise, we can already see the herd being prepped to go to the next level. What’s the harm? Now that conception can be prevented or the fetus aborted via birth control techniques, what’s so wrong about father/daughter or mother/son sex? It’s only a lifestyle choice. Get over it, ya backwards, cave-dwelling troglodytes!
Yet, though it is not without problems, a hedonistic, materialistic lifestyle is something both sexes seem to find more attractive than the old ways. If white women (or men) were truly interested in abandoning their hedonism and materialism they would do so. If lawmakers should propose at this point the banning of pornography, there’d be blood in the streets before the people would submit. Put to a vote, the proposition would lose in a landslide.
The hedonistic lifestyle which is enabled by the use of scientific birth control technologies also results in an emotional coarsening of both sexes. Why should a man “make a commitment” when he can get all the sex he wants with no commitment? And why and how would he possibly want to make a commitment to a woman who has been enabled by birth control technologies to have sex with any number of other males before him, one who is very likely on the way to becoming a case hardened slut incapable of “commitment” herself, if she is not there already?
Clearly, people who minimize the revolutionary impact of scientific birth control technologies simply haven’t thought deeply enough about the problem.
Andrew,
I’ve taken a close look at the study, and have posted my thoughts here:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/01/26/jews-and-theamerican-conservative/#comment-34034
“A major part of the reason that contraceptives and abortion are so dysgenic is that by them women are enabled to be put into the work force. It is no mere coincidence that throughout the history of our race up until the perfection and wide availability of methods of scientific birth control, white women were confined to home life. When a woman is regularly getting pregnant and having to take time off to tend her children, she is unsuited for the work force. Thus, these technological innovations are not merely associated with this cultural change. They caused it!”
Excellent point. Earlier I wasn’t finding a somewhat lower than expected correlation between The Pill being approved and Fertility, but I think this was due to the effect of The Pill coming through the medium of more Young Women being put in the Workforce, and it taking some time for The Pill to have its full effect on female employment patterns.
“We also need to recognize that cultural changes, driven by technological innovation, are very adversely affecting the underlying white gene pool. For example, keeping young women in school until they are 18 (high school) or 22 (college) or even older for those who pursue post-graduate work, for example, is in itself a dysgenic measure. While they are in school, they are constantly propagandized against getting pregnant, thus wasting their prime breeding years. Worse, white women, particularly the most intelligent ones, disproportionately heed this propaganda.”
Yes, it’s largely for this reason that I’ve long hoped to see the day that the funding structure of American Universities collapses, causing Professors to wander the Country begging for bread.
It might sound like too much to hope for, but I’m not so sure given the Day of Unthinkable Wrath being planned out for this Country by a certain Egyptian Physician:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012502598.html
“However, we do know, for example, that white women generally tend to be anti-racist, and politically liberal. 46% of the ones who voted even voted for Obama. In other words, they willingly gave a jive-talking communist negro the power of life and death over themselves, their parents, their husbands and even their children. We also know that they like to select breeding partners that share views similar to their own, and Rushton’s and KM’s genetic similarity theory would indicate there are some underlying genetics that are probably being affected as a result; they pick partners that are like themselves genetically. Since the biological basis of ethnocentrism (i.e., racism) has been demonstrated by the work of KM and others, we can conclude from this that racism is being actively bred out of the white race as we speak, another consequence of the widespread use of scientific birth control.”
Given that the majority of White Women are probably Anti-Racist, it is all too possible that what you describe is happening.
Still, there may be countervailing forces. For example, I recently did research showing that States with more Ethnocentric Whites have higher White Fertility Rates:
http://statsaholic.blogspot.com/2010/01/white-ethnocentrism-and-white-fertility.html
Hopefully if the next generation of Whites has mothers that are more Ethnocentric than average, it will undermine the capacity of “Anti-Racist” mate preference to reduce the genetic tendency of Whites to Ethnocentrism.
“The feminization of the white man that Dr. Pierce used to like to rail against is the natural result of the use of such methods.”
Yeah. Both in terms of it making Men behave more in the image of what White Women, who tend to be liberal, want them to act like; and possibly also due to sexual selection.
Interestingly, there was recent study showing that The Pill, just for chemical reasons relating to the loss of periods, will tend to make a Woman more attracted to less masculine men:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6271347/Are-men-becoming-less-masculine.html
“Earlier I wasn’t finding a somewhat lower than expected correlation between The Pill being approved and Fertility…”
MOD: Change to… “Earlier I found a somewhat lower than expected correlation between The Pill being approved and Fertility…”
Then delete this comment.
“Reginald, you are a gentleman and a scholar. It has been an enlightening experience on my part as well.”
Thank you Adam. That is a great compliment indeed.
“Yet, though it is not without problems, a hedonistic, materialistic lifestyle is something both sexes seem to find more attractive than the old ways. If white women (or men) were truly interested in abandoning their hedonism and materialism they would do so. If lawmakers should propose at this point the banning of pornography, there’d be blood in the streets before the people would submit. Put to a vote, the proposition would lose in a landslide.”
Speaking of America and Western Europe, that is all too true at least in describing the mindset.
The one caveat is that most Western European Countries have such Wussy White Men, that I can’t imagine them giving a cop a bloody lip, much less managing to get blood all the way down to the streets.
Though disgustingly enough, if anything could get their anemic blood flowing it would probably be the threat of Pornography being banned.
How lucky the Chinese are that they aren’t as Hedonistic as Americans and Western Europeans, and that their authorities aren’t belabored with the idiocy of Modern Democracy, which only exists to perfectly express the Liberal Beliefs of the Masses while ignoring and persecuting any Conservative Tendencies they might still have!
But all the same, earlier in this thread I linked to an important article about how the Italian Government is proposing to essentially Ban Internet Pornography, and yet the riots haven’t started yet…
The situation there bears very close watching.
“And why and how would he possibly want to make a commitment to a woman who has been enabled by birth control technologies to have sex with any number of other males before him…”
Yeah, there’s a limited amount of sexual meaning someone, and especially a woman, can have in their life. If that meaning’s spread across too many sex partners, you’re eventually reach a point where none of the sex means anything.
Unless by meaning, you refer to the meaning of an elevated risk of STDs, and in some cases the production of racially alien offspring.
Thanks for the kind words Reginald. Fascinating post and thread you have here.
Since I’d mentioned earlier that I felt that Women’s Lib, meaning women in the workplace, was most responsible for what we’re seeing in terms of the TFR among whites in the US and so on (thanks for backing me up), what’s your take on things if the pill hadn’t been invented? I did joke about increased condom sales, although there’s a lot of truth in my remark. Do you think that other methods or even another type of “attack” from certain areas would have come about? Meaning some other type of policy to steadily grind down the white birthrate.
Adam makes a good point regarding the pill facilitating the move of women into the workplace. I’m not sure the pill entirely caused it, as I think the media would have been plugging away in support of “liberation” along with schools and so on. The attacks are always multi-faceted, at least the way I see them. But the pill most definitely speeded things up. So if you – or Adam – have any thoughts on what might have occurred without the pill (yes, I know it’s all fantasy) chime in.
The correlation between pornography and TFR is quite an eye opener as I had never really thought much about it before this. I had thought about the use of pornography in general terms of societal decay, coarsening society overall, a way to change and warp the ideas and definitions of sex in the minds of the young. I wonder how much of this was thought of beforehand by the folks wielding the weapon, and how much of it has been results that never occurred to them when they started, but now they couldn’t be happier. A whole new laundry list of things to ponder and keep in mind when things are eventually in a state of reconstitution.
Technology has allowed the tools and plans of the Jews and others to accelerate and bloom at an ever increasing rate. It’s the old story of the exponential curve in technology, and we’re not far from the bottom if you know what I mean. Lots of upheaval headed our way as I posited earlier.
By the way Andrew, thanks for the link to the article on Hispanic crime penned by the always despicable Ron Unz. Having (unfortunately) grown up in majority Latino neighborhoods, I can state from firsthand experience Unz should be locked up for this missive filled with lies from top to bottom. This type of statistical manipulation is criminal. To lie so openly reveals an incredible level of hatred toward whites from this sob.
AC,
I tend to think that in the absence of The Pill, the effects of Feminism on Fertility would’ve been more muted, or at least have taken longer to be felt.
The thing is that for the social transformation of Women joining the workforce en masse to work out, there had to be a kind of implied pact between Feminists and Employers.
The terms of that pact were that the Women would be paid less than Men, in keeping with their lower rates of education and experience, and that Women’s disadvantage in experience wouldn’t be exacerbated too much by their careers being interrupted by Pregnancies. This was especially the case early in the history of Women flooding the workforce.
Without The Pill, I think to pull off their longstanding goal of “Liberating” Women from the Home, Feminists would’ve put their other goal to “Liberating” Women from sexual restraint more on the back burner.
Thus even if Women joined the Workforce at the same rate they ended up doing, without The Pill they would’ve been forced to supplement Condoms with some degree of Chastity.
This would’ve created a situation where men would’ve felt more of a desire to marry the Women who joined the Workforce. If you were an unmarried man in 1963 and your boss hired a dozen young women, and most of them weren’t putting out except perhaps in the context of a long term relationship, wouldn’t you at least think of pursuing some kind of courtship?
In contrast, with The Pill, the temptation would exist to try to have casual sex with all of them instead.
If Sexual Restraint had lasted longer than it did, as likely would’ve been the case without The Pill and certain concurrently created Antibiotics, I think a lot of the Women talked into joining the Workforce by Feminism would’ve left their places of employment not long after joining.
AC Turnbull says:
… the pill facilitat[es] the move of women into the workplace. I’m not sure the pill entirely caused it, … But the pill most definitely speeded things up. So if you – or Adam – have any thoughts on what might have occurred without the pill (yes, I know it’s all fantasy) chime in.
Although the Industrial Revolution itself was egalitarian in effect, without the reliable means of preventing pregnancy that the Pill provided, women could not have entered the workforce en masse. They are in fact unequal to men, if only because the demands of motherhood and recurring pregnancies would have made them inferior employees for most jobs. Technological systems require a certain uniformity of input in order to operate reliably and produce the desired output. Think of an assembly line. Having employees that can’t be counted on to show up on time and work for the required interval would impede efficiency. Such employees can cause the whole line to go down and halt production.
Although they, too, are within the ambit of what I have been calling scientific birth control, condoms are not a very good substitute for hormonal contraceptives for the well known reasons — not always available when needed, people don’t use them properly or conscientiously enough, and they break. What was needed was a means of preventing reproduction that was entirely under the woman’s control, and the Pill in combination with therapeutic abortion provided this. The Pill is now being displaced by implants, and probably if it hadn’t been invented, other means of delivery — perhaps injections, or a transdermal patch, or implants, would have come to the fore. Failing that, perhaps the culture would have adapted itself so that abortion would have been made into a civic duty. Another alternative, even more likely, is the one foreseen by Orwell in his book Nineteen Eighty-Four: a gray world from which love and illicit sex has been completely excised, and most women are enthusiastic members of “The Anti-Sex League“. This would have had a certain synergy with Puritanical elements deeply embedded within American culture.
We deplore it, of course, since all of the negative consequences have now become apparent. Yet having women in the workforce is a technological necessity, because if you don’t do it, and other nations with which you are competing do, you will lose. This is the internal logic of development of the system that makes certain things “inevitable”, and seems so hard for some here to understand. Both in economies and in armies, for example, there is a built-in drive towards size. Once weapons technology has advanced to the point that women as well as men can be soldiers, in any conflict between two nations with numerically equal populations a nation that puts them in the military will be able to field an army twice as large as one that does not, and will therefore have an overwhelming advantage. The outcome of WWII was a demonstration of this. Germany did not properly utilize women, and though it was not the only reason, it was definitely yet another reason why they lost. There was no German counterpart to the American “Rosie the Riveter”, or the Soviet women who labored in the armament factories of the USSR, and even on their front lines. Keeping women out of the work force and out of the military reflects what is essentially a 19th century point of view. It seems clear that Hitler’s chivalry in keeping women in their role as homemakers contributed to the loss of the war. See, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_and_Soviet_military
Economies are the same way. Large economies will tend to dominate small ones. It’s grow or die, and nations which do not accept women in the workforce will, other things being equal, fail in competition with those that do. In any case, they will have a smaller GNP than they otherwise could have had. So technological development forces cultural changes, which in turn forces genetic changes in the underlying population. One could say with perfect accuracy that technological civilization, through the cultural changes it imposes, is re-writing human DNA, altering human nature. In producing the “New World Person”, a global citizen who is increasingly becoming raceless, genderless, and without national or cultural loyalties, it is adapting man to itself.
All of this is yet another instance of developments within the global technological system causing catastrophic changes in the underlying culture. It would not be too much to describe the global technological system as essentially radical and Bolshevik in its consequences for white patriarchal Western culture, even if it is not self-consciously so in its outlook. Here, in the case of scientific birth control, it promotes gender equality, but, disastrously for ourselves, it is equally adept at promoting race equality, and for essentially the same reasons.
This must be the stupidest example of false positives I’ve ever come across.
As Nietzsche would put it – the primary trait of the impostor is the confusion with cause and effect.
AngryJew,
If my understanding of time is correct, Cause comes before Effect.
And even after taking into account when The Pill was approved as a contraceptive and the flooding of Women into the Workplace that followed, there’s still a VERY strong correlation between a year coming after the Legalization of Pornography and that year having a lower Total Fertility Rate.
I put whether a year came after The Pill, whether it came after the Pro-Pornography Rulings by the Supreme Court, and its Percentage of Women aged 16-24 who were in the Workplace; and put them all in a Multiple Regression with the American TFR as the Dependant Variable.
Here’s what I found:
Percentage of Young Women in the Workforce = Explains 53.9% of the Variation in American TFR (correlation negative).
Whether the Year came after the Legalization of Pornography = Explains 55.7% of the Variation in American TFR (correlation negative).
Whether the Year came before or after The Pill was Approved as a Contraceptive = 11.5% of the Variation in American TFR (correlation positive).
All Three Variables Combined = Explains 95.4% of the Variation in American TFR.
Note that The Pill appears to have a positive effect on American TFR only because the Multiple Regression took into account the means by which The Pill suppressed Fertility: By Empowering the Movement to take Young American Women out of the Home and put them in the Workplace.
If Pornography was legalized because people didn’t have enough children, why was the decline in American Fertility concentrated in years AFTER Pornography was legalized?
Great stuff Adam, but I believe even with eugenics, the races, at least the Caucasians and Asians will remain separate. With enhanced characteristics but still identifiably different on many levels. If for no other reason(s) than to retain a sense of individual identity although a lot of other factors are involved. Human nature would intrude. I think, lol. If it comes down to looks, well, it’s possible that might be the only area with a lot of variance.
I’m impressed with the amount of thought put into the posts from Reginald and yourself. My position and takes on some things are different, but we need to cover as many areas and views as possible while trying to make Euro-descended peoples aware of their dire situation. A situation that will eventually be corrected, but it will be painful. Right now, a lot of people who are waking up tend to have tunnel vision, at least at first. That has to be corrected.
The problems whites face now are “Bolshevik” in nature for the most part, but the technological advancements seen in so many areas will probably end up with the Jewish portion of the hostile elites in the world losing a lot of control rather than strengthening their grip on things. This will cause problems for others too, but especially for this group that has such a low view of all others coupled with a ridiculously inflated belief in their own capabilities and accomplishments. The level of panic regarding the internet is interesting. So many people think the Jews are in a panic over the net because it allows ideas they consider verboten to be easily disseminated. But this isn’t the only reason they hate the net and other new technologies. They are incredibly afraid of the net and new communication technologies because it is allowing people to create their own music, to make their own videos and “films”. “They” are scared of losing what once seemed an impossible to break grip on certain areas of entertainment. Part of the fear is they are scared of losing control of such powerful mediums to brainwash people, and part of it is financial in nature. Not that some kid will shoot the next “Avatar” in his backyard, but the technologies created to facilitate the making of that film and others will become much cheaper. And available to “independents” not too long from now. Newer, relatively cheap 3D cameras are already on the way. Look at what the lowbrow rappers did to the Jewish gangsters in the music industry. And they are resentful to this day – although if they can get in with you and make money, they’ll let you spit in their faces. I work in entertainment – a ‘tech’ area – graphics – that’s why I pay particular attention to media. Worked as a programmer, software developer, until a lot of that started being parceled off to slow, 3rd rate third world operators and operations and I moved away from that end of things.
Angry Jew posts an interesting quote from Nietzche. It would do him and his tribe well to think about this remark, as they so often are the perfect example of what Nietzche was writing about.
Angry Jew posts an interesting quote from Nietzche. It would do him and his tribe well to think about this remark…
Another interesting quote from Nietzsche, which would make a beautiful epigraph for an article on feminism, would be the famous line from Thus Spake Zarathustra: “Thou goest to Woman? Remember thy whip!”
Jason Bates says:
Great stuff Adam, but I believe even with eugenics, the races, at least the Caucasians and Asians will remain separate. With enhanced characteristics but still identifiably different on many levels. If for no other reason(s) than to retain a sense of individual identity although a lot of other factors are involved. Human nature would intrude. I think, lol. If it comes down to looks, well, it’s possible that might be the only area with a lot of variance.
First, we can already foresee the day when science will be able to re-write the human genome at will, splicing between races and even between man and other species. Once that happens, the mere fact that race will be so easily altered by genetic engineering means that it will be meaningless. When the day comes that heredity means nothing, and you can literally wake up as a member of one race and go to bed as a member of another, race will become only a theoretical distinction. Your “birth” race will be a matter of no significance.
Second, If the application of techniques of eugenics and/or genetic engineering produce a situation in which looks are the only area with a lot of variance — if race ever really does just come down to a skin color difference, a superficial matter of appearance — then race effectively ceases to exist. When applied to man, it becomes an obsolete taxonomic distinction, since in biology, it takes more than just a color difference to make a separate race.
Third, when we try to understand how race differences arose in the first place, we see that whatever difference there is in the races came about because of differences in the natural environments in which they evolved; racial differences are adaptations. That’s basic, well-accepted evolutionary theory.
But the global technological system has superseded nature as the environment to which man must adapt himself. To the extent that he contends with his environment, nowadays it is the system with which he is in conflict. It has become the new nature, an artificial, man-made environment, and in principle, this system is the same all over the globe. The entire basis of racial distinction therefore has disappeared, and just on the basis of evolutionary theory alone we also then would expect racial differences to eventually disappear, for they would no longer serve any purpose. Thus, race would tend to eliminate itself, even if the technological system were only to remain passive and indifferent to it.
But, there is good reason to think that it won’t remain passive, and this brings us to our fourth reason to expect race to disappear. We can expect the technological system will be active in eliminating race, since this flows from the nature of technique. Techniques which work in America work exactly the same in China or in Africa, provided they are applied to the same materials, human or otherwise. This characteristic of technique would, in itself, have a powerful tendency to produce genetic uniformity in man through time, because techniques that have application to humans — such as medical techniques, or techniques of government, to use just two random examples — can only be guaranteed to work as intended if the substrate to which they are applied is always the same. The natural distinctions of race impair the efficiency of the system, which needs to eliminate them if it is to provide its maximum benefit. For example, if drugs work differently on people of different races (and many of them do), then it simplifies things and increases efficiency to dispense with race. There’s every sign that advances in techniques of genetic engineering will make this easy to do within a decade or two. The system is powerfully motivated on many levels to make this happen. For example, imagine the invention of a gene therapy that would end racial strife forever through the simple expedient of optimizing each citizen for intelligence, mental and physical health, and other genetically-based components. If all races are thus brought to share the same physical and mental characteristics, then race ceases to exist as a biological reality. Yet the perceived benefits to society from such a therapy would be so enormous that it could result in the government compelling every citizen to undergo it. In fact, it could be made to seem so obviously beneficial that most citizens would be eager to have such therapy, and wouldn’t need to be coerced.
Fifth, there’s at least one more powerful force at work that also will help eliminate race, and indeed, has already taken enormous strides in doing so. Mass transporation techniques have destroyed geographical separation, a necessary condition for the persistence of race. Where races mix socially, they soon mix genetically. The Spanish and Portugese that came to the New World have been almost entirely absorbed into the indigenous populations. Only a tiny elite remains separate, and even within that elite there has been convergence. This pattern has been repeated all over the world, all throughout history. But for confirmation, you need to look no further than what has happened right here in America. The American negro is now, on average, about 20% white by genetics. And this in an environment where, for most of his tenure here, race-mixing was forbidden by both legal penalties and societal taboo! Now that the races are being actively encouraged by the system to mix, the trend toward miscegenation is enormously accelerating — and not just between negroes and whites, but between all races. If this is continued for a long enough time — a century or two should be sufficient — the disappearance of separate races in America is a foregone conclusion.
Finally, how can anyone seriously think that the races will remain separate? Even if the above arguments are too complicated or theoretical for you, all you really have to do to spot the trend is open your eyes and look around. Is there even a single region of the world in which genetic distance between the major races is increasing? No, there is not. It is everywhere decreasing, moving in the direction of zero.
It’s very clear that the only thing that can possibly stand a chance of reversing this situation, of halting this ecological catastrophe, is the complete destruction of the global technological system.
“First, we can already foresee the day when science will be able to re-write the human genome at will, splicing between races and even between man and other species.”
Right…today, we cannot even determine the genes for intelligence, and do not fully understand the implications of epigenetics, but we can “foresee the day” when science will be able to “rewrite the human genome.”
Sure, sure.
Granted, if scientific and technological process *and* the globalist multiculturalist system continue unabated, *eventually* (“inevitably?”) this (erasing race through genetic science) may come to pass.
The problem you see is this. Destruction of the West is continuing at a pace that Third Worldization will destroy technological progress way before the “human genome is rewritten.” Maybe the Chinese will do it one day, but only to the extent that they maintain their homogeneity via an extreme ethnocentric regime, in which case their technological progress will be used to ensure racial survival, not its dissolution.
Of course, in the unlikely event the West saves itself, technological progress may continue. But the only way that the West can save itself – realistically (and not via Luddite fantasy) – is through a complete reversion of values, in which case the West, like China, would use technology in the cause of race preservation and not destruction.
In other words, in the long run, technics and multiracialism are incompatible. The former can thrive only in the absence of the latter. But – hey, I though collapse was “inevitable?” So why bother?
“It is everywhere decreasing, moving in the direction of zero.”
Yes, in China and Japan, it is quite evident that their racial distinction is moving in the direction of zero. Right…
“Techniques which work in America work exactly the same in China or in Africa, provided they are applied to the same materials, human or otherwise. ”
Except, they do not.
“Mass transporation techniques have destroyed geographical separation, a necessary condition for the persistence of race. ”
The same “techniques” will be required to separate races given the political will. Pray tell, how to deal with Third World masses among us when we are reduced to “spear points and snares” – weapons Third Worlders can wield with the same efficacy as Whites?
“Only a tiny elite remains separate, and even within that elite there has been convergence.”
If the entire population of, say, Japan, is a “tiny elite,” then, well, yes.
“It’s very clear that the only thing that can possibly stand a chance of reversing this situation, of halting this ecological catastrophe, is the complete destruction of the global technological system.”
No. The problem is one of politics, not technics. Technics is a tool. Politics trump technics because politics control the way technics and science are used, not vice versa.
Japan is a perfect case. Whether or not they decide to “solve” the “problem” of the demographic transition by immigration is a purely political one. They can just as easily resist outside pressure and utilize demographic growth incentives and automation to truly solve the “problem.”
The idea that population/racial distinction occurs only within a “natural environment” is a lie:
http://www.amazon.com/000-Year-Explosion-Civilization-Accelerated/dp/0465002218
Harpending/Cochran postulate that we have been becoming more, not less, different with the advent of civilization.
Whether or not technology has a leveling effect is a social and political question. Different civilizations (in the Huntington sense) can utilize technics in different ways. Even today, the East Asian and Islamic civilizations maintain their cultural distinctiveness. Even with mass Western aid and influence, Africa remains Africa (more due to cognitive deficiency than anything else).
Whether human evolution in the direction of heightened distinctiveness continues or not will be a political decision.
Ted says:
In other words, in the long run, technics and multiracialism are incompatible.
LOL. No further questions, your honor.
Adam,
You must review your understanding of American history. While the licentuous Southern colonies may have looked askance at vice, Puritan and Quaker colonies — the culture that dominated for some 350 years – most certainly did not. Have you read Tocqueville? Please do as he rightly understood the vast and irreconcilable differences decades before mass immigration diluted the founding root stock. Our present governmental system, ironically, owes much more to the South and its notions of masters/slaves and public/private morality than the victorious North with its emphasis on personal morality enforced by public law.
Saith Adam:
“I’ve never seen any data on regulation of drugs and gambling in the 19th century. From what I’ve always heard, they were virtually unregulated in this country until relatively modern times. That was in keeping with the principles of a free society, which America still had some claim to being back then.
JoeoftheMountain says:
While the licentuous Southern colonies may have looked askance at vice, Puritan and Quaker colonies — the culture that dominated for some 350 years – most certainly did not. Have you read Tocqueville?
The question at issue wasn’t the regulation of “vice”, but specifically the regulation of drugs and gambling in the 19th century.
Tocqueville talks about religious attacks on other forms of vice (in the opinion of the early colonists), but doesn’t address gambling or drugs specifically, at least that I can find. If you are thinking of a specific passage, maybe you can cite it for us. In any case, since Democracy in America was only published in 1835-1840, he would not have been able to speak to the latter part of the 19th century.
Drugs were indeed virtually unregulated in America until the early 20th century. Opium and its derivatives and cannabis and its derivatives were legal virtually everywhere throughout the 19th century, as was cocaine, and the extensive pharmacopeia of lesser knowns such as absinthe, psilocybin mushrooms, peyote, etc.
Gambling had a slightly checkered legal history in the 19th century, but the laws that were occasionally passed against it were sporadic and easy to get around. It was a part of the culture of the frontier mentality, and moved west with the pioneers.
I am glad that you mention Tocqueville, however, as he is the first writer I have found who took note of the inherent tendency of the technological system to egalitarianism. His penetrating intellect discerned even back then that technological change was the driving force behind cultural change. His words were prophetic.
You might like to take a look at a reply I have made to this argument on my own blog.
http://www.theantifeminist.com/porn-sex-fertility/
It goes without saying that Jews have LONG controlled many aspects of the porn trade in the USA and many other nations, from fronting the money for the ‘actresses’ and crew and equipment, to production, to distribution, and everything else.
Nowadays of course a lot of other people and groups are involved in it, but Jews ‘blazed the porn path’ for everyone by flooding White nations and White cultures with their Jew-produced smut, and this has devastated White gender and sexual norms all over the world – it has also damaged other groups as well.
—
“A story little told is that of Jews in Hollywood’s seedier cousin, the adult film industry. Perhaps we’d prefer that the ‘triple exthnics’ didn’t exist, but there’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate role throughout the adult film industry in America. Jewish involvement in pornography has a long history in the United States, as Jews have helped transform a fringe subculture into what has become a primary constituent of Americana. These are the ‘true blue’ Jews.
Jewish activity in the porn industry divides into two (sometimes overlapping) groups: pornographers and performers. Though Jews make up only two per cent of the American population, they have been prominent in pornography. …
In the postwar era, America’s most notorious pornographer was Reuben Sturman, the ‘Walt Disney of Porn’. According to the US Department of Justice, throughout the 1970s Sturman controlled most of the pornography circulating in the country. … It was said that Sturman did not simply control the adult-entertainment industry; he was the industry.” …
- http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=8359
Years ago, during one of the “anti-feminist” diatribes common in the movement, I wrote that when men made sex objects out of women, including their wives and the mothers of their children–when women had to change into black underwear in time for their hero’s return from the battlefield (office), partly in fear of competition from the girls in the typing pool, women began to seek significance in the work world; restaurants, laundries and department stores had taken over essential tasks that had maintained their significance before, and media was shaping new images against which they were being measured.
Pornography replaces beauty with ugliness and love with violence; it’s at the extreme end of the anti-female spectrum. (I avoid films rated “R” on the basis of sex; I can tune out language and violence.) Respect, self-control and an appreciative grasp of “different but equal” are, in my opinion, keys to family success; those who have them are not likely to give any of their time or money to the pornography products of Jews.
This was a great post Reginald.
Porn is certainly an issue, maybe even a main one, but other ones are more important as you have yourself conceded.
Stress is a major issue when it comes to pregnancy and sexual health, especially for Whites. Chronically stressed out people are not very sexual people…for women especially, the very stressful modern lifestyle with school, work, activities, etc etc is surely dampening their fertility and sex drive. The same applies to many Asians too in over-technological Asian nations like Japan and South Korea.
The commenter Adam is right that the modern technological-industrial system is stressing out many people – especially Whites – to the max…thus if we can lessen the harsh stressful effects of the mega-technological system in our daily lives the lessened stress will lead to more fertility…and also more free time in which to get busy in bed.
If your lady is having a hard time getting pregnant, de-stress her life by getting her away from work, the daily grind, and the other harsh stresses of modern living…give her massages, take care of the really stressful stuff, take her to nice spots in the quiet countryside, and also fatten here up by around 10 pounds or so if she is too skinny (below healthy weight). Foods high in fat as opposed to empty carbs are also known to help women conceive.
De-stress your woman’s life, feed her a diet rich in good healthy fats instead of empty carbs, and have sex with her as much as possible and before you know it she’ll have conceived.
Schopenbecq,
I have responded to your response.
Thanks Eman,
Your point about stress is important and highly consistent with evolutionary theory.
For most of the evolutionary time our ancestors went through it was adaptive to have reduced fertility in response to excessive stress, as excessive stress correlated so closely with the sorts of Famines and Pestilences that were extremely hard on small children.
Also, when someone is highly stressed it was often a sign that their survival was in jeopardy, and thus that it would be adaptive for them to avoid devoting limited resources to reproduction.
The problem is that while it makes sense to delay having children until after a Famine has passed, or until after clearing your name of a murder charge, this adaptation doesn’t work in an environment where people are unwise enough to let themselves be stressed out for the entirety of their reproductive life.