Non-white births down in America

The sky isn’t falling you fecking idjits.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/baby-bust-fertility-is-declining-the-most-among-minority-women

[Marriage is also a factor. Unmarried women don’t want a baby.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/no-ring-no-baby ]

I am shook. Women don’t wanna be lumbered with the baby of a man who doesn’t care enough to be a husband and father?* They aren’t attracted to feckless manchilds?

Those bitches!

“That’s because the decline in fertility has been far greater among minorities than among non-Hispanic whites”

FEATURE

NOT. A. BUG.

Chart for the lazy people:

Look at the actual data before whining.

That’s called a selection pressure, children.

Men won’t marry? Women won’t breed.

Who wins? [women, their relatives breed]

But the “white” fertility figure is a bit misleading, as it includes most Hispanics, who have historically had much higher birth rates than non-Hispanic whites. Looking at all Hispanics together, these women are missing nearly 19% of the babies that would have been born from 2008-2016, or about 2.2 million births, as their age-adjusted fertility rates have fallen from 2.85 births per woman to just 2.1, and continue to decline. Meanwhile, non-Hispanic fertility has only declined from 1.95 births per woman to 1.72, yielding about 2.3 million missing births. Solidly half of the missing kids over the last decade would have been born to Hispanic mothers, despite the fact that Hispanics only make up about a quarter of fertility-age women.

Thus, in racial or ethnic terms, America’s “Baby Bust” is kinda, sorta, a little bit racist”

Telling them to be breeding sows isn’t?

Hey, what exactly are they claiming these women should do?

Get back in the maternity ward? Pump out future Dem voters?

*If you really “care” (virtue signal) about Western birth rates, Chicken Littles of the internet, ask MGTOW why they’re complaining about the birth rate but not marrying. You don’t get to complain if you’re causing the ‘problem’.

https://www.rt.com/usa/us-white-births-census-613/

https://nypost.com/2017/09/02/cheap-sex-is-making-men-give-up-on-marriage/

A problem you cause is a CHOICE.

[GDP will go up in a generation with fewer lower IQ drains on its system.]

Other data article:

For the lazy:

“That is, most long-run change in fertility can be accounted for by changes in the marital composition of society.”

Marital status is a key determinant of whether or not women have as many kids as they want.”

HALF OR MORE.

Meanwhile, student loans must be written off if you care about IQ.

“It’s possible that debt may also reduce fertility, independently of marriage. Some studies do show that student debt has a strong effect on delaying fertility. The economic rationale is simple: having and raising children costs money, and student debt gobbles up a share of income right off the top of the budget. Crucially, even income-based repayment doesn’t fix this, as it resets with higher incomes: a debtor can’t earn their way out. As income rises, so do debt payments. At some high threshold, of course, the debtor can exceed the required payments and can advance the date of final repayment, but the point is that student loans, no matter how they are structured, divert money that might have gone towards planning for a child. It’s even possible that student loans delay marriage because they cause debtors to change their childbearing anticipations: maybe debtors realize they won’t be able to afford a child for a long time, and so they postpone marriage until they are (financially) ready for a child.”

Men can’t afford to marry, have kids unless loans are much lower.

Loan control would be a conservative policy, boosting high IQ fertility.

More babies being born are born to high IQ, educated parents.

Again, actual data.

“Finances, and student debt, specifically, aren’t the only reason for delayed marriage. Most unmarried people who want to get married say either that they are too young and unready for marriage, or else they haven’t found the right person. It may be that part of the problem is the decline in “marriageable men.” At the metro area level, the imbalance in sex ratios can sometimes be enormous.”

“The simple fact of the matter is that marital status is a key determinant of whether or not women have as many kids as they want.”

ACTUAL. DATA.

Women want to have kids, it’s the mens’ fault.

“Combined, it turns out that a combination of marital status, age, and fertility ideals is a pretty good predictor of individual-level fertility. In other words, marital status serves as a circuit-breaker on fertility aims: married people get close to achieving their aims, while never-married people generally don’t.”
“But one vital driver of birth rates is marriage. And as long as the average age of first marriage rises and the number of prime childbearing years the average woman spends married falls, we can expect to see fertility linger at low levels. Therefore, any policy supporting childbirth—however generous it may be—that does not also somehow impact marriage trends is unlikely to boost long-term fertility.”

It isn’t women’s fault they won’t man up.

The data is loud and clear.

White bachelor men are cucking themselves.

Post-war population recovery genes

Men are literally replaceable and that makes them better as a sex.

Exhibit A in the scientific “Men ain’t shit” series.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081211121835.htm

In many of the countries that fought in the World Wars, there was a sudden increase in the number of boys born afterwards. The year after World War I ended, an extra two boys were born for every 100 girls in the UK, compared to the year before the war started. The gene, which Mr Gellatly has described in his research, could explain why this happened.

As the odds were in favour of men with more sons seeing a son return from the war, those sons were more likely to father boys themselves because they inherited that tendency from their fathers. In contrast, men with more daughters may have lost their only sons in the war and those sons would have been more likely to father girls. This would explain why the men that survived the war were more likely to have male children, which resulted in the boy-baby boom.

In most countries, for as long as records have been kept, more boys than girls have been born. In the UK and US, for example, there are currently about 105 males born for every 100 females.

It is well-documented that more males die in childhood and before they are old enough to have children.

That is prior to competition, crime, psychiatric issues including self-loathing and desire to never reproduce, as well as the sexual selection of women for a suitable man.

Externalities like the economy, racial wars, anti-natal culture notwithstanding.

The female genome is more stable, two Xs will do that. It contains more data too, the Y is smaller.

Women must be more stable biologically as the (genetic) carrier sex, another reason against female drafting. If some men die, they clearly recover (and as proven here, come back better) but when a race loses its women, it goes extinct.

So in the same way that the gene may cause more boys to be born after wars, it may also cause more boys to be born each year.

The fitter male lines are self-replacing.  This is why all adult men should have been drafted. The reward of winning a war should be reproducing into your society’s future, to reward the cowards who remained behind is an insult to the brave K-types of the sex.

This is the red-pill. Men evolved to be expendable to one another in the protection of their shared racial germline.

Cowards know they’re cannon fodder. They betray their fellow man (intra-racial Brotherhood is the only acceptable collectivism). It reminds me of the Little Red Hen, and what man would want a coward in their ranks, that’s treason waiting to happen?

Or as we call them, cucks.

Behold, the back-up genetic programme: the self-culling cannon fodder.
Remarkable that genetic dead-ends appreciate the importance of marriage enough to insult all married couples as inferior (rationalization).

Also, demographic decline virtue signalling (- you can’t out-breed Asia, war is inevitable).

Asia*: highest population density, territorial expansive, fastest growing religion (Islam).

Inevitable.

Trump could shit gold and it’s still inevitable.

Why?

More than r-selection, perhaps a feature of it.

If you’re stupid like Asians and murder your girls (glaring at India and China) then you cull the female-preferred genes among men, slowly killing your racial future because there won’t be enough carrier women to go around and the ‘problem’ will only get worse. There is no culling effect equivalent to war in women except socialist policy.

There’s your ‘war against women’. Affirmative Action for unfit male genes collapses both their group and the fit men of their race who were weak enough to allow it to happen. If every man is entitled to 1 waifu thanks to socialist compulsion (and all men, all women forced to marry by law**) but five infant boys survive due to medical technology…. 100-105=-5

Socialism’s birth policies are as dysgenic as their economics that punish effort.
This is why men shouldn’t decide who gets to breed with laws, women evolved for that task.

Socialism cannot replace sexual selection. What the internet considers it is not, reproduction is required.

A war will be mandatory if the leftover men have any hope of reproduction, by conquest and rape  …..and ‘immigration’.

*As previously covered, most money to purchase is loaned by the Chinese Communist government. They are the true buyers overseas. Ban foreigners from literally buying your country. It’s a matter of national security. That includes the Putin-banished Russians’ blood money in London keeping the gasping death rattle of a real estate bubble alive. I’d extend this to the compulsory purchase of properties made by shell corps overseas, with unexplained funds (anti-corruption law) or belonging to dual passport holders who refuse to drop the other one (loyalty to another nation).

The concrete used in protected property basements is doomed to collapse. Like the postmodern glass monstrosities, they all crumble eventually, that’s why huge basements aren’t built in English soil. Rainy, flood-prone soil. Next to the biggest river incoming to the landmass.

And we get frequent earthquakes, of the sort that causes cracks in… concrete.

It’s a capital city so traffic causes tremors too – including planes.

Every heinous skyscraper you ever see will be self-destructing. Rich tower or council estate.

https://www.cement.org/docs/default-source/fc_concrete_technology/durability/is536-types-and-causes-of-concrete-deterioration.pdf

I’m literally the first person to look this up. Engineers study ENTROPY.

This error is old as Babel. We don’t need to lift a finger, ugly postmodern structures are already crumbling.

They’ll go the way of wooden castles.

Shad viewers? Anyone?

If only the Nazis had simply purchased American land, we’d be speaking German.

They’re still going to shoot you by the way. They need to outnumber you, fill University places then government positions first. If they have the land, all that’s needed are executions.

**Reducing citizens to breeding sows for the government, thanks, socialism!

Socialism is hence r-select and among other issues, assumes all men can be provider husbands, all women are fertile and all citizens are heterosexual. Socialism is doomed to fail by virtue of mathematics and basic biology.

Melanin is an aggression hormone

Not just a pigment. Biologists know this. It’s found in countless other species.
We even know the reputation of black birds with witchcraft and death.

“Do pigmentation and the melanocortin system modulate aggression and sexuality in humans as they do in other animals?”
http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/articles/Rushton-Templer-pigmentation-aggression-sexuality.pdf

Remember the femme fatale is always black (haired*).

From the abstract:

“Both within human populations (e.g., siblings), and between populations (e.g., races, nations, states), studies find that darker pigmented people average higher levels of aggression and sexual activity (and also lower IQ).”

Yes, they look at IQ too.
It’s a reason Asians try to look paler (even the men).
The classic intellectual is pale. It’s status, it’s about money.
It’s also more ‘civilized’, as in less prone to criminality. This is key to collectivists, such as Asians.

*Historical references to black women e.g. Anne Boleyn, always referred to hair because black skinned people obviously didn’t naturally exist in Europe (they’d be referred to by geography, Moors are common descriptors). An African in Europe wouldn’t do well for many reasons including Vitamin D deficiency. Without imported sources, it can be fatal and the NHS guidelines do target Africans in Europe for warnings about this.
Italians were considered the most passionate women in the Middle Ages (and angry) due to their black hair, closely followed by dark-haired Irish women.
Spanish women were considered mongrels due to Islamic conquest, along with some Italians to this day. Northern Italians are what all Italians used to be, genetically.

Stop the fake debates please

I can already feel the heat of hate I’m going to get for this.

There’s a broken record.

You’re being played.

What strawman?

Not all (crime) are (demographic) is an excuse to dismiss data.
Probability data. It happens to the HBD crowd all the time.
A derailing tactic intended to keep you ignorant and fixated on casting aspersions (ad hom). Bullshit rhetoric. There’s no debate. It’s the statistical equivalent of anecdote and rejects the heinousness of the crime in question. In a civilized, First World society, the acceptable number is zero.

They want you to forget this.

(I also think that traumatizing a person with crime should be an aggravating offence, we already implicitly have this but it’s been forgotten in sentencing for political expedience e.g. aggravating factor for taking a child’s innocence away or raping a celibate/faithful Christian or a virgin, same principle. It could even apply to male rape of a straight man, since there is another layer to the trauma based on the individual’s beliefs and identity. “Hate” crime should be put toward those ends if anything, protecting the in-group against the out-group of the really spiteful (anti-Western) predatory targeting and life ruining. The system we have is broken because it defends the out-group like infantile damsels when they are literally criminals explicitly targeting the in-group of the society they chose to live in. That is “sexual terrorism”.)

I’ll take the one with more data as example.

Muh “not all men are rapists”

– but most rapists are male, it’s just un-PC to collect demographic data (including race) and publish it.

Seriously, try to find rape data by sex and/or sexuality, I did. Couldn’t find anything reliable. Isn’t this suspicious?

We need a data collection charter where such information in the public interest must be collected and published freely, with no distortions. Including the rate of demonstrably false accusations. It viscerally sickens me that a raped man by another man must expressly state he isn’t homosexual to be taken more seriously. Where are the libertarians on that privacy? Consent is never an assumption, property rights begin with the body.

You’re being hoodwinked. So I looked up American data since a lot of you are filthy Americans.

You won’t pay attention unless I’m talking about you.

Best I could find in a moderately long search attempt.

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317

OT but “Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.”
How many men plead ignorance on that one?

All this insufficient data (even at collection stage) is intended to keep men and women at one another’s throats. To lower the fertility rate. It is dyscivic.

Sex-based triangulation. You cannot fight the system that oppresses you if you’re busy engaging in an impossible game of one-upmanship.

They also want to deny unPC but true stereotypes by hoping you won’t ask for full datasets.

Your taxes are paying for them already, you should get all the information.

They also are intellectually dishonest to report victim but not criminal.
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6427
Revised Oct 2018 data from 2016 (latest).
e.g.
“The rate of violent victimization against males increased from 2015 to 2016, rising from 15.9 to 19.6 per 1,000 males age 12 or older.
From 2015 to 2016, the rate of aggravated assault against males age 12 or older rose from 2.7 to 4.2 per 1,000.
The rate of violent victimization against persons ages 25 to 34 rose from 21.8 per 1,000 persons to 28.4 per 1,000 from 2015 to 2016, and the rate for females in this age group rose from 24.6 to 33.4 per 1,000.”

>implies women are not persons but O.K.

Who attacked them? A ghost? It is a common incomplete sentence and poor grammar. It’s also scientism.

You need a Punnett square and I see none.

Male, female and male, female. Basic stats again? Otherwise an individual reading cannot know their risk.

“Not all men” really is the fake right equivalent of the fake left’s “not all immigrants”.

-but most terrorists are foreign, culturally and racially, it’s just un-PC to collect demographic data….. again.

See the pattern?

You’re chasing your tails.

Red-pill statistics can make men look really, really bad. Men have a right to know the likes of rape data, in particular, because they need to know they’re at great risk from other men as well.

Naturally it doesn’t list the latter but they take one step forward in two steps back by collecting male victim data…. only to neglect entirely listing the female. Mathematics in need of context. Society is not just one group, you collect all the data or it’s close to useless. They know this, it’s deliberate. This is intended to bait silly MRAs who won’t even notice it doesn’t mention perp details.

They do make another error in saying Male for Male Victim rape and subsuming the female in an age range.
Piss-poor data entry. I notice everything.

Collect ALL the data or no, we cannot debate it. 

It would entirely become a futile argument of ignorance. 

They know this. Mathematically, you have no data.

Conveniently, they don’t have to change and lower the crime rate (toward zero) if you don’t know how badly they’re doing their job.


5% of the latest reported US crime was rape.
That’s absurdly high for such a specific and brutal crime.
(This is what happens when you don’t keep serial offenders off the streets).
1 in 20 criminal acts was rape. You need all the data, America.

If I hadn’t screencapped this, you probably wouldn’t have believed me.

Irony! The dramatic irony!

Statistically you’re more likely to suffer domestic violence than stranger violence. That is horrifying. You were over twice as likely to get raped as burgled (1.99% in 2016). Do the libertarians care about bodily rights? Statistically they should care twice as much as about burglaries. The average citizen is twice as likely to be raped as generally assaulted, do you consider non-sexual assault a real problem?

You call yourself the First World? Greatest nation on Earth? Please, lead by example.

We’re right there with you. Bring back the standards of civil behavior, the etiquette. Update it, sure, but you do need it back again, what little data you have is starkly apparent in this. Perhaps enshrined in law, to make sure everyone is clear.

Not all- is NOT how statistics work.
Using big words doesn’t make it a debate.
You are not sounding intelligent to anyone who uses their brain.

Demand more data and think for yourselves.

Fellow Westerners are not the enemy. It is those who keep you shrouded in ignorance and wasting your time attending a digital circus of vicious fallacies. Oh but the delivery of their lies is so sweet, right?

Not all (blank) – they cant.

They don’t have to be.

It’s a false equivalence.

Rape doesn’t belong in the First World and neither do hostile foreigners.

Hopefully you can see why they won’t let me near a television camera.

You’re only watching the puppets who never raise real points. You can’t settle real issues in a soundbite or cheeky Youtube clip.

“Boys will be boys” is pathological altruism enabling the psychopathic of the male population against everyone else and sexist infantilisation.

Link: Why we need eugenics

The founding stated purpose of the NHS was eugenic.
It isn’t what your history teacher brainwashed you.
Every celebrity sticking up for “healthcare” is into eugenics.
As long as the NHS pays for abortions and contraception.

Repeat abortions nursing article:

“there is a significant risk that the child would suffer physical or mental abnormalities leading to serious handicap”

Various conditions will disappear.

http://atavisionary.com/why-we-need-eugenics/

Important practical note:

Logically, you’d need proportionate eugenic policies to simply counterbalance the dysgenic ones, purely to even it out and start from neither. neutral position. Eugenic in this case is basically any policy that encourages healthy taxpayers to have more kids and raise them properly (that will also have better life outcomes and so on into prosperity via pursuit of individual happiness helped by the nation state they own, how terrible, right?). Dysgenic is whatever prevents this sustainable circle of life (holds aloft a lion cub) or more directly harmful, promotes ill-health and sterility in a population swayed by antisocial (punitive) policy changes. It’s technically dysgenic to promote the continuation of the “loser” lines of the outgroup too (keeping prisoners and slaves instead of killing them in war means eventually your kids will breed with them) but that’s also pathological altruism (classic empire suicide) and only formerly happened when a major war was lost and most of the healthy men were dead (conquest). Migration patterns is a PC way to say “conqueror boundaries”.

To promote continuation of another genetic line over one’s own isn’t merely genetic suicide and likely a form of madness (nothing in evolution accounts for this and it’s direct ingroup harm), it’s literally a spin on treason.

If the outgroup is so great, go live among them before “helping”.

Demographics matter. Biology matters. People’s personalities, including non-cognitive traits that affect life outcomes, are highly heritable. Specific pro-social temperaments conducive to civilization have been demonstrated to be genetically determined in animal studies with foxesand mice. In addition, all relevant identical twin studies have found that genetics accounts for at minimum 45% of the total variation in intelligence within populations. A significant portion of studies, notably including the most comprehensive ones, have estimated the genetic contribution to be between 70 and 80%. The heritability of intelligence has also been demonstrated in non-human primates.

IQ as a measure of intelligence and a predictor of positive outcomes has been demonstratedbeyond any shadow of doubt. Not only are those with high IQ more likely to have positive life outcomes on a personal level, but their efforts as a class contribute significantly more to the economic health and technological progress of civilization than the average or low IQ classes.

You want equal outcomes?
Start with equal contributions!

“They can’t”? Yeah, we know!

That is literally our point.

So who owes whom, considering the people who take more than they produce have the privilege of living off those other people already, purely for a coincidence of geography?
National socialism, right there. Producers enslaved to consumers, seems temporary.

They complain about The Rich but never want to kick the Russians out of London, do they?
Then it’s lachrymose Guardian pieces blithely bemoaning why property is so expensive.
Putin kicked those corrupt Russians out and you wanna keep them? WHY?

The only Russian collusion is with real estate agents.

IQ is so important to civilization, in fact, that the relative wealth of a country can be accurately predicted from average IQ*. Intriguingly gains that result from increasing intelligence do not suffer from the law of diminishing returns. Therefore, the relative fertility of high intelligence vs. low intelligence people has significant implications for the evolution of civilization and humanity…..

Evolution is ongoing remember.

Incentives make societies based on their priorities and values, punitive sanctions on health and markers of prosociality e.g. income tax paid, decay the society of envy.

The politics of envy end in death. I guess it’s the sociopath’s way to prevent ‘suffering’.

I feel like the only person to notice how America’s hand-wringing guilt over its “evil” supposedly ‘eugenic‘ sterilizations of the grossly dependent went without mention during the unusual boom times a generation plus afterward. The same prosperity occurs after the natural culling effect of major disease outbreaks. This happens everywhere.

Black Death > Boom, Renaissance

Everywhere.