Be Right Wing and Multiply
| More news stories on the Demographic Transformation |
|---|
Peter Schweizer, National Post (Don Mills, Ontario), July 30, 2008
Today’s liberalism is completely wrapped up with the notion of self. The legacy of the 1960s “if it feels good do it” ethos is alive and well. Modern liberals often embrace these teachings and incorporate them in the way they live their lives and maintain their relationships.
For dramatic proof, go to the streets of a liberal enclave like San Francisco, Seattle or Vermont. There will be plenty of expensive boutiques, antique dealers, health spas, sushi bars and upscale coffee shops. But you won’t see very many children. The reason is not that right-wingers have dumped buckets of birth control pills into the San Francisco municipal water supply. The simple fact is that many on the liberal left today just don’t want to have children. A 2004 U. S. survey showed that a typical sample of 100 unrelated adults who called themselves liberal will have 147 children. That contrasts with the typical conservative, who is likely to have 208 children per 100 unrelated adults. That’s 41% more.
Why is this important? Because raising children is a difficult and selfless act that is also an important civic duty. The survival of our society—not to mention our Social Security system!—rests on individuals bringing up a new generation.
The liberal Northeastern states—Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, and New York—have the lowest fertility rates in the country. They also have the lowest percentage of population under the age of five. In progressive San Francisco, there are more dogs than children. Joel Kotkin points out that Seattle (my hometown) has roughly the same population as it did in the 1960s, but barely half as many children. Indeed, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. Dogs, of course, offer companionship without the burdens and responsibilities of children.
Some might conclude that this is a result of the high cost of living in desirable cities such as Boston, New York and San Francisco. But in these childless meccas, we also see some of the highest per capita expenditures on luxury goods, spas and personal therapies. It’s not a lack of money; it’s a lack of interest. The General Social Survey found that 69% of those who called themselves “very conservative” said it was important to them to have children. Only 38% of corresponding liberals agreed. An online survey (admittedly not scientific) taken by the left-wing Web site dailykos.com asked readers if they had children and how many. The most popular answers: “No children,” “Not going to have any,” and “Don’t want any.”
Meanwhile, the highest fertility rate in the country is found in the most conservative state, Utah, followed by Arizona, Alaska and Texas, otherwise known as “red states,” according to the latest National Center for Health Statistics survey. States with the lowest fertility rates are Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, all “blue states.” Over half of the women of childbearing age—15 to 44—are childless in liberal bastions such as the District of Columbia, Vermont and Massachusetts.
Many on the left proudly proclaim themselves to be “child-free.” (They angrily reject the term child-less because it implies that they are missing out on something.) Partly, this is a result of liberal pessimism about the future. Concerned about overpopulation, dwindling environmental resources, global warming, etc., some liberals don’t want to have children because they see them as an environmental hazard. Billionaire Ted Turner reflected this attitude when he thoughtfully announced his regret at having five children. “If I was doing it over again, I wouldn’t have had that many, but I can’t shoot them now and they’re here.” No doubt, this sort of sentiment makes for charming conversation around the Turner dinner table.
Far more common is the modern liberal notion that children are a burden, something that will get in the way of one’s self-fulfillment. As any parent knows, raising children is hard work. It requires emotional commitment, selfless acts, large quantities of time and scads of money. Many liberals just don’t want the inconvenience. When asked by the World Values Survey whether parents should sacrifice their own well-being for those of their children, those on the left were nearly twice as likely to say “no” (28% to 15%) when compared to conservatives.
A look at some popular Web sites offers plenty of evidence that this is a major strand in modern liberal thinking: “The trouble is, many of us bright, liberal people know that procreation is a quaint, antiquated concept.” And another: “I read somewhere a while back that it costs about $1-million to raise a child from birth to 21 years assuming they attend college. So buy a house in [San Francisco] or have a kid? I’m not actually looking for an answer but kids are expensive.” And another: “I’ll have the babies if you pay for them.”
Another offers: “I have not been asked very often why I’m childless. If I am, I just say the truth. That I am too selfish, that I want to spend my time and money on things other than children, that I am doing my part to counteract all of the overbreeders. The thought of attending a child’s athletic event, and sitting through the whole thing, is almost enough in itself.” Peter Pan could not have put it better.
This birth gap presents a quandary for politically active liberals. Not wanting to be inconvenienced with raising their own children, they still want to see their ideas perpetuated. Professor Darren Sherkat of Southern Illinois University worries that because conservatives “who have lots of children” are not being matched by those on the political left who “may well not have kids,” these demographic trends will push the country in a more conservative direction. (Data indicates that 80% of children end up adopting the political attitudes of their parents.) To counterbalance this trend, he argues for increasing immigration and expanding the black population. He also hopes that childless liberals will “be able to reproduce themselves in strangers,” by taking on jobs as teachers, writers and other people of influence. The idea is to let conservatives raise their children, while liberals influence them through the schools and universities.
Another lefty concurs: “I’d say that the author of a popular book has far more aggregate influence than do one set of parents. So if the book is very popular and captures the imaginations of kids, presto, you’ve done a lot to insure that the ideas that are important to you live long after you pass on.
(Posted on July 30, 2008)
Comments
RE: More dogs than children
It’s amazing that we don’t have a popular term for this kind of behaviour.
The same goes for people who adopt children, even when they are perfectly capable of producing their own.
Both scenarios seem totally insane when looked upon from an evolutionary perspective.
Posted by Undomesticated at 6:37 PM on July 30
I’m a regular reader and supporter of this site, and an aspiring children’s book author. Wish me lots of luck!
Posted by Sleep at 7:01 PM on July 30
“Billionaire Ted Turner reflected this attitude when he thoughtfully announced his regret at having five children. “If I was doing it over again, I wouldn’t have had that many, but I can’t shoot them now and they’re here.” No doubt, this sort of sentiment makes for charming conversation around the Turner dinner table.’
Isn’t the Turner Diaries about this family?
Posted by jorge whore-hey at 7:38 PM on July 30
What good is a political philosophy that calls for the gradual elimination of it’s own believers?
White liberals are on the road to extinction. They remind me of the Shakers, a Protestant denomination that believed in practicing celibacy. They TOO thought they could influence other people’s children - by adopting them. Where are all the Shakers now?
Let’s do a run down of a few core Liberal beliefs and see what they have in common:
Abortion (less children)
Homosexuality (less children)
Feminism / Women in the workplace (less children)
Interracial Marriage (less white children)
Any group which adopts this political philosophy is practicing racial suicide. What’s ironic is that white Liberals are willingly giving away our great civilization to…Blacks and Hispanics who have LOTS AND LOTS OF CHILDREN!!!!
In the end, Liberals are creating exactly what they fear most: A poor, violent, uneducated and overpopulated world.
Posted by at 7:58 PM on July 30
“Another lefty concurs: “I’d say that the author of a popular book has far more aggregate influence than do one set of parents. So if the book is very popular and captures the imaginations of kids, presto, you’ve done a lot to insure that the ideas that are important to you live long after you pass on.”
Like the death of our civilization?
Posted by at 8:14 PM on July 30
This is a surprise to me as I never knew men on the right were such a hit with the ladies.
Posted by at 8:23 PM on July 30
This is why the world is going mad. The people who have the most resources are not reproducing and the people who least ought to have children are having children. These liberals think having their own children is too expensive but they are willing to pay for a welfare system that lets people who should rightly die of malnutrition have more and more kids that the economy has no need for?
Posted by at 9:12 PM on July 30
Some of this data are deceptive, though. By now, a majority of births in AZ and TX are Hispanic, so it’s not all white right-wingers procreating.
Posted by Question Diversity at 9:16 PM on July 30
Doesn’t matter. Liberals control the media.
They will make sure to promote perverted propoganda that will ensure liberal domination in this country.
Posted by Warren at 9:21 PM on July 30
The sound of those particular liberal individuals will be the sound of tumbleweeds, when they die: “child-LESS”!
Posted by ActionPotential at 9:58 PM on July 30
My wife just had our 4th blue eyed baby. My oldest daughter (4 years old) and I have a little saying we recite together after prayers and just before I tuck her in: “Like blood, like age, like means, good marriage”.
Posted by Matthew Taylor at 11:27 PM on July 30
That must mean with all the abortion going on the Democratic party will die in a few years. Unless they change the requirment from voters age to voters IQ. Then that party would be dead next week.
Posted by at 11:33 PM on July 30
Wow, an honest article for once. Has to be an alternative media publication!
Posted by VigilantAmerican at 2:03 AM on July 31
The trend of lower birth rates in liberal areas has been going on for decades. Meanwhile today’s young adults, including most whites, are liberal Democrats. Sadly it seems young people turn out liberal no matter what background they come from.
Posted by Jay at 3:40 AM on July 31
80 percent of children adopt the political attitudes of their parents.
Translation: 80% of people never have an original thought in their entire lives.
Posted by A Brainwashed Canadian at 3:49 AM on July 31
Low birth rate in Maine…
A few years ago, when I was much more naive about life, I met a charming older man from Maine. Charming when drunk anyway, which was all the time. He was 33 years older than myself, but I was smitten and lonely. He was also childless, and that was something that he said he regretted.
Now me, being the silly 22 year old, thought “I love him, and I could give him children!” so after many false starts, I finally was able to spend a week with him. When I went back home I was incalcuably wiser about the manipulations of this man, and deeply frightened that I was pregnant.
After an agonizing two weeks, I was certain that I wasn’t. A year later I discovered that this man had a steady girlfriend much closer to his own age. She informed me that he was sterile from 40 years of alcoholism.
Maine: lovely state, lousy people.
Posted by Anglokraut at 5:28 AM on July 31
Not an alternative publication — a metropolitan newspaper with neocon/’right-liberal’ leanings. Pro-gay-marriage and mostly ‘pro-choice’, but opposed to the suppression of free speech by Canada’s ‘human rights commissions’.
Posted by at 7:03 AM on July 31
“Wow, an honest article for once. Has to be an alternative media publication!
Posted by VigilantAmerican at 2:03 AM on July 31”
Actually, the National Post is a nation-wide Canadian newspaper. It is more conservative than many other newspapers in Canada, and that’s why it reported this story.
Posted by at 10:23 AM on July 31
This is largely why they want to flood the country with foreign immigrants who hate America and will vote Democratic. If the 1965 Immigration Act had never been passed, the country would have steadily shifted in a rightward direction, due to conservative whites outbreeding leftist whites.
Posted by C.V at 10:48 AM on July 31
Very uplifting article this! The only caution I would govern is to be vigilant against media and commercial influence on our children, as they both have a built-in liberal bias due to the fact that their shared aim is to reach as broad a demographic as possible. Which, of course, could undo the good work that conservatives have done since the ’60s by outbreeding liberals.
Posted by James at 1:03 PM on July 31
Gotta give credit to Ann Coulter for pointing out in one of her columns that one of the liberal strategies is to promote illegal immigration in order to artificially boost the number of Democratic voters, since the left is not having as many children as the right. It’s very dirty politics on the part of the left, it’s very cynical, it’s very shameful, and I think if the general public wakes up to the left’s strategy there’s a chance for a very serious political backlash against the left. I think the American public has a sense of fairness and will be outraged at this sort of underhanded tinkering with the American political system. Of course, before the American public wakes up, the stupid party has to wake up first, and that hasn’t even happened yet.
Posted by Tim in Indiana at 2:00 PM on July 31
I never had children. Why should I? It’s clear to me that the US government and society in general have declared economic and political war on white males. Why should I bring another little taxpayer into the world to become involuntary fodder in a cultural war? When I know that I can bring a child into the world with a secure future, and not be hounded to death by illegal immigrants, then I’ll do so. Until then, I will be responsible for myself, my neighbors, and those who think and act like I do, and no one else.
Posted by at 3:28 PM on July 31
In his essay “The Return of Patriarchy”, Philip Longman already countered Darren Sherkat’s lib plan to “reproduce themselves in strangers:”
“One could argue that history, and particularly Western history, is full of revolts of children against parents. Couldn’t tomorrow’s Europeans, even if they are disproportionately raised in patriarchal, religiously minded households, turn out to be another generation of ‘68?
The key difference is that during the post-World War II era, nearly all segments of modern societies married and had children. Some had more than others, but the disparity in family size between the religious and the secular was not so large, and childlessness was rare. Today, by contrast, childlessness is common, and even couples who have children typically have just one. Tomorrow’s children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents’ values, as always happens. But when they look around for fellow secularists and counterculturalists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their wouldbe fellow travelers were quite literally never born.”
In other words, those “strangers” won’t be around to reproduce their twisted values either.
Posted by sestamibi at 4:46 PM on July 31
“To counterbalance this trend, he argues for increasing immigration and expanding the black population.”
Liberals are pretty close to being outnumbered by minorities now. I don’t believe minorities are inherently liberal by nature. They play along because it’s an alliance and opens doors into White society. Once they dominate the liberal agenda they’ll plot their own paths. I don’t see Mexicans caring about feminism, homosexuals or mating with blacks, do you?
“He also hopes that childless liberals will “be able to reproduce themselves in strangers,” by taking on jobs as teachers, writers and other people of influence. The idea is to let conservatives raise their children, while liberals influence them through the schools and universities.”
I certainly hope we have a plan in place for conservatives to take over the schools and universities by getting our own in positions of influence and cut them off at the pass.
Posted by at 6:14 PM on July 31
They don’t being called “child-less” because it implies they are missing out on something?
But they are missing out on something. Kids might be expensive, messy and noisy, but they’re also great fun.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 10:59 PM on July 31
To bad many of those liberals who are white are wasteing good genes. We need to stamp out the idea of liberalism, show it for what it really is. We do not need half our population dieing out because of following a mis-guided idea. We need to push the values of WN conservative ideolgy on any liberal we know.
It is our duty, “to open the minds of those white minds that are closed”. That means be more open about your views, stop hideing your views. Tell your family, friends and explain to them, they will except your views. Just make sure you are not overtly extream in your views. Tell them modestly about your views, so that they can understand with out being frightened.
Being silent of your views will not help spread our message. Useing the internet will only spread the message so far. Being open in public and liveing a WNs life(“a healthy WNs life”) will personally affect every person you touch. Being open means also attending WNs events, lobbyings, writeing, advertising our views. Be positive when showing your pride in who you are, also tell the truth. People need to know whats happening to the white race, we are in not many other words simply becomeing extinct. Reminds me of the Blue Lagoon we are all alone on a island, just the few proud, brave WNs who are actually open.
If you can not be open enough to being proud of who you are. Then how are we ever going advance to fight our enemies, if all we do is hide. Be proud your white, other races are proud their what ever color God made them. So why do we constantly fall in a heap of Political correctness, stress, cowardness, tiredness. Well the reason we have little hope for our race, is because we do nothing but hide. Openess is the best medicine to cure the infection takeing place among whites. Openess also makes our enemy harder to attack us. Because being honest and telling the truth non-violently and politely is attractive and resonable.
Remember if you are open, then you need to dress, talk and act in a resonable manner. We are not gangster or violent skinheads portrayed by the mainstream media. We are a united force of all types of white people working for the white race. That includes doctors, clarks, police, soldier, hunters, community activist, employers, employees, retired, students. People from every section of the white society.
From the lowest to the highest in wealth, (“we are family by blood”). All working for the same goals. Remember blood is thicker then water, and we, all of us whites are distant relatives. So next time you think about hurting another white, think agian because that is your brother or sister your really hurting.
Posted by Thoughts from another era at 11:53 PM on July 31
If parents have such a strong influence over their childrens’ politics, this perhaps explains why the left is so dead-set against homeschooling. A child being homeschooled is beyond the reach of Marxist indoctrination masquerading as “education”.
Posted by Michael C. Scott at 12:25 AM on August 1
The white liberal is so mentally perverted. Here in Britain they promote the “multicultural” society at the same time they promote homosexuality and feminism. Don’t they realise as the black and muslim populations in Britain grows rapidly they will be FIRST in the firing line of black and muslim hatred! And thank goodness for that!
Posted by Briton at 10:49 AM on August 1
“To counterbalance this trend, he argues for increasing immigration and expanding the black population. He also hopes that childless liberals will ‘be able to reproduce themselves in strangers,’ by taking on jobs as teachers, writers and other people of influence. The idea is to let conservatives raise their children, while liberals influence them through the schools and universities.”
So here we have one of the reasons that utterly worthless Reds like Comrade Professor Darren Sherkat, want to flood this country with Third World parasites; they want to “perpetuate” themselves through “the other.” Typical of the “bright liberal people” of this world, they are hateful and selfish to the bitter end. I don’t think they really care about their Marxist “ideas” at all being projected into the future, only ruining the country for the people who will populate it at that point in time, decent whites who are not deranged with the disease of Communism!
As always, God help us all!
Posted by John PM at 7:42 AM on August 2
“I never had children. Why should I? It’s clear to me that the US government and society in general have declared economic and political war on white males. Why should I bring another little taxpayer into the world to become involuntary fodder in a cultural war? When I know that I can bring a child into the world with a secure future, and not be hounded to death by illegal immigrants, then I’ll do so. Until then, I will be responsible for myself, my neighbors, and those who think and act like I do, and no one else.” — Posted by at 3:28 PM on July 31
That’s a ridiculously stupid copout of an excuse, sir/ma’am. You should bring children into the world so that you can raise new soldiers for the future generation’s fight against non-white immigration and every other problem that our heritage faces. You not having children only decreases the number of whites in all future generations. It does absolutely nothing for our society. Thanks for nothing. Just admit it, you don’t want to be bothered.
Posted by at 11:15 AM on August 6