« NO TALK. NO WALK | Main | BETRAYING OUR MILITARY... »

May 02, 2006

Comments

Henry94

Some soberingobservations from Mark Steyn today

Richard

Setting aside the issue of the comparison with birth rates in Muslim communities for a moment, I think this is a really sad tale.

It is depressing to think how people's values have changed in the last 40 years that has led us to where we are now, where people are so in love with their possessions and their materialistic way of life that they would forgo parenthood in case it might impinge on them in any way.

A lot of young people just want their nice house, their two holidays a year, their designer clothes, an expensive car. Children are an irritatiion to these people, something that will suck up the money that they should spend on enjoying themselves.

Eric E. Strada

Damn right, children are a waste of time and money, only impinge on your quality of life.

I could quite happily go through life without having any children, what you never have you never miss, except of course a BMW and a house in the sun.

Besides there are plenty of teenage mothers in council estates across the country only too willing to propagate instead of people like me, all thanks to generous social welfare payments.

See with left wing governments everyone is a winner.

Let the good times roll!!

daytripper

ahhh so david is this a sign of you beginning to work out why we need increased immigration?

you guys are slow but you get there in the end.

Tom Tyler

It's not immigration itself that people like myself have a problem with, daytripper, but lack of integration, ie multiculturalism, which is not the same thing as multi-ethnicity.
I couldn't give a monkeys about the colour of people's skin, or their accent. But what is not acceptable is to have whole communities of people forming their own ghettos, unwilling to follow the British way of life/learn to speak English, and then demanding that laws should be changed to suit their culture. That is not on. We can do well without that sort of immigration.

daytripper

do you have foriegn neighbours?

Tom Tyler

Er, no.
Actually I have no neighbours. They all moved away when I hoisted my giant Swastika flag on the roof, and started goose-stepping round the garden while barking out lines from Mein Kampf. And I only used the more moderate lines, too. I dunno, some people, huh?

Ogra

Tyler, thats typical BNP puke, check your facts, Its all lies. Give me any evidence, that any of what you said is true?

The BNP are evil scum who should be locked up for good, it makes me sick even reading it. I think of the 8 million jews who died at the hands of the BNP version in Germany under Hitler. The BNP are Nazis, no ifs or buts. They will lie to get what they want, and that is what they are doing. Fu;k culture, Fu;k nationalism, its all BS, these immigrants are people, the same as you and i, but the nazi bastards try to divide us into 'culture' and 'nationalities' and they say two 'cultures' cant live side by side. Bollox, The BNP are a cancer, a disease,a scum, which must and i mean MUST be destroyed. Think of Hitler, we cant leave it happen again

Tom Tyler

Calm down, Ogra. My last comment was an attempt at humour. I don't really have a swastika on my roof, nor would I ever want one.

There's really no point in citing any evidence , as you'll just see it as you want to see it.

I do think about Hitler and how he exterminated 6 million Jews, and I totally agree, it must never be allowed to happen again. Which is why Iran must be stopped now, by force if necessary.

Monica-Philadelphia

Tom Tyler - that was damn funny!

The message seems to have held, the idea taken root. According to what I was brought up with (outside my home) if you were home with children it meant that you were oppressed in some way. Then we tried to have it all - superwoman they called it. High powered career AND motherhood. That didn't work very well but by God we had to try it. More recently it's been that men are not needed and some of the more extreme feminazis are claiming that any sex with a man is rape. They say women can be both mother AND father. Better yet, two mothers or two fathers.

They say you HAVE to have 2 incomes in order to survive with children. Sure you do - if you want a McMansion, 2 SUV's and your Disney vaca every year. In debt up to your eyeballs but yee-haw we got a ride-on lawnmower. It will only take 10 years at minimum payments.

These statistics you quote don't surprise me but it is sad. Raising up children isn't deemed valuable or important.

Colm

Strangely it has always been the case that the wealthier people are or get generally the fewer children they have. People don't want to lose their material status , but if they don't have much they are happy to have children.

ernest young

Colm,

That's one way of looking at it, how about another; The wealthy are perhaps a little more circumspect about their circumstance, and choose to have only the number of children that they can afford to clothe and educate.

The poor(?), perhaps, do not have the education or discipline to control their libido, especially when the cost of raising them is born by the community at large. Not to mention that touchy subject of religion, - remind me, which one is it that decries taking 'precautions' of any kind, and where the large family is considered a duty? Whose mantra is 'Go forth and multiply'?

Perhaps the answer is less simple than one of material greed, as you so gleefully imply...

Colm

ernest

Well if the wealthy only chose to have the number of children they could afford, their would be many millionaire families with larger than average numbers of children. As for the poor, I would agree that there is an element of indiscipline in controlling their libido, but in the past when there was very little Welfare many poor families still had large amounts of children. I didn't mention the word greed , so stating that I was 'gleefully implying' it is just your opinion, and isn't based on anything I feel. I made an observation not a negative judgment on the wealthy.

Religion isn't a touchy subject with me, I know exactly the RC church position on contraception which I think is nonsense, why do you ask me to remind you ? Of course, Implying oce again an opinion of me that is false, that I might be 'embarrassed' at my church's stance.

ernest young

Colm,

in the past when there was very little Welfare many poor families still had large amounts of children

Different times - different circumstances. In those days there was neither television or con traception, plus the deathrate at childbirth was far higher than now. Families stayed together for a lifetime, and helped and supported each other, both young and old. The able bo

ernest young

Colm,

in the past when there was very little Welfare many poor families still had large amounts of children

Different times - different circumstances, - different needs. In those days there was neither television or contraception, plus the deathrate at childbirth was far higher than now. Families of several generations stayed together for a lifetime, and helped and supported each other, both young and old. The able bodied wage earners were the fiscal providers, the elders were the support team. Hence the larger families were - usually - better provided for, maybe not always fiscally, but certainly support wise.

The Welfare State has dispensed with that way of life, and one could argue that it was a better way than we have now.

Socialism, as a philosophy, hates the family group, and sees it as a competitor for the loyalty of the individual.

Another thought - if we didn't have all those high earners and achievers, just who would pay all those taxes, to provide for all those unmarried mothers, and their offspring?

Colm

ernest

Once again I am not opposed to people being high earners and achievers or the fact that many amongst them choose not to have children or many children. I agree with you entirely about the Welfare state. Nothing is served either for individuals or the country when able bodied people are permitted to live on social security. However it is a fact that in First world western countries indigenous birthrates are plumetting and that will have consequences for the health and progress of society. If mass immigration is not the answer what is?

Colm

ernest

Once again I am not opposed to people being high earners and achievers or the fact that many amongst them choose not to have children or many children. I agree with you entirely about the Welfare state. Nothing is served either for individuals or the country when able bodied people are permitted to live on social security. However it is a fact that in First world western countries indigenous birthrates are plumetting and that will have consequences for the health and progress of society. If mass immigration is not the answer what is?

Adrian

Colm,
Immigration should be accompanied by acculturation so that it's a truly European society that survives and transmits its cultural heritage to the next generation.

I would hate it for people who are culturally European to end up a minority on their own continent - but that's what they've done to others in the past. May be they should encourage immigration from Latin America where the population pressure is strong and the culture is not wholly un-European.

Colm

Adrian

I agree , in that I don't have a problem with immigration when it is from incomers who will work for their living, have respect for the law, and understand that even if they wish to continue their original cultural habits and traditions they do not seek to alter the public sphere in the UK to accomodate that.

Alison

LOL Tom very very funny.

Why do we need immigrants to do jobs those on welfare wont do? Because we wont tell them to go and do them by cutting down on welfare or is there another reason? Why cant immigration be controlled to serve a purpose for us FIRST? And why cant we simply ensure immigration is done with the support of the communities most affected by astute policy making? Whats wrong with people embracing the nation that gives them an opportunity? I know so many that have why do the rest get away with murder? Why do people think the BNPs ideology is evil and that stopping it will mean people stop feeling put upon? Surely the BNP only survive precisely because they have an audience? If thats the case whose fault is that? *sigh*

Alison

Oh yeah and why does noone lump RESPECT into the same bracket as the BNP.

The comments to this entry are closed.