What about bloody normal life in the West?

Posted by onetwothree on December 03, 2006, 12:08 PM | #

There’s probably at least some genetic basis to homosexuality. Having it “come out” is probably a step in the direction of wiping it out. As for Muslims, they have always been closet pederasts, and everyone knows it.

Posted by Englander on December 03, 2006, 01:19 PM | #

“There’s probably at least some genetic basis to homosexuality. Having it “come out” is probably a step in the direction of wiping it out.”

Interesting.  You mean that now homosexuals can be open about it they will not fall into sham marriages and breed.

Posted by Laban on December 03, 2006, 04:05 PM | #

Alex - that 16m population for Spain was based on a simplified scenario which assumed that all those Spaniards who would give birth had all their babies in one year - and it also ignored all the elderly Spaniards who’ll be around in 60 years. So it won’t be as precipitous as that.

It’s true though that at current trends the 40m population of Spain today will only have 16.9m grandchildren.

Posted by Alex Zeka on December 03, 2006, 04:53 PM | #

Ah, my mistake, Laban. Thanks for pointing that out.

onetwothree, Have they? And more crucially, are they now? Their fertility rates would suggest that relatively few are exclusively homosexual. Bisexuality is basically equivalent to heterosexuality for demographic purporses.

Posted by rustymason on December 04, 2006, 01:36 PM | #

Where is the money and leadership coming from here for this drive to homosexualize the middle east?

Posted by Alex Zeka on December 04, 2006, 02:41 PM | #

rusty,

The same place from whence the broader drive to ‘modernise’ - make socially and demographically unviable - the ME also comes. In other words, from the unholy, but G-d fearing, alliance of neo-non-cons and Euston Manifesto Global Social Democracy imperialist lefties. Given that Whitaker is on the Guardian’s staff, and given that neocons aren’t particularly homophiliac, I’d hazard a guess that it’s more the latter than the former.

Some of them are jews, if that’s what you’re getting at, but many are just deluded liberals. Of course, the homosexualisation of the ME is to our advantage - it’s just that it’s never going to happen. The Mussies can see what it’s done to us. Still, we can always dream.

Posted by Nio Zilda on December 04, 2006, 09:01 PM | #

Of course, the homosexualisation of the ME is to our advantage - it’s just that it’s never going to happen.

Pederasty has always been very common in the Muslim world, particularly in Iran and Afghanistan. Read Burton’s remarks on th et subject in the appendices to his translationof the Arabian Nights.

Posted by Alisdair Clarke on December 05, 2006, 07:34 AM | #

People who think that encouraging homosexuality will somehow inevitably lead to a decline in population are whistling in the wind.

The notion that male homosexuality is detrimental to a nation’s reproduction has always been unconvincing. A fertile woman produces one egg once a month, whereas men produce millions of sperm daily. Population is dependent on the number of fertile women who have the opportunity to conceive, not on what may or may not happen to men’s excess sperm.

By far the most important factor for reproduction rates is economics; whether a woman has adequate financial support during pregnancy and after. Rich industrialized countries such as Germany, France, Italy and Japan are beginning to understand this basic fact once again by increasing financial and other benefits for young mothers. The surest way to decrease population is by forcing unwilling women into the workplace just in order to survive, as happens in Britain.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 05, 2006, 09:35 AM | #

To Mr. Clarke, Bravo!  Bravo!  Bravo!  Governments can manipulate birth rates up or down at will, exactly as they manipulate interest rates and tons of other variables.  It’s child’s play.  If white birth rates have dwindled it’s because governments are forcing them down and do not wish to stop forcing them down.  Governments would rather fill their countries up with non-whites.  As to why they have that preference, we all at this site know the coalition of interested parties and their various reasons.

Posted by Alex Zeka on December 05, 2006, 11:27 AM | #

Well, the book is called Gay and #Lesbian#... Besides, are you sure you want a situation where each straight man finds himself having kids with multiple women? Quite apart from the moral objections to that, there is such a thing as sperm deterioration.

Overall, I tend to see pro-homosexuality as an indicator of generally anti-natalist beliefs. What’s the betting Whitaker’s next move will be to suggest that what the ME needs are abortion-on-demand and more work opportunities for women?

Posted by Alisdair Clarke on December 05, 2006, 05:02 PM | #

Hello Alex

Being a lesbian or bisexual doesn’t stop women having babies – lots do. I don’t know the statistics but I wouldn’t be surprised if lesbians have as many babies, per head, as married heterosexual women in the West.

So I disagree that homosexuality is necessarily an indicator of anti-natalist beliefs: at it’s best it can be an indicator of libido transferred to the tribe, nation or race, rather than the nuclear family.

I do agree with you that by far the most effective way of reducing any population (aside from explicit genocide or war) is by introducing abortion-on-demand and forcing potential mothers into the workplace.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 05, 2006, 10:03 PM | #

“Governments would rather fill their countries up with non-whites.  As to why they have that preference, we all at this site know the coalition of interested parties and their various reasons.”  (—from my comment, above)

One reason — one among a great many, as we all know — is to get rid of white proles.  Get rid of white proles?  Well ... maybe this’ll explain:  it’s a pure gold nugget I spotted lying on the ground in a comments thread over at Snouck’s which I bent over, picked up, and put in my pocket:

George Orwell understood the importance of the white “lower class”, when he had Winston Smith declare that “Our only hope is the Proles”. The white Lower Class, not the Chavs and such media creations but ordinary “uncultured” working people, are the one section of society not easily swept up by the fads of the cultural “elites”, such as “environmentalism”, “multi-culturalism” and even fear of being slandered a “racist” in itself.

It is therefore the repository of those basic Human values which the “intelligentsia” seek to sweep aside by imposing fashionable modes of thought.

Such basic Human values as that of a community to which outsiders are alien and in which they have no place. It is this section of society that is the only hope of those basic Human values surviving the corrosive influence of Bourgoise intellectualism.

“You call me racist…but do I look bovvered”. As a Prole myself, I totally endorse the “do I look Bovvered” “give me chips” and have a fag attitude of my peers.

No matter how they try to eradicate us, the gauleiters of The Independent and The Guardian” , the BBC and the Labour Party, we will forever re-emerge like the weeds that push their way up through the thickest concrete.

Posted by Tom Dixon on November 16, 2006 2:12 AM

Posted by Alex Zeka on December 06, 2006, 08:08 AM | #

Alisdair,

Homosexuality is one thing, homosexualism - homosexual interest group politics - is something else all together. What interests do homosexuals share? Short term ones, ones that do not extend past this generation. Now, once homosexuality becomes acceptable, we will have: a. leaders chasing the homosexual vote and b. openly homsexual leaders. Both will result in a politics made for the short term at the expence of the long. The quintessence of next-generation-ignoring politics has to be anti-natalism, followed closely by pro-debt economics.

(‘In the long run, we’re all dead’ - J.M. Keynes, sodomite, explaining why his economic models do not account for the effects of particular policies in the longer term).

Posted by Rnl on December 10, 2006, 02:53 AM | #

Nio Zilda wrote:

Pederasty has always been very common in the Muslim world, particularly in Iran and Afghanistan. Read Burton’s remarks on the subject in the appendices to his translation of the Arabian Nights.

The text is here:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/burton-te.html

The Chinese, as far as we know them in the great cities, are omnivorous and omnifutuentes: they are the chosen people of debauchery and their systematic bestiality with ducks, goats, and other animals is equalled only by their pederasty.

The quote has nothing to do with Muslims, but I think it’s funny, though I wonder whether Burton is correct. You probably don’t need Latin to guess what the verb _futuere_ means. 

Wikipedia has a substantial article devoted to Muslim pederasty. I can almost guarantee that it, together with Burton’s essay, will tell you more about the subject than you’ll ever want to know.

The seeming co-relation of pederasty with the rise of Islam has been commented on by modern historians, who see a link between the love of boys and the protective attitude of Islam towards women, leading to their removal from public life, together with the tendency of Sharia law to accommodate within the domain of “private behavior” inevitable activities, as long as they do not interfere with public order. The topos of “ishq” - passion - which could have as object a beautiful beardless boy as easily as a woman, is prominent in literature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_the_Islamic_world

This helps explain the presence in Islam’s paradise of “young [servant] boys ... as fair as virgin pearls” (Koran 52.54); “they [i.e. omnifutuentes Muslims with a taste for pederasty] shall be attended by boys graced with eternal youth, who to the beholder’s eyes will seem like sprinkled pearls” (76.19).