Why Muslims are better than us

Andrew Atkin's picture
Submitted by Andrew Atkin on Mon, 2017-01-02 00:46

Muslims are superior. A natural scientist would be forced to agree. Because they breed faster - and better. They breed more, and with healthier (younger) bodies. And that is the bottom line for true success, because successful fertility is the ultimate expression of the realist form of success.

And because of their superior culture, of which facilitates abundant fertility, they will slowly but surely claim their natural right to dominate this earth. The right of might - the right of a superior survival strategy.

Compare them to the Christian (historically Christian, at least) nations of the Western world. We are pathetic. For all our wealth we have chosen to do what no other species on the earth is designed to do in a state of prosperity. We have chosen not to breed like stink and go forth and multiply. Instead we have chosen to reinvent our culture so as to achieve the opposite.

Our fertility rates are now so low that we are generally dipping below replacement levels. In countries like Germany and Japan, our fertility rates are as low as 1.2 to 1.4 children per woman. We need 2.1 just to stop from going backwards.

So how's that for an inferior culture? Quite literally a slow-burning intergenerational voluntary genocide. And we look down on the Muslims for the way they live their lives. Tisk!

But here is where the more serious conversation begins. WHY? Why isn't the Western world breeding?

Love or hate the good or bad old days, from around the 1960's and earlier, we could see a society engineered to back fertility. That seems to have changed.

Critics say reduced fertility is a natural reaction to wealth. No, it can't be that simple.

Yes, wealth does give some control and choice over fertility, but it doesn't explain the desire to have less children than even replacement levels, as a rich man's common choice. There are other dynamics suppressing fertility at play in Western industrialised nations, which are at least as powerful as access to contraception and wealth-driven choice.

Among the most powerful anti-fertility movements seem to be the promotion of feminism (ie. stop making babies, girls, and make it in a man's world instead), and the massive expansion of the welfare state (meaning, taking care of grandma and grandpa who just won't die, instead of taking care of a 3+ children family). And also the incredible investment in institutional schooling that overrides a big chunk of the fertile years, which also undermines productivity as most of our so-called education is a worthless joke in real productive terms (and that includes highschool). Oh, and did I mention that we have now apparently forgotten how to build houses affordably? Let's kill the family nest while we're at it.

But also, I must add, in the spots where the Western world does seem to remain quite fertile, it might be described as dysgenic. Through welfare we let *anyone* in any state of body, mind, and life situation, recklessly breed as much as they want, and where they can't succeed in caring for their children the state will pick up the slack, no questions asked. Hmmm...wouldn't it be better if your taxes went into bringing up your own children?

And here we can see why Western culture is useless. So much of what has happened with our recent hippie public policy revolutions, would not have happened if Western society were standing on a more solid foundation. I believe that historically we lived by the right ideas in many ways, but we never (as a mass society) properly understood those old ideas. Most people who believe in capitalism for example don't really understand it, so they can't defend it when their children are told by dingbat schoolteachers that it's evil. Alas, we always were the sheeple, and now our current fertility failure, based on so much manipulation from the past, has proven the fact of it.

So the Muslims are a biologically superior people. With powerful pro-fertility traditions still intact, backed by powerful religious convictions and the terror of hell, they are set to slowly but surely breed the rest of the dizzy West out of existence, and claim their rightful place as the dominant human breed of the world.

Allahu Akbar!

-------------------------------------------------------------

Addition: Narrated version:

https://youtu.be/avZYOT-mP7c


Islamofilth urges other Islamofilth to breed like rabbits

Lindsay Perigo's picture

http://pamelageller.com/2017/0...

My header is unfair. At least rabbits are cute.

Stats

Richard Wiig's picture

Handed to them on a plate.

Richard Wiig's picture

Handed to them on a plate.

Muslim Voters Flock to Polls in Netherlands

Luke Setzer's picture

Geert Wilders defeated:

http://www.usatoday.com/videos...

Such a clever colonization strategy!

BTW

Lindsay Perigo's picture

For those tempted to be seduced by that glib, clever triple-agent Zuhdi Jasser, so-called "moderate Muslim," go here:

http://pamelageller.com/2017/0...

Hawhay Ramos ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... is despicable. I did say in my open letter to Yawon that from his gated community he, Yawon, couldn't care less about whether the machete beheadings were committed by Muslims or Mexicans. I do not say Muslims are the only threat; they're the main threat. Bad hombres from Central and South America—Third World hell-holes, as Coulter would say—are threats too. A point of departure between me and Doug is that I embrace anyone who shares my values regardless of skin colour (and I believe, unlike Doug, that it's possible for non-whites to share my values, while accepting that most non-whites are hostile to them right now—but that's culture, not biology). Another point of departure is that I believe Israel to be a bastion of Western Civilisation in a region of sub-human savages, and this "Zionist" conspiracy stuff is evil in its Islamappeasement, not to mention its militant stupidity.

Re Steve King

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Steve King Tweeted this:

"Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies."

That's a thinly veiled race realist sentiment. "Someone else's babies" implies someone else's non-white babies. King is going beyond just the religion of Islam.

How many Objectivists are willing to go that far?

Its not just Muslims

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Hispanics combined with white Leftists (largely organize by a Jewish elite) are pushing for the end of whites in North America. Listen to Jorge Ramos. Also, I like how Tucker Carlson lets Leftists reveal their open hostility in their own words.

This is a war of racial dispossession being waged by the Left. Muslims are just one piece of the puzzle. In North America they are not the major piece. But as I've been saying, the Left is using the Muslims in a race war against white conservatives and traditional white America (and Europe). The religion while important is secondary.

Race is what matters first for the Left. They want the browning of the Euro-American world. A genocide of sorts.

Steve King for Vice President!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Here he is interviewed by Tucker as opposed to CNN excrement:

His is the point ARISIS evades: Western Civilisation is superior, and allowing Islamotrash to over-run and breed like rabbits (he doesn't say that exactly) in Western countries will lead to WC's destruction. Arrayed against Western Civilisation are the constituents of The Filth: Media, Hollywood, Dem-Scum, Muslims, moronnials, academia, Social Justice Warriors, pomowankers, rappers, Ugly Wimmin, et al. ARISIS has joined them.

Always nice to feel I'm not a

Andrew Atkin's picture

Always nice to feel I'm not a lone voice...

Rep Steve King On 'Babies' Tweet: 'I Meant Exactly What I Said'.

-But Steve King, like every other politician, still doesn't respect the dynamic of child abuse. You will find kids that are truly taken care of well will 'understand' the rightness of libertarianism as automatically as you or I, and regardless of their parents prehistoric belief systems.

https://youtu.be/82v8lPhgrp4

We need king Andrew! Smiling

https://youtu.be/e_6PcPnixRk

Well if you're right Lindsay

Andrew Atkin's picture

Well if you're right Lindsay (probably...alas) then they have no right to hold their heads high.

Any individual who wants to make serious assertions on public policy propositions, cannot claim just authority to do as such if they are not first prepared to be realistic *and* relevant. We can't just pretend that major variables in the formula don't exist when they do - everything is connected.

If the NZI are controlled by political correctness then they are, fundamentally, no better than the people who promote all those silly policies they don't like. But I don't want to offend the NZI. I say this to make a point of principle Smiling

New Zealand Initiative ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... are steeped in Political Correctness. No way would they ever touch a subject like this. They were panicked when I made my comments about Islam at Auckland Uni. They're not part of the solution—they are part of the problem.

Bandler

Andrew Atkin's picture

Yes, that's true enough. The thing that pisses me off is the deafening silence on the fertility issue which is, rationally, the most important issue of our time (if you include child abuse in the topic as well). We're all supposed to just have a ho-hum attitude towards collapsing fertility rates, and for Whites in particular. And we are not supposed to care if Islam takes over the world - or think about the consequences of it. Like I said in my article - we are pathetic!

...Why isn't the New Zealand Initiative talking about this, for example? Is it just because it's not the thing for mainstream intellectuals to do?

Curiously, I think the way we're going to go in Europe (that glorious mess) is a surveillance society. People will start demanding it. I wrote on this if there's interest:

http://andrewatkin.blogspot.co...

Btw, good to see you back online. I found a lot of your past posts quite interesting.

-----------------------------------------

Shane: No kids for me I'm afraid. Two choices in life - you can either have a kid or be a kid. I took the latter, lol.

Anyway, I think child-rearing has been engineered to be terribly cumbersome and overly expensive, and I don't think it needs to be that way at all. I've got some old thoughts on that, fyi:

http://andrewatkin.blogspot.co...

Maybe we need to build new townships that are "fertility machines"...and deregulate child-rearing. Let the little buggers run free a bit. Totally good for them Smiling

Last of 6

Shane Pleasance's picture

I was the last of 6 children - my father reported the RAF squadron leader used to ask him: "Pleasance, what is the second thing you do when you get home?" My father would reply: "take my rucksack off, sir."

My wife and I decided on 2 children. This was a deliberate choice, weighing up all sorts of practical variables, as well as being somewhat 'K selected'.

It HAS been tough. Now almost off our hands, it feels like I am emerging from a windowless room, to some extent.

How many children have my fellow SOLO'ers had?

Re Population

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

I've read similar theories regarding population control. But the thing is that its the European fertility rates which are really depressed. At this rate whites are doomed. Europe is going to be Middle Eastern and North America will be a Mestizo hybrid. And then what of the fate of liberty?

Operation population control?

Andrew Atkin's picture

Here is one conspiracy idea that I have long pondered: Operation population control?

Go back to the 1950's and thoughtful people must have freaked. After seeing infant mortality go down, material prosperity go up, and in turn the population boom, they should have contemplated a Malthusian nightmare on their hands that could not be passively stopped. (We had a culture back then that largely believed it was their moral duty to have as many children as possible).

So how do you control for the threat of overpopulation in those conditions; that is, thinking in context of the 1950's. People wouldn't vote for China-style population caps back then or even now, so you would have to undermine fertility, if at all possible, with indirect methods.

I have loosely speculated that that's what has been going on (and successfully) for the last 40 to 50 years or so.

If it's been happening deliberately, then our politicians would be the last to know about it. They are only agents of public opinion - they don't drive it (or hardly so). Those who can and do influence public opinion are the ones who are really in charge.

With that insight, here's a curious listen linked below: 'New order of the barbarians'. The video suggests that what I suggested is exactly what has been going on. It describes a report on an old lecture that was supposedly given to a group of medical doctors from an insider of the manipulation.

I have no idea how real this is (some of it sounds a bit radical) but the ideas and assertions here are interesting nonetheless.

Note, the report and discussion is long, and I have linked the video at the part that first introduces the report.

https://youtu.be/Gjc4ywQVHEQ?t...

Kyrel

Andrew Atkin's picture

It's only a problem if we don't compete with them Smiling

...Here's an idea. 'Granny magnets' can also be retrofitted into 'fertility machines'.

https://youtu.be/Y9D-mRQRf9Y

Infestation

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Muslims breed like cockroaches. This is a problem.

Kyrel

Andrew Atkin's picture

Yes - as far as dominance goes, technology is a massive wild card factor. But if Islam can avoid a "premature" blood war, they will continue to win the biological war.

Western Population Crash

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

The lack of breeding in the West indicates a fundamental disease and failure. Still, with current and rising high-tech, quality of weapons can still beat quantity. It might soon be the case that the tiny nation of Israel -- with their superior brains, education, and work ethic -- will be capable of conquering the whole planet.

Kyrel

Andrew Atkin's picture

Yes - raising kids *should* be cheap and easy, and we've done a great job of making it otherwise. A lot of it is not letting kids be independent, and making them spend forever in school.

This article of mine might be of interest:

http://andrewatkin.blogspot.co...

And this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

...if the video works?

The Inexplicable Western Population Decline

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

I think the West stopped breeding because it was relentlessly propagandized over the past 40 years that raising kids was hugely expensive, a massive pain in the ass, and very poorly rewarded emotionally and spiritually. None of that actually seems to be true. By objective and rational standards, raising kids is cheap and easy. Especially today with all our wealth and high-tech. Unfortunately, the welfare state has changed things radically regarding the cost of housing, day care, medical care, and college, etc. All of it is beyond absurd.

Luke

Andrew Atkin's picture

Negative statistics on people who have kids in their later years, too. Not the extremes I'm talking about though Smiling

Stop Fat People from Reproducing!

Luke Setzer's picture

Obese parents could be negatively affecting their child's development suggests new research:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/obe...

VSD

Andrew Atkin's picture

Well, you can certainly make serious progress. Many societies (or subsets of greater societies) are strikingly more humane, or less humane, than others. So again, we will always have problem people, may be, but we can certainly reduce them - probably drastically.

Luke

Andrew Atkin's picture

There is a grey zone until you're dealing with sharky-eyed people who have grown up in seriously abusive environments, and have criminal records, etc. You would need to hold it to these extremes--obvious extremes--for a start. Some things could and should qualify sterilisation outright, such as an existing history of abusing children and other violence, and chronic drug addiction and blatant mental disturbance, etc.

But ultimately, yes, you must draw a subjective line with what we qualify as "fit to breed"...no one is without damage, to some degree.

Extremes only grow on Basics

VSD's picture

the over-valuation of proliferation as such makes these extremes possible ... fewer kids of better quality would take care of most idiots who would have no 'welfare-incentives' to produce kids they cannot raise to such a high degree - that would actually be hard work instead of a cushy welfare-life ... however the truly sick you never get rid of, not even by killing each and every one on sight - they just keep popping up all over again in the next generation - another strike against our wonderful species ; )
imagine transhuman babies no longer being dependent on a kind or sick parent, hermaphrodites no longer needing partners (of equally positive or negative personality), tech-humans not needing to feed and breed bodies at all to sustain their intellect, their personality, their individualism - would stop those bastards right in their tracks : )
of course that does not solve your current problem of saving those poor kids being born to such bastards today - nor will harsher laws or better education solve that problem in the long run - at best ameliorate it a little bit for a short while ...
VSD

Objective Psychology?

Luke Setzer's picture

As Linz has noted elsewhere on SOLO, we have plenty of reason to cast a fishy eye at the soft science of psychology. Much of it amounts to voodoo. I quickly read through Andrew's article and the comments. I am unsure what sorts of tests, if any, can safely cull pathological types from the herd, especially at the cusp of puberty when they become fertile. It sounds too much like reading tea leaves.

VSD

Andrew Atkin's picture

I'm talking about stopping kids from being born to parents who use their children as sex toys and punching bags.

This is not a 'human evolution' thing. It's about stopping people who are blatantly emotionally disturbed (and there are thousands upon thousands of them in NZ alone) from having kids.

It's about getting to the extremes.

Double Edged Sword

VSD's picture

if you want to be 'nice' about it call it 'parental licensing' - repeated violation of parental licensing could lead to forced contraception or in severe cases even forced sterilization.
Just one rub: you issues those licenses?
If it's the state we'd have been screwed 27 years ago when lesbians automatically had their children taken away by child services. And that was not the only reason why our extended family would have had it's parental licensing revoked, so we just kept the kids out of the 'state property registration process' ; )
But back to basics: we're still trying to fix a false issue. If humans (as a species as well as an individual) are incapable to handle their proliferation on their own, then making laws to enforce it will sure as hell fail. Only way out of that basic flaw is for humanity to evolve beyond the breeder state ... Btw.: is proliferation not (one of) the core reason for our welfare states all over the world? Everything for the kids, to ensure human survival? Can't have one without the other : P
VSD

Luke and Lindsay

Andrew Atkin's picture

Here is my old thinking on the subject.

http://andrewatkin.blogspot.co...

It's similar to David Marsland's thinking:

Btw, I think "fertility licenses" sounds better than "breeding licenses". And "forced contraception" sounds better than "forced sterilisation".

Luke

Lindsay Perigo's picture

So would I! Smiling

Sterilize Everyone at Birth?

Luke Setzer's picture

I would be very curious to know concretely how to implement a state "license to breed" that does not become a solution worse than the alleged problem.

Hahahaha!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

A good laugh, Andrew, with a serious underlying point.

Here's the way I'd put it. Muslims underscore the salutariness of my counter-question to Utopic OrthOists: "Where's the animality in man?" Muslims have it in over-abundance, and OrhtOists are blind because they think everything that looks like a human is rational and has inalienable rights to do as it pleases. Muslims are as cunning as rats—and they are breeding like rabbits, while the only breeding we do is by subsidised career-fornicators with nothing between their ears except their ankles. They don't want children (hence the abuse) but breed them as meal-tickets.

License to breed and license to vote. Not One Muslim immigrant. Nothing uncivilised or unlibertarian about any of that. Quite the contrary.

VSD

Andrew Atkin's picture

The point in my article was simple. It's really a dig at western low fertility policy, and not a serious agreement with Islamic culture, of course.

I do agree with quality over quantity. I would be more than happy to see the human population implode as people invest in bringing up 1 or 2 children well, rather than 3 or 4 badly. But that's another story because we struggle to do even the 1 or 2 well due to so much common ignorance and bad public policy. From a "clean" reduced foundation, we could happily expand our population from there.

Also, I don't think we're overpopulated. I think we are maybe under-organized in some areas. Also technology can (and has) redefined what overpopulation is.

Regardless, I have no problem with direct caps on fertility (like China - but not that extreme!) when and as required, to control population. Much better than indirect controls such as financially starving people out of the option.

Overpopulation, masculinism, state-property ...

VSD's picture

... just to name a few ...
- 7.3 Billion is way too much - and no scary resource debate either, just too many ugly mugs around I can't get away from ... Solaria rulez! (Isaac Asimov's 50th Spacer World - seriously misunderstood)
- why don't men emancipate themselves and have the babies if you're so keen on proliferation - ingenious man has the tech now to do it ; )
- seriously?!? the way our current state welfare and education are set up I hid my kids from the state and sent them to private school - no questions asked, no property signed over (except some very large school-bills each of which was worth every penny)
... on a more serious note ...
Transhumanism: isn't it time that homo sapiens sapiens evolved out of his 'breeder-state'? sure, in the 'dark ages' it was of great benefit to have the muscle and have the numbers to swing the clubs, but look what evolution did to all those species that did not outgrow 'mass' (size and number) - they're extinct!
quality before quantity ... so screw proliferation : P
VSD
PS: isn't that what our scared politicians all over the world (U.S. of A....... right in front with E....... U.... right behind) are doing right now? going back to the good old times where they (thought they) knew the answers (or simply relied on evolution to do the thinking) instead of moving forward to an uncertain but (hopefully) better new future?
territorialism (close the borders - there's a draft and baby get's a cold), scare-mongering (war with / on terror - not just outside the borders but inside, too), cave-living (who got the biggest club - and hey: we go back to good old steel and coal to build better clubs - which of course we only swing in our own caves from now on) ... don't you have anything better to offer than those stale old wafers (christian or otherwise)?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.