Comment3-

I understood AC perfectly. When he used the term African breeders he was following the typical racist playbook of dehumanizing the particular race he has an issue with. He was also propagating the threat of 'them out breeding us in our own country', straight out of the same playbook.

Answer3- I'm not sure why AC used the term "African Breeders" maybe you should ask him about it rather than labelling him "Racist". I suspect that he is referring to those that have children but don't teach them virtue. They breed and leave their children to go wild. Yes the "playbook"- someone should tell me about this playbook I'm always looking for challenging reading material. Are you referring to "Mein Kampf"? (Ad Hitlerum)- I haven't read it- are you saying you have??- there is a book on Propaganda by Edward Bernays (I believe an American Small L Republican in the 1920s) that might contain the techniques to discredit and demonize competitors.

Comment4-

Now you might want to bring up a troubled childhood, or bad parenting, or poor schooling, or even blame mass media for AC writing what he did, I really don't care. It might explain it but it can never excuse it. There is a pretty sure fire way of not being intimidated by the word racist, don't use openly racist terms.

Bottom line mate you have an opinion just like the rest of us but credibility is a whole other issue. Wag a finger at AC and you might be able to scrape a little back. Until then you should park the holier than thou rubbish, it is most unbecoming.

Answer4- AC doesn't appear to want to be excused. He searches his heart to make a point and all you have to say is "Racist"- contemptuous. SteeleRedux said "don't use openly racist terms"- well... there are serious issues with immigration- to the left Communists discussion of these issues is "Racist"- the self serving Communists- sounds like something from "the playbook".

A bad dog is always unbecoming.

SteeleRedux- Thanks for your feedback.

Posted by Armchair Critic, Saturday, 12 January 2019 10:47:41 AM

'Remarkable' decline in fertility rates
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-46118103

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

Answer- Armchair Critic- Thanks for the interesting articles

It's interesting that Dr Leeson and Prof Murray appear to have different views on the decline in fertility rates and what it means for the community.

I believe that man adapts to the density of the environment- through psychology- the problem is perhaps that capitalism doesn't adapt to population density as "liberal free markets" seem to require growth. Perhaps in the future there will be a return to private ownership- perhaps it's already happening in the form of share "buy backs".

I was surprised that India indicated a births per female rate of about 2.5 in 2016- this is down from the recent 4 value- but it is coming from a very high base of about 1.3 Billion people- of course some suspect that many in India are not included in Census data.
It would be interesting to compare India's "population density" to other countries.

In 2003 half of Indias population was under the age of 15- it will be interesting to see how this will affect the average children per female and Indias population as these 2003 babies reach adulthood.

This is an article saying that demographics for a state were significantly inflated.
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/04/06/nagaland-s-demographic-somersault-how-reliable-are-india-s-official-statistics/

It appears from the links that African countries have the fastest breeding rates in the world.

* I believe that the world would be better with less people- but there will be some "challenges and benefits" with the transition to smaller populations.

indy there is a hole in your bucket old mate
In fact Hanson has no bucket, any one elected to her team ,leaves her for another
Her voice is electing morons for other teams
Her six year term will keep her in the chook house this time
But nation wide only in the deep north can her vote play any roll these days

//The difference is communists in the current era probably wouldn't be denied employment unlike being labelled racist.//

Really? You think that somebody calling AC racist on a sparsely populated backwater of the internet like OLO is going to affect his prospects of employment? O.... kay.

And whaddya know, two posts later and he's back at it again:

//there are serious issues with immigration- to the left Communists discussion of these issues is "Racist"//

Of courser, he knows full well that not everybody who dislikes racism is communist, or even necessarily on the left. And we know he knows that, and he knows that we know he knows that. He just likes to use these highly charged and loaded terms to demonise people who don't share his particular interpretation of 'conservatism', whilst at the same time handing down sermons from his moral high ground on the wickedness of doing what he does.

Apparently we're supposed to find this line of argument convincing or something. ¯\_(°_o)_/¯

It's a good thing that most of us have the sense to realise that arguing on the internet is just a bit of fun and of no real consequence or importance.

//At least with Conservatism there given that the systems in question have worked before and people are familiar with the system suggests that they are not as arbitrary or absolute//

I'll agree that in a non-totalitarian country like Australia, the things tories hold dear are not absolute, but the same is true of the left. But a lot of them are still entirely arbitrary.

//SteeleRedux said "don't use openly racist terms"- well... there are serious issues with immigration//

Which can be discussed quite easily without being racist. If Bob Carr can do it, what's stopping anybody else? It's not hard: you just treat it as a numbers game; a qualitative rather than quantitative problem. So rather than 'there's too many black people' try 'the immigration intake is too high by x number of people and should be reduced by y%'.

I fail to see any difference anymore between the do-gooders & the racists.

Dear CM,

You write;

“you are in fact the one that is reluctant to discuss the issues” and “He searches his heart to make a point and all you have to say is "Racist"- contemptuous.”

Contemptuous? I will tell you who is being contemptuous here you pompous prig.

The proof is in the pudding. I have been the only poster here who took the time to address every single question AC put in his original post. You on the other hand swan on in with what you think are offhanded pithy one liners then take the topic on tangents which have little to do with the concerns raised by AC.

So you sir are the one who illustrated your contemptuousness of AC in spades.

Now you are writing reams on a single solitary point, my use of the word racist. You are the one who is dwelling on this, out of the many areas I addressed in my original reply to AC. This is your fixation, not mine, nor it seems AC's.

Well we have a fair idea why, it is because you too would like to use racist terms with gay abandon without getting called out on them. You are likely sick of having to temper your language to stay within the bounds of common decency, of social norms. You want to see those norms shifted so 'we can all discuss the issue without intimidation'. What a crock.

Well that isn't going to happen when I am around young whippersnapper.

And yes I have read and retain a copy of Mein Kampf. I advise you to read it as well. Contained within is a story of a young man who had no quarrel with Jews of Vienna, who enjoyed their company, and who found Antisemitism thoroughly distasteful being turned by a Christian mayor into a raging Jew hater. It was one of the most destructive radicalisations in modern history and deeply illustrative of how racist language not challenged can infect an entire country and lead to the slaughter of millions.

Why do you find yourself defending that language?