U.S. Right-Wing Extremists Are a Bigger Threat to America Than ISIS

[chatnoir]

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-militants-bigger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html

excerpt:


They and untold thousands like them are the extremists who hide among us, the right-wing militants who, since 2002, have killed more people in the United States than jihadis have. In that time, according to New America, a Washington think tank, Islamists launched nine attacks that murdered 45, while the right-wing extremists struck 18 times, leaving 48 dead. These Americans thrive on hate and conspiracy theories, many fed to them by politicians and commentators who blithely blather about government concentration camps and impending martial law and plans to seize guns and other dystopian gibberish, apparently unaware there are people listening who don't know it's all lies. These extremists turn to violence--against minorities, non-Christians, abortion providers, government officials--in what they believe is a fight to save America. And that potential for violence is escalating every day.

"Law enforcement agencies in the United States consider anti-government violent extremists, not radicalized Muslims, to be the most severe threat of political violence that they face," the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security reported this past June, based on surveys of 382 law enforcement groups.

The problem is getting worse, although few outside of law enforcement know it. Multiple confidential sources notified the FBI last year that militia members have been conducting surveillance on Muslim schools, community centers and mosques in nine states for what one informant described as "operational purposes." Informants also notified federal law enforcement that Mississippi militia extremists discussed kidnapping and beheading a Muslim, then posting a video of the decapitation on the Internet. The FBI also learned that right-wing extremists have created bogus law enforcement and diplomatic identifications, not because these radicals want to pretend to be police and ambassadors, but because they believe they hold those positions in a government they have created within the United States.

[Werner]

As government decrees increase so will resistance to them. This is human nature.

[John Q. Public]

Post by Werner
As government decrees increase so will resistance to them. This is human nature.

Yeah, I'm sure all those federal workers are getting their pitchforks
and torches out because Obama raised the federal minimum wage. Do you
even think before you post, dip shit? Name me ONE DECREE that is bad for
the country. You fucking CAN'T.

[mg]

On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 17:01:41 -0800 (PST), chatnoir

Post by chatnoir
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-militants-bigger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html
They and untold thousands like them are the extremists who hide among us, the right-wing militants who, since 2002, have killed more people in the United States than jihadis have. In that time, according to New America, a Washington think tank, Islamists launched nine attacks that murdered 45, while the right-wing extremists struck 18 times, leaving 48 dead. These Americans thrive on hate and conspiracy theories, many fed to them by politicians and commentators who blithely blather about government concentration camps and impending martial law and plans to seize guns and other dystopian gibberish, apparently unaware there are people listening who don't know it's all lies. These extremists turn to violence--against minorities, non-Christians, abortion providers, government officials--in what they believe is a fight to save America. And that potential for violence is escalating every day.
"Law enforcement agencies in the United States consider anti-government violent extremists, not radicalized Muslims, to be the most severe threat of political violence that they face," the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security reported this past June, based on surveys of 382 law enforcement groups.
The problem is getting worse, although few outside of law enforcement know it. Multiple confidential sources notified the FBI last year that militia members have been conducting surveillance on Muslim schools, community centers and mosques in nine states for what one informant described as "operational purposes." Informants also notified federal law enforcement that Mississippi militia extremists discussed kidnapping and beheading a Muslim, then posting a video of the decapitation on the Internet. The FBI also learned that right-wing extremists have created bogus law enforcement and diplomatic identifications, not because these radicals want to pretend to be police and ambassadors, but because they believe they hold those positions in a government they have created within the United States.

Terrorism isn't a threat to America. It is our emotional reaction to
it that is a threat to America. And it's the politicians that we
elect to protect us, who make themselves and their cronies rich,
while at the same time taking away our freedoms and bankrupting the
country who are a threat to America.

[El Castor]

Post by mg
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 17:01:41 -0800 (PST), chatnoir

Post by chatnoir
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-militants-bigger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html
They and untold thousands like them are the extremists who hide among us, the right-wing militants who, since 2002, have killed more people in the United States than jihadis have. In that time, according to New America, a Washington think tank, Islamists launched nine attacks that murdered 45, while the right-wing extremists struck 18 times, leaving 48 dead. These Americans thrive on hate and conspiracy theories, many fed to them by politicians and commentators who blithely blather about government concentration camps and impending martial law and plans to seize guns and other dystopian gibberish, apparently unaware there are people listening who don't know it's all lies. These extremists turn to violence--against minorities, non-Christians, abortion providers, government officials--in what they believe is a fight to save America. And that potential for violence is escalating every day.
"Law enforcement agencies in the United States consider anti-government violent extremists, not radicalized Muslims, to be the most severe threat of political violence that they face," the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security reported this past June, based on surveys of 382 law enforcement groups.
The problem is getting worse, although few outside of law enforcement know it. Multiple confidential sources notified the FBI last year that militia members have been conducting surveillance on Muslim schools, community centers and mosques in nine states for what one informant described as "operational purposes." Informants also notified federal law enforcement that Mississippi militia extremists discussed kidnapping and beheading a Muslim, then posting a video of the decapitation on the Internet. The FBI also learned that right-wing extremists have created bogus law enforcement and diplomatic identifications, not because these radicals want to pretend to be police and ambassadors, but because they believe they hold those positions in a government they have created within the United States.

Terrorism isn't a threat to America. It is our emotional reaction to
it that is a threat to America. And it's the politicians that we
elect to protect us, who make themselves and their cronies rich,
while at the same time taking away our freedoms and bankrupting the
country who are a threat to America.

Sorry, but I believe Islam presents a long term existential threat to
western civilization, and that includes us. The threat may not
currently be bombs and bullets, but the most fundamental threats to
civilization seldom are. Islam got it's start among Arabs, but today
80% of the World's Muslim population is not Arab.

Here's an interesting map of the world. Mohammad would be delighted.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Muslim_Percent_Population.svg

[mg]

On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 23:41:26 -0800, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 17:01:41 -0800 (PST), chatnoir

Post by chatnoir
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-militants-bigger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html
They and untold thousands like them are the extremists who hide among us, the right-wing militants who, since 2002, have killed more people in the United States than jihadis have. In that time, according to New America, a Washington think tank, Islamists launched nine attacks that murdered 45, while the right-wing extremists struck 18 times, leaving 48 dead. These Americans thrive on hate and conspiracy theories, many fed to them by politicians and commentators who blithely blather about government concentration camps and impending martial law and plans to seize guns and other dystopian gibberish, apparently unaware there are people listening who don't know it's all lies. These extremists turn to violence--against minorities, non-Christians, abortion providers, government officials--in what they believe is a fight to save America. And that potential for violence is escalating every day.
"Law enforcement agencies in the United States consider anti-government violent extremists, not radicalized Muslims, to be the most severe threat of political violence that they face," the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security reported this past June, based on surveys of 382 law enforcement groups.
The problem is getting worse, although few outside of law enforcement know it. Multiple confidential sources notified the FBI last year that militia members have been conducting surveillance on Muslim schools, community centers and mosques in nine states for what one informant described as "operational purposes." Informants also notified federal law enforcement that Mississippi militia extremists discussed kidnapping and beheading a Muslim, then posting a video of the decapitation on the Internet. The FBI also learned that right-wing extremists have created bogus law enforcement and diplomatic identifications, not because these radicals want to pretend to be police and ambassadors, but because they believe they hold those positions in a government they have created within the United States.

Terrorism isn't a threat to America. It is our emotional reaction to
it that is a threat to America. And it's the politicians that we
elect to protect us, who make themselves and their cronies rich,
while at the same time taking away our freedoms and bankrupting the
country who are a threat to America.

Sorry, but I believe Islam presents a long term existential threat to
western civilization, and that includes us. The threat may not
currently be bombs and bullets, but the most fundamental threats to
civilization seldom are. Islam got it's start among Arabs, but today
80% of the World's Muslim population is not Arab.
Here's an interesting map of the world. Mohammad would be delighted.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Muslim_Percent_Population.svg

I would agree that, just on general principles, anytime there are
large blocks of civilization with different cultures, values, and
religion, etc., there is a potential threat, especially when there
is so much bad history between them. How do you see that potential
threat materializing into reality, though and what do you think we
can do to avoid it?

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Fri, 05 Feb 2016 02:07:25 -0700, mg <***@none.nl> wrote:
<snip>

Post by mg
I would agree that, just on general principles, anytime there are
large blocks of civilization with different cultures, values, and
religion, etc., there is a potential threat, especially when there
is so much bad history between them. How do you see that potential
threat materializing into reality, though and what do you think we
can do to avoid it?

I despair that we'll ever be able to avoid it. Even if there's
no reason for trouble between peoples, they'll make something
up, such as "religion". Socrates was sentenced to death for
impiety and for corrupting the youth of Athens, but those are
two sides of the same coin, since his "corrupting" was in
getting the young men to think, and therefore to question the
established religion that those in power felt was necessary
for an orderly and manageable society.

[GLOBALIST]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
I would agree that, just on general principles, anytime there are
large blocks of civilization with different cultures, values, and
religion, etc., there is a potential threat, especially when there
is so much bad history between them. How do you see that potential
threat materializing into reality, though and what do you think we
can do to avoid it?

I despair that we'll ever be able to avoid it. Even if there's
no reason for trouble between peoples, they'll make something
up, such as "religion". Socrates was sentenced to death for
impiety and for corrupting the youth of Athens, but those are
two sides of the same coin, since his "corrupting" was in
getting the young men to think, and therefore to question the
established religion that those in power felt was necessary
for an orderly and manageable society.

I love how you atheists cling to history to
express your own personal hatred of religion.
I am thinking Socrates death still haunts
you late at night.

[GLOBALIST]

Post by GLOBALIST

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
I would agree that, just on general principles, anytime there are
large blocks of civilization with different cultures, values, and
religion, etc., there is a potential threat, especially when there
is so much bad history between them. How do you see that potential
threat materializing into reality, though and what do you think we
can do to avoid it?

I despair that we'll ever be able to avoid it. Even if there's
no reason for trouble between peoples, they'll make something
up, such as "religion". Socrates was sentenced to death for
impiety and for corrupting the youth of Athens, but those are
two sides of the same coin, since his "corrupting" was in
getting the young men to think, and therefore to question the
established religion that those in power felt was necessary
for an orderly and manageable society.

I love how you atheists cling to history to
express your own personal hatred of religion.
I am thinking Socrates death still haunts
you late at night.

http://www.thesumma.info/st_thomas_aquinas.php
St Thomas Aquinas, "the" greatest philosopher
of the Middle Ages, whose works are still being
taught, used the Socratic method of teaching
in his Summa Theologica
He also used the thinking processes of Plato
and Aristotle to teach theology.

[Lawrence Akutagawa]

Post by GLOBALIST

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
I would agree that, just on general principles, anytime there are
large blocks of civilization with different cultures, values, and
religion, etc., there is a potential threat, especially when there
is so much bad history between them. How do you see that potential
threat materializing into reality, though and what do you think we
can do to avoid it?

I despair that we'll ever be able to avoid it. Even if there's
no reason for trouble between peoples, they'll make something
up, such as "religion". Socrates was sentenced to death for
impiety and for corrupting the youth of Athens, but those are
two sides of the same coin, since his "corrupting" was in
getting the young men to think, and therefore to question the
established religion that those in power felt was necessary
for an orderly and manageable society.

I love how you atheists cling to history to
express your own personal hatred of religion.
I am thinking Socrates death still haunts
you late at night.

http://www.thesumma.info/st_thomas_aquinas.php
St Thomas Aquinas, "the" greatest philosopher
of the Middle Ages, whose works are still being
taught, used the Socratic method of teaching
in his Summa Theologica
He also used the thinking processes of Plato
and Aristotle to teach theology.

****** This line separates my response from the foregoing ******

"Have you guys noticed the psychotic obsession
a couple of posters have in responding to their
own posts if they can't get you to bite
at their gems.

"There is obviously a loose screw with
both of them. Annoying gnats or fruit flies."

- from the very mouth of the Village Idiot himself
(12/3/2015)

[mg]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
I would agree that, just on general principles, anytime there are
large blocks of civilization with different cultures, values, and
religion, etc., there is a potential threat, especially when there
is so much bad history between them. How do you see that potential
threat materializing into reality, though and what do you think we
can do to avoid it?

I despair that we'll ever be able to avoid it. Even if there's
no reason for trouble between peoples, they'll make something
up, such as "religion". Socrates was sentenced to death for
impiety and for corrupting the youth of Athens, but those are
two sides of the same coin, since his "corrupting" was in
getting the young men to think, and therefore to question the
established religion that those in power felt was necessary
for an orderly and manageable society.

I don't disagree at all that there is always the potential for
mutual destruction as a result of conflicts between Muslims and
Christians, or as a result of conflicts between communists and
capitalists, for instance.

However, with the situation the world is in right now, in the Middle
East, I believe that I could make a convincing case, to an objective
listener, that the problem isn't due to a Christian/Muslim conflict,
but is primarily the result of U.S. government corruption and the
violation of domestic and international laws by our politicians with
all of that being facilitated and exacerbated by extremist ideology,
xenophobia, jingoism, and chauvinism, etc., and political illiteracy
and ignorance, on the part of the American people.

[islander]

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
I would agree that, just on general principles, anytime there are
large blocks of civilization with different cultures, values, and
religion, etc., there is a potential threat, especially when there
is so much bad history between them. How do you see that potential
threat materializing into reality, though and what do you think we
can do to avoid it?

I despair that we'll ever be able to avoid it. Even if there's
no reason for trouble between peoples, they'll make something
up, such as "religion". Socrates was sentenced to death for
impiety and for corrupting the youth of Athens, but those are
two sides of the same coin, since his "corrupting" was in
getting the young men to think, and therefore to question the
established religion that those in power felt was necessary
for an orderly and manageable society.

I don't disagree at all that there is always the potential for
mutual destruction as a result of conflicts between Muslims and
Christians, or as a result of conflicts between communists and
capitalists, for instance.
However, with the situation the world is in right now, in the Middle
East, I believe that I could make a convincing case, to an objective
listener, that the problem isn't due to a Christian/Muslim conflict,
but is primarily the result of U.S. government corruption and the
violation of domestic and international laws by our politicians with
all of that being facilitated and exacerbated by extremist ideology,
xenophobia, jingoism, and chauvinism, etc., and political illiteracy
and ignorance, on the part of the American people.

In the news this morning, Saudi Arabia has agreed to provide combat
troops to fight ISIL in Syria. This belies the belief that religion
dominates policy among the countries in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia
is predominantly Sunni as are the ISIL rebels.

This could turn out to be interesting!

[mg]

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
I would agree that, just on general principles, anytime there are
large blocks of civilization with different cultures, values, and
religion, etc., there is a potential threat, especially when there
is so much bad history between them. How do you see that potential
threat materializing into reality, though and what do you think we
can do to avoid it?

I despair that we'll ever be able to avoid it. Even if there's
no reason for trouble between peoples, they'll make something
up, such as "religion". Socrates was sentenced to death for
impiety and for corrupting the youth of Athens, but those are
two sides of the same coin, since his "corrupting" was in
getting the young men to think, and therefore to question the
established religion that those in power felt was necessary
for an orderly and manageable society.

I don't disagree at all that there is always the potential for
mutual destruction as a result of conflicts between Muslims and
Christians, or as a result of conflicts between communists and
capitalists, for instance.
However, with the situation the world is in right now, in the Middle
East, I believe that I could make a convincing case, to an objective
listener, that the problem isn't due to a Christian/Muslim conflict,
but is primarily the result of U.S. government corruption and the
violation of domestic and international laws by our politicians with
all of that being facilitated and exacerbated by extremist ideology,
xenophobia, jingoism, and chauvinism, etc., and political illiteracy
and ignorance, on the part of the American people.

In the news this morning, Saudi Arabia has agreed to provide combat
troops to fight ISIL in Syria. This belies the belief that religion
dominates policy among the countries in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia
is predominantly Sunni as are the ISIL rebels.
This could turn out to be interesting!

I think Saudi Arabia worries more about Iran and the Shia than they
do ISIS. I doubt if we'll ever see very many, if any, Saudi ground
troops fighting ISIS in Syria. I'm still wondering about those 28
classified pages in the 9/11 report, incidentally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/us/claims-against-saudis-cast-new-light-on-secret-pages-of-9-11-report.html?_r=0

[islander]

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
I would agree that, just on general principles, anytime there are
large blocks of civilization with different cultures, values, and
religion, etc., there is a potential threat, especially when there
is so much bad history between them. How do you see that potential
threat materializing into reality, though and what do you think we
can do to avoid it?

I despair that we'll ever be able to avoid it. Even if there's
no reason for trouble between peoples, they'll make something
up, such as "religion". Socrates was sentenced to death for
impiety and for corrupting the youth of Athens, but those are
two sides of the same coin, since his "corrupting" was in
getting the young men to think, and therefore to question the
established religion that those in power felt was necessary
for an orderly and manageable society.

I don't disagree at all that there is always the potential for
mutual destruction as a result of conflicts between Muslims and
Christians, or as a result of conflicts between communists and
capitalists, for instance.
However, with the situation the world is in right now, in the Middle
East, I believe that I could make a convincing case, to an objective
listener, that the problem isn't due to a Christian/Muslim conflict,
but is primarily the result of U.S. government corruption and the
violation of domestic and international laws by our politicians with
all of that being facilitated and exacerbated by extremist ideology,
xenophobia, jingoism, and chauvinism, etc., and political illiteracy
and ignorance, on the part of the American people.

In the news this morning, Saudi Arabia has agreed to provide combat
troops to fight ISIL in Syria. This belies the belief that religion
dominates policy among the countries in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia
is predominantly Sunni as are the ISIL rebels.
This could turn out to be interesting!

I think Saudi Arabia worries more about Iran and the Shia than they
do ISIS. I doubt if we'll ever see very many, if any, Saudi ground
troops fighting ISIS in Syria. I'm still wondering about those 28
classified pages in the 9/11 report, incidentally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/us/claims-against-saudis-cast-new-light-on-secret-pages-of-9-11-report.html?_r=0

I don't know how much control the leadership in Saudi Arabia has over
the wealthy patrons of religious causes in that country. It is pretty
widely reported that Wahhabism (the fundamentalist extreme of Sunni
Islam) is primarily funded by oil wealth coming out of Saudi Arabia.
This branch of Sunni Islam has aggressively supported the building of
schools that teach the faith around the world starting in the '70s.

So, I don't find it very improbable that some of that money went to
support Sunni extremists including Bin Laden. If, as some claim,
Wahhabism is also behind ISIL, then a move by Saudi Arabia to actually
put ground troops in Syria to fight ISIL is a significant change in
policy. Since we are no longer critically dependent on Saudi Arabia for
oil, I wonder what diplomatic pressure the US put on them to bring about
this change. It would be nice to think that the Saudis realized that
things have gotten out of control in their Wahhabi minority, but that
might be hoping for too much.

Yes, it would be nice to see the classified 28 pages, but it seems to
only be Democrats who are pushing for this. Why are the Republicans
opposing the release, do you suppose?

[mg]

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
I would agree that, just on general principles, anytime there are
large blocks of civilization with different cultures, values, and
religion, etc., there is a potential threat, especially when there
is so much bad history between them. How do you see that potential
threat materializing into reality, though and what do you think we
can do to avoid it?

I despair that we'll ever be able to avoid it. Even if there's
no reason for trouble between peoples, they'll make something
up, such as "religion". Socrates was sentenced to death for
impiety and for corrupting the youth of Athens, but those are
two sides of the same coin, since his "corrupting" was in
getting the young men to think, and therefore to question the
established religion that those in power felt was necessary
for an orderly and manageable society.

I don't disagree at all that there is always the potential for
mutual destruction as a result of conflicts between Muslims and
Christians, or as a result of conflicts between communists and
capitalists, for instance.
However, with the situation the world is in right now, in the Middle
East, I believe that I could make a convincing case, to an objective
listener, that the problem isn't due to a Christian/Muslim conflict,
but is primarily the result of U.S. government corruption and the
violation of domestic and international laws by our politicians with
all of that being facilitated and exacerbated by extremist ideology,
xenophobia, jingoism, and chauvinism, etc., and political illiteracy
and ignorance, on the part of the American people.

In the news this morning, Saudi Arabia has agreed to provide combat
troops to fight ISIL in Syria. This belies the belief that religion
dominates policy among the countries in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia
is predominantly Sunni as are the ISIL rebels.
This could turn out to be interesting!

I think Saudi Arabia worries more about Iran and the Shia than they
do ISIS. I doubt if we'll ever see very many, if any, Saudi ground
troops fighting ISIS in Syria. I'm still wondering about those 28
classified pages in the 9/11 report, incidentally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/us/claims-against-saudis-cast-new-light-on-secret-pages-of-9-11-report.html?_r=0

I don't know how much control the leadership in Saudi Arabia has over
the wealthy patrons of religious causes in that country. It is pretty
widely reported that Wahhabism (the fundamentalist extreme of Sunni
Islam) is primarily funded by oil wealth coming out of Saudi Arabia.
This branch of Sunni Islam has aggressively supported the building of
schools that teach the faith around the world starting in the '70s.
So, I don't find it very improbable that some of that money went to
support Sunni extremists including Bin Laden. If, as some claim,
Wahhabism is also behind ISIL, then a move by Saudi Arabia to actually
put ground troops in Syria to fight ISIL is a significant change in
policy. Since we are no longer critically dependent on Saudi Arabia for
oil, I wonder what diplomatic pressure the US put on them to bring about
this change. It would be nice to think that the Saudis realized that
things have gotten out of control in their Wahhabi minority, but that
might be hoping for too much.
Yes, it would be nice to see the classified 28 pages, but it seems to
only be Democrats who are pushing for this. Why are the Republicans
opposing the release, do you suppose?

When one looks at all the various countries in the world with an eye
towards understanding human nature, civilization, religion, and
culture, etc., I think Saudi Arabia might be one of the most
fascinating ones on the planet. One point of interest is the wisdom
they have displayed with their political/diplomatic relations with
the U.S. Actually, I can't help but admire them for their
intelligence and creativity in dealing with the U.S.

During the year-long Bush propaganda campaign for war against Iraq,
for instance, I used to remark occasionally, on this newsgroup, that
Saddam needed to hire a good PR firm in the United States. That's
what Kuwait did and they created the phony "incubator" story and
they lavishly awarded oil contracts to American firms after Desert
Storm. That's also what Saudi Arabia does, but apparently they bribe
American politicians continual and all the time, and I suppose they
do it as part of their national defense policy. And, of course, I
doubt if they just bribe Republicans. I think they bribe Democrats,
too.

[islander]

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
I would agree that, just on general principles, anytime there are
large blocks of civilization with different cultures, values, and
religion, etc., there is a potential threat, especially when there
is so much bad history between them. How do you see that potential
threat materializing into reality, though and what do you think we
can do to avoid it?

I despair that we'll ever be able to avoid it. Even if there's
no reason for trouble between peoples, they'll make something
up, such as "religion". Socrates was sentenced to death for
impiety and for corrupting the youth of Athens, but those are
two sides of the same coin, since his "corrupting" was in
getting the young men to think, and therefore to question the
established religion that those in power felt was necessary
for an orderly and manageable society.

I don't disagree at all that there is always the potential for
mutual destruction as a result of conflicts between Muslims and
Christians, or as a result of conflicts between communists and
capitalists, for instance.
However, with the situation the world is in right now, in the Middle
East, I believe that I could make a convincing case, to an objective
listener, that the problem isn't due to a Christian/Muslim conflict,
but is primarily the result of U.S. government corruption and the
violation of domestic and international laws by our politicians with
all of that being facilitated and exacerbated by extremist ideology,
xenophobia, jingoism, and chauvinism, etc., and political illiteracy
and ignorance, on the part of the American people.

In the news this morning, Saudi Arabia has agreed to provide combat
troops to fight ISIL in Syria. This belies the belief that religion
dominates policy among the countries in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia
is predominantly Sunni as are the ISIL rebels.
This could turn out to be interesting!

I think Saudi Arabia worries more about Iran and the Shia than they
do ISIS. I doubt if we'll ever see very many, if any, Saudi ground
troops fighting ISIS in Syria. I'm still wondering about those 28
classified pages in the 9/11 report, incidentally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/us/claims-against-saudis-cast-new-light-on-secret-pages-of-9-11-report.html?_r=0

I don't know how much control the leadership in Saudi Arabia has over
the wealthy patrons of religious causes in that country. It is pretty
widely reported that Wahhabism (the fundamentalist extreme of Sunni
Islam) is primarily funded by oil wealth coming out of Saudi Arabia.
This branch of Sunni Islam has aggressively supported the building of
schools that teach the faith around the world starting in the '70s.
So, I don't find it very improbable that some of that money went to
support Sunni extremists including Bin Laden. If, as some claim,
Wahhabism is also behind ISIL, then a move by Saudi Arabia to actually
put ground troops in Syria to fight ISIL is a significant change in
policy. Since we are no longer critically dependent on Saudi Arabia for
oil, I wonder what diplomatic pressure the US put on them to bring about
this change. It would be nice to think that the Saudis realized that
things have gotten out of control in their Wahhabi minority, but that
might be hoping for too much.
Yes, it would be nice to see the classified 28 pages, but it seems to
only be Democrats who are pushing for this. Why are the Republicans
opposing the release, do you suppose?

When one looks at all the various countries in the world with an eye
towards understanding human nature, civilization, religion, and
culture, etc., I think Saudi Arabia might be one of the most
fascinating ones on the planet. One point of interest is the wisdom
they have displayed with their political/diplomatic relations with
the U.S. Actually, I can't help but admire them for their
intelligence and creativity in dealing with the U.S.
During the year-long Bush propaganda campaign for war against Iraq,
for instance, I used to remark occasionally, on this newsgroup, that
Saddam needed to hire a good PR firm in the United States. That's
what Kuwait did and they created the phony "incubator" story and
they lavishly awarded oil contracts to American firms after Desert
Storm. That's also what Saudi Arabia does, but apparently they bribe
American politicians continual and all the time, and I suppose they
do it as part of their national defense policy. And, of course, I
doubt if they just bribe Republicans. I think they bribe Democrats,
too.

Some background on the Saudi lobby from the Bush administration:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2007/04/17/vast-power-saudi-lobby

[mg]

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by islander

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>

Post by mg
I would agree that, just on general principles, anytime there are
large blocks of civilization with different cultures, values, and
religion, etc., there is a potential threat, especially when there
is so much bad history between them. How do you see that potential
threat materializing into reality, though and what do you think we
can do to avoid it?

I despair that we'll ever be able to avoid it. Even if there's
no reason for trouble between peoples, they'll make something
up, such as "religion". Socrates was sentenced to death for
impiety and for corrupting the youth of Athens, but those are
two sides of the same coin, since his "corrupting" was in
getting the young men to think, and therefore to question the
established religion that those in power felt was necessary
for an orderly and manageable society.

I don't disagree at all that there is always the potential for
mutual destruction as a result of conflicts between Muslims and
Christians, or as a result of conflicts between communists and
capitalists, for instance.
However, with the situation the world is in right now, in the Middle
East, I believe that I could make a convincing case, to an objective
listener, that the problem isn't due to a Christian/Muslim conflict,
but is primarily the result of U.S. government corruption and the
violation of domestic and international laws by our politicians with
all of that being facilitated and exacerbated by extremist ideology,
xenophobia, jingoism, and chauvinism, etc., and political illiteracy
and ignorance, on the part of the American people.

In the news this morning, Saudi Arabia has agreed to provide combat
troops to fight ISIL in Syria. This belies the belief that religion
dominates policy among the countries in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia
is predominantly Sunni as are the ISIL rebels.
This could turn out to be interesting!

I think Saudi Arabia worries more about Iran and the Shia than they
do ISIS. I doubt if we'll ever see very many, if any, Saudi ground
troops fighting ISIS in Syria. I'm still wondering about those 28
classified pages in the 9/11 report, incidentally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/us/claims-against-saudis-cast-new-light-on-secret-pages-of-9-11-report.html?_r=0

I don't know how much control the leadership in Saudi Arabia has over
the wealthy patrons of religious causes in that country. It is pretty
widely reported that Wahhabism (the fundamentalist extreme of Sunni
Islam) is primarily funded by oil wealth coming out of Saudi Arabia.
This branch of Sunni Islam has aggressively supported the building of
schools that teach the faith around the world starting in the '70s.
So, I don't find it very improbable that some of that money went to
support Sunni extremists including Bin Laden. If, as some claim,
Wahhabism is also behind ISIL, then a move by Saudi Arabia to actually
put ground troops in Syria to fight ISIL is a significant change in
policy. Since we are no longer critically dependent on Saudi Arabia for
oil, I wonder what diplomatic pressure the US put on them to bring about
this change. It would be nice to think that the Saudis realized that
things have gotten out of control in their Wahhabi minority, but that
might be hoping for too much.
Yes, it would be nice to see the classified 28 pages, but it seems to
only be Democrats who are pushing for this. Why are the Republicans
opposing the release, do you suppose?

When one looks at all the various countries in the world with an eye
towards understanding human nature, civilization, religion, and
culture, etc., I think Saudi Arabia might be one of the most
fascinating ones on the planet. One point of interest is the wisdom
they have displayed with their political/diplomatic relations with
the U.S. Actually, I can't help but admire them for their
intelligence and creativity in dealing with the U.S.
During the year-long Bush propaganda campaign for war against Iraq,
for instance, I used to remark occasionally, on this newsgroup, that
Saddam needed to hire a good PR firm in the United States. That's
what Kuwait did and they created the phony "incubator" story and
they lavishly awarded oil contracts to American firms after Desert
Storm. That's also what Saudi Arabia does, but apparently they bribe
American politicians continual and all the time, and I suppose they
do it as part of their national defense policy. And, of course, I
doubt if they just bribe Republicans. I think they bribe Democrats,
too.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2007/04/17/vast-power-saudi-lobby

Here's an amusing chart. Imagine yourself having to trace all these
lines and then have a good laugh.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/07/us/politics/foreign-government-contributions-to-nine-think-tanks.html?_r=0

[El Castor]

Post by mg
On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 23:41:26 -0800, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 17:01:41 -0800 (PST), chatnoir

Post by chatnoir
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-militants-bigger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html
They and untold thousands like them are the extremists who hide among us, the right-wing militants who, since 2002, have killed more people in the United States than jihadis have. In that time, according to New America, a Washington think tank, Islamists launched nine attacks that murdered 45, while the right-wing extremists struck 18 times, leaving 48 dead. These Americans thrive on hate and conspiracy theories, many fed to them by politicians and commentators who blithely blather about government concentration camps and impending martial law and plans to seize guns and other dystopian gibberish, apparently unaware there are people listening who don't know it's all lies. These extremists turn to violence--against minorities, non-Christians, abortion providers, government officials--in what they believe is a fight to save America. And that potential for violence is escalating every day.
"Law enforcement agencies in the United States consider anti-government violent extremists, not radicalized Muslims, to be the most severe threat of political violence that they face," the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security reported this past June, based on surveys of 382 law enforcement groups.
The problem is getting worse, although few outside of law enforcement know it. Multiple confidential sources notified the FBI last year that militia members have been conducting surveillance on Muslim schools, community centers and mosques in nine states for what one informant described as "operational purposes." Informants also notified federal law enforcement that Mississippi militia extremists discussed kidnapping and beheading a Muslim, then posting a video of the decapitation on the Internet. The FBI also learned that right-wing extremists have created bogus law enforcement and diplomatic identifications, not because these radicals want to pretend to be police and ambassadors, but because they believe they hold those positions in a government they have created within the United States.

Terrorism isn't a threat to America. It is our emotional reaction to
it that is a threat to America. And it's the politicians that we
elect to protect us, who make themselves and their cronies rich,
while at the same time taking away our freedoms and bankrupting the
country who are a threat to America.

Sorry, but I believe Islam presents a long term existential threat to
western civilization, and that includes us. The threat may not
currently be bombs and bullets, but the most fundamental threats to
civilization seldom are. Islam got it's start among Arabs, but today
80% of the World's Muslim population is not Arab.
Here's an interesting map of the world. Mohammad would be delighted.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Muslim_Percent_Population.svg

I would agree that, just on general principles, anytime there are
large blocks of civilization with different cultures, values, and
religion, etc., there is a potential threat, especially when there
is so much bad history between them. How do you see that potential
threat materializing into reality, though and what do you think we
can do to avoid it?

Europe is in a much worse situation than we are. First world (dare I
say Caucasian) populations have fertility rates that are
sub-replacement. This is largely a result of the modern welfare state
which has replaced reliance on children with old age pension systems.
Europe is surrounded by the Muslims of North Africa and the Middle
East. These Muslim populations have fertility rates double and triple
that of Western Europe, and they are flooding in, and have been for
years. That is the way Islam spreads. Not only is a human tide of
Muslim immigration moving into Europe, but those immigrants are
younger than the existing population and churning out babies. For
reasons beyond my understanding, Muslims have been welcomed by
European multiculturalists. Bat Ye'or, a Swiss Jew, has been writing
about this phenomenon for 30 years. Look her up on Amazon.

The Western Hemisphere is somewhat isolated from this, so it's easy to
laugh this off, but we have our roots in Europe, and the warped
psychology that welcomed Islam to Europe is doing the same here. The
canary in the coal mine is dying while we worry about getting the
latest 4K TV.

[islander]

Post by El Castor
Europe is in a much worse situation than we are. First world (dare I
say Caucasian) populations have fertility rates that are
sub-replacement. This is largely a result of the modern welfare state
which has replaced reliance on children with old age pension systems.
Europe is surrounded by the Muslims of North Africa and the Middle
East. These Muslim populations have fertility rates double and triple
that of Western Europe, and they are flooding in, and have been for
years. That is the way Islam spreads. Not only is a human tide of
Muslim immigration moving into Europe, but those immigrants are
younger than the existing population and churning out babies. For
reasons beyond my understanding, Muslims have been welcomed by
European multiculturalists. Bat Ye'or, a Swiss Jew, has been writing
about this phenomenon for 30 years. Look her up on Amazon.
The Western Hemisphere is somewhat isolated from this, so it's easy to
laugh this off, but we have our roots in Europe, and the warped
psychology that welcomed Islam to Europe is doing the same here. The
canary in the coal mine is dying while we worry about getting the
latest 4K TV.

That is so much bullshit! The reason that fertility rates are declining
is due to nothing more than empowering women with the control of their
own bodies. It is due to the pill and little more.

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor
Europe is in a much worse situation than we are. First world (dare I
say Caucasian) populations have fertility rates that are
sub-replacement. This is largely a result of the modern welfare state
which has replaced reliance on children with old age pension systems.
Europe is surrounded by the Muslims of North Africa and the Middle
East. These Muslim populations have fertility rates double and triple
that of Western Europe, and they are flooding in, and have been for
years. That is the way Islam spreads. Not only is a human tide of
Muslim immigration moving into Europe, but those immigrants are
younger than the existing population and churning out babies. For
reasons beyond my understanding, Muslims have been welcomed by
European multiculturalists. Bat Ye'or, a Swiss Jew, has been writing
about this phenomenon for 30 years. Look her up on Amazon.
The Western Hemisphere is somewhat isolated from this, so it's easy to
laugh this off, but we have our roots in Europe, and the warped
psychology that welcomed Islam to Europe is doing the same here. The
canary in the coal mine is dying while we worry about getting the
latest 4K TV.

That is so much bullshit! The reason that fertility rates are declining
is due to nothing more than empowering women with the control of their
own bodies. It is due to the pill and little more.

You really need to do a little research before you reach into your
bullshit bag. In a largely agrarian society, children are important to
help with work on the farm and take over when the parents are too old
for manual labor. In early 19th century America most jobs were farm
labor, now it's more like 2%. I agree that birth control means that
people can more readily choose to have smaller families, but they
always had the means of implementing that choice, and pension systems
make the choice much easier -- encouraging small families, or no
children at all.

"The impact of pension systems on fertility rate: a lesson for
developing countries"
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=pension+systems+and+fertility+rates

"Why high pensions mean low birth rates"
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_high_pensions_mean_low_birth_rates/1493

"The introduction of Bismarck’s pension scheme and
the European fertility decline"
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1734.pdf?86b61b96a321c59408f046846e202b70

"Fertility rate and child care policies in a pension system"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0313592614000083

"Social security schemes around the developed world are facing a major
crisis due to greater longevity, declining retirement ages and — lo
and behold — below-replacement fertility rates."
https://mises.org/library/making-kids-worthless-social-securitys-contribution-fertility-crisis

"In this article we study the implications of different pension
systems on fertility and economic growth. We show that the
introduction of a public pension system to a developing economy with
informally financed pension benefits reduces fertility"
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/johannes.holler/Workingpaper/Dissertation_1.Paper_30_01_09.pdf

I am not arguing against pension systems. I merely pointed out that
pension systems reduce fertility rates. Look at your friends and
family. How many women have, or will have, more than two children? Two
children are not enough to sustain a population.

[chatnoir]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor
Europe is in a much worse situation than we are. First world (dare I
say Caucasian) populations have fertility rates that are
sub-replacement. This is largely a result of the modern welfare state
which has replaced reliance on children with old age pension systems.
Europe is surrounded by the Muslims of North Africa and the Middle
East. These Muslim populations have fertility rates double and triple
that of Western Europe, and they are flooding in, and have been for
years. That is the way Islam spreads. Not only is a human tide of
Muslim immigration moving into Europe, but those immigrants are
younger than the existing population and churning out babies. For
reasons beyond my understanding, Muslims have been welcomed by
European multiculturalists. Bat Ye'or, a Swiss Jew, has been writing
about this phenomenon for 30 years. Look her up on Amazon.
The Western Hemisphere is somewhat isolated from this, so it's easy to
laugh this off, but we have our roots in Europe, and the warped
psychology that welcomed Islam to Europe is doing the same here. The
canary in the coal mine is dying while we worry about getting the
latest 4K TV.

That is so much bullshit! The reason that fertility rates are declining
is due to nothing more than empowering women with the control of their
own bodies. It is due to the pill and little more.

You really need to do a little research before you reach into your
bullshit bag. In a largely agrarian society, children are important to
help with work on the farm and take over when the parents are too old
for manual labor. In early 19th century America most jobs were farm
labor, now it's more like 2%. I agree that birth control means that
people can more readily choose to have smaller families, but they
always had the means of implementing that choice, and pension systems
make the choice much easier -- encouraging small families, or no
children at all.

Yep, my Sister owns a ranch, with her husband of course! The Husband comes from a Ranching and farming family. So, they had a lot of kids to take over the business. Well my sister only could have one child! She too got into farming; but she married a Farmer with a lot of farm land! They live near my sister. So, my sister and her husband are in their seventies. So, there is no one from their daughters generation to take over the Ranch.

Their daughter has had two boys so far! Their ages are 3 and 5! One has expressed interest in Ranching. But by the time they are old enough, my sister and her husband will be in their late eighties if they live that long! Not a good scenario. They may want to sell the ranch; but it is in the most dry part of Colorado and they have been getting less and less rain over the years! In fact they have the best weed fed cattle in Colorado~

Post by El Castor
"The impact of pension systems on fertility rate: a lesson for
developing countries"
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=pension+systems+and+fertility+rates
"Why high pensions mean low birth rates"
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_high_pensions_mean_low_birth_rates/1493
"The introduction of Bismarck's pension scheme and
the European fertility decline"
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1734.pdf?86b61b96a321c59408f046846e202b70
"Fertility rate and child care policies in a pension system"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0313592614000083
"Social security schemes around the developed world are facing a major
crisis due to greater longevity, declining retirement ages and -- lo
and behold -- below-replacement fertility rates."
https://mises.org/library/making-kids-worthless-social-securitys-contribution-fertility-crisis
"In this article we study the implications of different pension
systems on fertility and economic growth. We show that the
introduction of a public pension system to a developing economy with
informally financed pension benefits reduces fertility"
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/johannes.holler/Workingpaper/Dissertation_1.Paper_30_01_09.pdf
I am not arguing against pension systems. I merely pointed out that
pension systems reduce fertility rates. Look at your friends and
family. How many women have, or will have, more than two children? Two
children are not enough to sustain a population.

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor
Europe is in a much worse situation than we are. First world (dare I
say Caucasian) populations have fertility rates that are
sub-replacement. This is largely a result of the modern welfare state
which has replaced reliance on children with old age pension systems.
Europe is surrounded by the Muslims of North Africa and the Middle
East. These Muslim populations have fertility rates double and triple
that of Western Europe, and they are flooding in, and have been for
years. That is the way Islam spreads. Not only is a human tide of
Muslim immigration moving into Europe, but those immigrants are
younger than the existing population and churning out babies. For
reasons beyond my understanding, Muslims have been welcomed by
European multiculturalists. Bat Ye'or, a Swiss Jew, has been writing
about this phenomenon for 30 years. Look her up on Amazon.
The Western Hemisphere is somewhat isolated from this, so it's easy to
laugh this off, but we have our roots in Europe, and the warped
psychology that welcomed Islam to Europe is doing the same here. The
canary in the coal mine is dying while we worry about getting the
latest 4K TV.

That is so much bullshit! The reason that fertility rates are declining
is due to nothing more than empowering women with the control of their
own bodies. It is due to the pill and little more.

You really need to do a little research before you reach into your
bullshit bag. In a largely agrarian society, children are important to
help with work on the farm and take over when the parents are too old
for manual labor. In early 19th century America most jobs were farm
labor, now it's more like 2%. I agree that birth control means that
people can more readily choose to have smaller families, but they
always had the means of implementing that choice, and pension systems
make the choice much easier -- encouraging small families, or no
children at all.
"The impact of pension systems on fertility rate: a lesson for
developing countries"
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=pension+systems+and+fertility+rates
"Why high pensions mean low birth rates"
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_high_pensions_mean_low_birth_rates/1493
"The introduction of Bismarck’s pension scheme and
the European fertility decline"
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1734.pdf?86b61b96a321c59408f046846e202b70
"Fertility rate and child care policies in a pension system"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0313592614000083
"Social security schemes around the developed world are facing a major
crisis due to greater longevity, declining retirement ages and — lo
and behold — below-replacement fertility rates."
https://mises.org/library/making-kids-worthless-social-securitys-contribution-fertility-crisis
"In this article we study the implications of different pension
systems on fertility and economic growth. We show that the
introduction of a public pension system to a developing economy with
informally financed pension benefits reduces fertility"
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/johannes.holler/Workingpaper/Dissertation_1.Paper_30_01_09.pdf
I am not arguing against pension systems. I merely pointed out that
pension systems reduce fertility rates. Look at your friends and
family. How many women have, or will have, more than two children? Two
children are not enough to sustain a population.

I'm glad that you are not arguing against pension systems. The articles
that you cited, however, are making the obvious mistake of confusing
correlation and cause. Women have only had the chance to control their
fertility rate in the last 50 years. Over the same period, women
learned that they could have a role in the workforce which gave them an
additional freedom from essentially being a slave to the man of the house.

It happens that pension systems evolved at the same time as declining
birth rates, but correlation does not prove cause. We need pension
systems because most people want to be independent and do not want to
have to rely on their children.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor
Europe is in a much worse situation than we are. First world (dare I
say Caucasian) populations have fertility rates that are
sub-replacement. This is largely a result of the modern welfare state
which has replaced reliance on children with old age pension systems.
Europe is surrounded by the Muslims of North Africa and the Middle
East. These Muslim populations have fertility rates double and triple
that of Western Europe, and they are flooding in, and have been for
years. That is the way Islam spreads. Not only is a human tide of
Muslim immigration moving into Europe, but those immigrants are
younger than the existing population and churning out babies. For
reasons beyond my understanding, Muslims have been welcomed by
European multiculturalists. Bat Ye'or, a Swiss Jew, has been writing
about this phenomenon for 30 years. Look her up on Amazon.
The Western Hemisphere is somewhat isolated from this, so it's easy to
laugh this off, but we have our roots in Europe, and the warped
psychology that welcomed Islam to Europe is doing the same here. The
canary in the coal mine is dying while we worry about getting the
latest 4K TV.

That is so much bullshit! The reason that fertility rates are declining
is due to nothing more than empowering women with the control of their
own bodies. It is due to the pill and little more.

You really need to do a little research before you reach into your
bullshit bag. In a largely agrarian society, children are important to
help with work on the farm and take over when the parents are too old
for manual labor. In early 19th century America most jobs were farm
labor, now it's more like 2%. I agree that birth control means that
people can more readily choose to have smaller families, but they
always had the means of implementing that choice, and pension systems
make the choice much easier -- encouraging small families, or no
children at all.
"The impact of pension systems on fertility rate: a lesson for
developing countries"
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=pension+systems+and+fertility+rates
"Why high pensions mean low birth rates"
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_high_pensions_mean_low_birth_rates/1493
"The introduction of Bismarck’s pension scheme and
the European fertility decline"
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1734.pdf?86b61b96a321c59408f046846e202b70
"Fertility rate and child care policies in a pension system"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0313592614000083
"Social security schemes around the developed world are facing a major
crisis due to greater longevity, declining retirement ages and — lo
and behold — below-replacement fertility rates."
https://mises.org/library/making-kids-worthless-social-securitys-contribution-fertility-crisis
"In this article we study the implications of different pension
systems on fertility and economic growth. We show that the
introduction of a public pension system to a developing economy with
informally financed pension benefits reduces fertility"
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/johannes.holler/Workingpaper/Dissertation_1.Paper_30_01_09.pdf
I am not arguing against pension systems. I merely pointed out that
pension systems reduce fertility rates. Look at your friends and
family. How many women have, or will have, more than two children? Two
children are not enough to sustain a population.

I'm glad that you are not arguing against pension systems. The articles
that you cited, however, are making the obvious mistake of confusing
correlation and cause. Women have only had the chance to control their
fertility rate in the last 50 years. Over the same period, women
learned that they could have a role in the workforce which gave them an
additional freedom from essentially being a slave to the man of the house.
It happens that pension systems evolved at the same time as declining
birth rates, but correlation does not prove cause. We need pension
systems because most people want to be independent and do not want to
have to rely on their children.

As Saint Judy says, with passion, when confronted with litigants
who are mooching off their kids, the money is supposed to flow
only one way, from the parents to the kids. That wouldn't apply
to people like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg of course - I'm sure
they shower their parents with more luxury than their parents
could ever have dreamt of, and are happy to do be able to do it
without compromising what they can do for their own kids.
(Mark Zuckerberg doesn't have kids yet, but he probably will.)

[El Castor]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor
Europe is in a much worse situation than we are. First world (dare I
say Caucasian) populations have fertility rates that are
sub-replacement. This is largely a result of the modern welfare state
which has replaced reliance on children with old age pension systems.
Europe is surrounded by the Muslims of North Africa and the Middle
East. These Muslim populations have fertility rates double and triple
that of Western Europe, and they are flooding in, and have been for
years. That is the way Islam spreads. Not only is a human tide of
Muslim immigration moving into Europe, but those immigrants are
younger than the existing population and churning out babies. For
reasons beyond my understanding, Muslims have been welcomed by
European multiculturalists. Bat Ye'or, a Swiss Jew, has been writing
about this phenomenon for 30 years. Look her up on Amazon.
The Western Hemisphere is somewhat isolated from this, so it's easy to
laugh this off, but we have our roots in Europe, and the warped
psychology that welcomed Islam to Europe is doing the same here. The
canary in the coal mine is dying while we worry about getting the
latest 4K TV.

That is so much bullshit! The reason that fertility rates are declining
is due to nothing more than empowering women with the control of their
own bodies. It is due to the pill and little more.

You really need to do a little research before you reach into your
bullshit bag. In a largely agrarian society, children are important to
help with work on the farm and take over when the parents are too old
for manual labor. In early 19th century America most jobs were farm
labor, now it's more like 2%. I agree that birth control means that
people can more readily choose to have smaller families, but they
always had the means of implementing that choice, and pension systems
make the choice much easier -- encouraging small families, or no
children at all.
"The impact of pension systems on fertility rate: a lesson for
developing countries"
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=pension+systems+and+fertility+rates
"Why high pensions mean low birth rates"
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_high_pensions_mean_low_birth_rates/1493
"The introduction of Bismarck’s pension scheme and
the European fertility decline"
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1734.pdf?86b61b96a321c59408f046846e202b70
"Fertility rate and child care policies in a pension system"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0313592614000083
"Social security schemes around the developed world are facing a major
crisis due to greater longevity, declining retirement ages and — lo
and behold — below-replacement fertility rates."
https://mises.org/library/making-kids-worthless-social-securitys-contribution-fertility-crisis
"In this article we study the implications of different pension
systems on fertility and economic growth. We show that the
introduction of a public pension system to a developing economy with
informally financed pension benefits reduces fertility"
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/johannes.holler/Workingpaper/Dissertation_1.Paper_30_01_09.pdf
I am not arguing against pension systems. I merely pointed out that
pension systems reduce fertility rates. Look at your friends and
family. How many women have, or will have, more than two children? Two
children are not enough to sustain a population.

I'm glad that you are not arguing against pension systems. The articles
that you cited, however, are making the obvious mistake of confusing
correlation and cause. Women have only had the chance to control their
fertility rate in the last 50 years. Over the same period, women
learned that they could have a role in the workforce which gave them an
additional freedom from essentially being a slave to the man of the house.
It happens that pension systems evolved at the same time as declining
birth rates, but correlation does not prove cause. We need pension
systems because most people want to be independent and do not want to
have to rely on their children.

As Saint Judy says, with passion, when confronted with litigants
who are mooching off their kids, the money is supposed to flow
only one way, from the parents to the kids. That wouldn't apply
to people like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg of course - I'm sure
they shower their parents with more luxury than their parents
could ever have dreamt of, and are happy to do be able to do it
without compromising what they can do for their own kids.
(Mark Zuckerberg doesn't have kids yet, but he probably will.)

"Multi-billionaire Bill Gates is not short of a penny or two. And
while his children are going to be looked after when he dies, he has
decided against leaving his $81 billion fortune to them."
http://www.onefamily.com/hub/finance/why-is-bill-gates-not-leaving-his-fortune-to-his-kids/

"What do Sting, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have in common? All
three have huge fortunes, and none of them are giving it to their
kids."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/why-the-very-rich-arent-giving-much-of-their-fortunes-to-their-kids/2014/08/10/4a9551b4-1ccc-11e4-82f9-2cd6fa8da5c4_story.html

[Jim_Higgins]

Post by El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor
Europe is in a much worse situation than we are. First world (dare I
say Caucasian) populations have fertility rates that are
sub-replacement. This is largely a result of the modern welfare state
which has replaced reliance on children with old age pension systems.
Europe is surrounded by the Muslims of North Africa and the Middle
East. These Muslim populations have fertility rates double and triple
that of Western Europe, and they are flooding in, and have been for
years. That is the way Islam spreads. Not only is a human tide of
Muslim immigration moving into Europe, but those immigrants are
younger than the existing population and churning out babies. For
reasons beyond my understanding, Muslims have been welcomed by
European multiculturalists. Bat Ye'or, a Swiss Jew, has been writing
about this phenomenon for 30 years. Look her up on Amazon.
The Western Hemisphere is somewhat isolated from this, so it's easy to
laugh this off, but we have our roots in Europe, and the warped
psychology that welcomed Islam to Europe is doing the same here. The
canary in the coal mine is dying while we worry about getting the
latest 4K TV.

That is so much bullshit! The reason that fertility rates are declining
is due to nothing more than empowering women with the control of their
own bodies. It is due to the pill and little more.

You really need to do a little research before you reach into your
bullshit bag. In a largely agrarian society, children are important to
help with work on the farm and take over when the parents are too old
for manual labor. In early 19th century America most jobs were farm
labor, now it's more like 2%. I agree that birth control means that
people can more readily choose to have smaller families, but they
always had the means of implementing that choice, and pension systems
make the choice much easier -- encouraging small families, or no
children at all.
"The impact of pension systems on fertility rate: a lesson for
developing countries"
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=pension+systems+and+fertility+rates
"Why high pensions mean low birth rates"
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_high_pensions_mean_low_birth_rates/1493
"The introduction of Bismarck’s pension scheme and
the European fertility decline"
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1734.pdf?86b61b96a321c59408f046846e202b70
"Fertility rate and child care policies in a pension system"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0313592614000083
"Social security schemes around the developed world are facing a major
crisis due to greater longevity, declining retirement ages and — lo
and behold — below-replacement fertility rates."
https://mises.org/library/making-kids-worthless-social-securitys-contribution-fertility-crisis
"In this article we study the implications of different pension
systems on fertility and economic growth. We show that the
introduction of a public pension system to a developing economy with
informally financed pension benefits reduces fertility"
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/johannes.holler/Workingpaper/Dissertation_1.Paper_30_01_09.pdf
I am not arguing against pension systems. I merely pointed out that
pension systems reduce fertility rates. Look at your friends and
family. How many women have, or will have, more than two children? Two
children are not enough to sustain a population.

I'm glad that you are not arguing against pension systems. The articles
that you cited, however, are making the obvious mistake of confusing
correlation and cause. Women have only had the chance to control their
fertility rate in the last 50 years. Over the same period, women
learned that they could have a role in the workforce which gave them an
additional freedom from essentially being a slave to the man of the house.
It happens that pension systems evolved at the same time as declining
birth rates, but correlation does not prove cause. We need pension
systems because most people want to be independent and do not want to
have to rely on their children.

As Saint Judy says, with passion, when confronted with litigants
who are mooching off their kids, the money is supposed to flow
only one way, from the parents to the kids. That wouldn't apply
to people like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg of course - I'm sure
they shower their parents with more luxury than their parents
could ever have dreamt of, and are happy to do be able to do it
without compromising what they can do for their own kids.
(Mark Zuckerberg doesn't have kids yet, but he probably will.)

"Multi-billionaire Bill Gates is not short of a penny or two. And
while his children are going to be looked after when he dies, he has
decided against leaving his $81 billion fortune to them."
http://www.onefamily.com/hub/finance/why-is-bill-gates-not-leaving-his-fortune-to-his-kids/
"What do Sting, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have in common? All
three have huge fortunes, and none of them are giving it to their
kids."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/why-the-very-rich-arent-giving-much-of-their-fortunes-to-their-kids/2014/08/10/4a9551b4-1ccc-11e4-82f9-2cd6fa8da5c4_story.html

It would destroy their kids-look at mega lotto winners.

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor
Europe is in a much worse situation than we are. First world (dare I
say Caucasian) populations have fertility rates that are
sub-replacement. This is largely a result of the modern welfare state
which has replaced reliance on children with old age pension systems.
Europe is surrounded by the Muslims of North Africa and the Middle
East. These Muslim populations have fertility rates double and triple
that of Western Europe, and they are flooding in, and have been for
years. That is the way Islam spreads. Not only is a human tide of
Muslim immigration moving into Europe, but those immigrants are
younger than the existing population and churning out babies. For
reasons beyond my understanding, Muslims have been welcomed by
European multiculturalists. Bat Ye'or, a Swiss Jew, has been writing
about this phenomenon for 30 years. Look her up on Amazon.
The Western Hemisphere is somewhat isolated from this, so it's easy to
laugh this off, but we have our roots in Europe, and the warped
psychology that welcomed Islam to Europe is doing the same here. The
canary in the coal mine is dying while we worry about getting the
latest 4K TV.

That is so much bullshit! The reason that fertility rates are declining
is due to nothing more than empowering women with the control of their
own bodies. It is due to the pill and little more.

You really need to do a little research before you reach into your
bullshit bag. In a largely agrarian society, children are important to
help with work on the farm and take over when the parents are too old
for manual labor. In early 19th century America most jobs were farm
labor, now it's more like 2%. I agree that birth control means that
people can more readily choose to have smaller families, but they
always had the means of implementing that choice, and pension systems
make the choice much easier -- encouraging small families, or no
children at all.
"The impact of pension systems on fertility rate: a lesson for
developing countries"
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=pension+systems+and+fertility+rates
"Why high pensions mean low birth rates"
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_high_pensions_mean_low_birth_rates/1493
"The introduction of Bismarck’s pension scheme and
the European fertility decline"
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1734.pdf?86b61b96a321c59408f046846e202b70
"Fertility rate and child care policies in a pension system"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0313592614000083
"Social security schemes around the developed world are facing a major
crisis due to greater longevity, declining retirement ages and — lo
and behold — below-replacement fertility rates."
https://mises.org/library/making-kids-worthless-social-securitys-contribution-fertility-crisis
"In this article we study the implications of different pension
systems on fertility and economic growth. We show that the
introduction of a public pension system to a developing economy with
informally financed pension benefits reduces fertility"
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/johannes.holler/Workingpaper/Dissertation_1.Paper_30_01_09.pdf
I am not arguing against pension systems. I merely pointed out that
pension systems reduce fertility rates. Look at your friends and
family. How many women have, or will have, more than two children? Two
children are not enough to sustain a population.

I'm glad that you are not arguing against pension systems. The articles
that you cited, however, are making the obvious mistake of confusing
correlation and cause. Women have only had the chance to control their
fertility rate in the last 50 years. Over the same period, women
learned that they could have a role in the workforce which gave them an
additional freedom from essentially being a slave to the man of the house.
It happens that pension systems evolved at the same time as declining
birth rates, but correlation does not prove cause. We need pension
systems because most people want to be independent and do not want to
have to rely on their children.

Of course we need pension systems because "most people want to be
independent and do not want to have to rely on their children", but
the subsistence farmers of Niger, Uganda, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Yemen
Belize, India, and Haiti (to name only a few) do not have CALPERS or
Social Security to rely on, so they have more children than we do --
lots more. We, on the other hand, can rely on our pension systems.
Putting a child through college is very expensive, and Social Security
is a little sparse, so we save money to pay for retirement cruises,
and don't have kids, or one or two at the most. Look at your own
extended family. How many women have had more than two children?

The fertility rate needed to sustain a population varies depending on
mortality rates, but it's generally between 2.1 and 2.2 children per
woman. Why do you think Germany welcomes Muslim immigrants? Because
they have a fertility rate of 1.44. In a few generations, without
those immigrants, there will be no Germans. They will be extinct.

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor
Europe is in a much worse situation than we are. First world (dare I
say Caucasian) populations have fertility rates that are
sub-replacement. This is largely a result of the modern welfare state
which has replaced reliance on children with old age pension systems.
Europe is surrounded by the Muslims of North Africa and the Middle
East. These Muslim populations have fertility rates double and triple
that of Western Europe, and they are flooding in, and have been for
years. That is the way Islam spreads. Not only is a human tide of
Muslim immigration moving into Europe, but those immigrants are
younger than the existing population and churning out babies. For
reasons beyond my understanding, Muslims have been welcomed by
European multiculturalists. Bat Ye'or, a Swiss Jew, has been writing
about this phenomenon for 30 years. Look her up on Amazon.
The Western Hemisphere is somewhat isolated from this, so it's easy to
laugh this off, but we have our roots in Europe, and the warped
psychology that welcomed Islam to Europe is doing the same here. The
canary in the coal mine is dying while we worry about getting the
latest 4K TV.

That is so much bullshit! The reason that fertility rates are declining
is due to nothing more than empowering women with the control of their
own bodies. It is due to the pill and little more.

You really need to do a little research before you reach into your
bullshit bag. In a largely agrarian society, children are important to
help with work on the farm and take over when the parents are too old
for manual labor. In early 19th century America most jobs were farm
labor, now it's more like 2%. I agree that birth control means that
people can more readily choose to have smaller families, but they
always had the means of implementing that choice, and pension systems
make the choice much easier -- encouraging small families, or no
children at all.
"The impact of pension systems on fertility rate: a lesson for
developing countries"
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=pension+systems+and+fertility+rates
"Why high pensions mean low birth rates"
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_high_pensions_mean_low_birth_rates/1493
"The introduction of Bismarck’s pension scheme and
the European fertility decline"
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1734.pdf?86b61b96a321c59408f046846e202b70
"Fertility rate and child care policies in a pension system"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0313592614000083
"Social security schemes around the developed world are facing a major
crisis due to greater longevity, declining retirement ages and — lo
and behold — below-replacement fertility rates."
https://mises.org/library/making-kids-worthless-social-securitys-contribution-fertility-crisis
"In this article we study the implications of different pension
systems on fertility and economic growth. We show that the
introduction of a public pension system to a developing economy with
informally financed pension benefits reduces fertility"
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/johannes.holler/Workingpaper/Dissertation_1.Paper_30_01_09.pdf
I am not arguing against pension systems. I merely pointed out that
pension systems reduce fertility rates. Look at your friends and
family. How many women have, or will have, more than two children? Two
children are not enough to sustain a population.

I'm glad that you are not arguing against pension systems. The articles
that you cited, however, are making the obvious mistake of confusing
correlation and cause. Women have only had the chance to control their
fertility rate in the last 50 years. Over the same period, women
learned that they could have a role in the workforce which gave them an
additional freedom from essentially being a slave to the man of the house.
It happens that pension systems evolved at the same time as declining
birth rates, but correlation does not prove cause. We need pension
systems because most people want to be independent and do not want to
have to rely on their children.

Of course we need pension systems because "most people want to be
independent and do not want to have to rely on their children", but
the subsistence farmers of Niger, Uganda, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Yemen
Belize, India, and Haiti (to name only a few) do not have CALPERS or
Social Security to rely on, so they have more children than we do --
lots more. We, on the other hand, can rely on our pension systems.
Putting a child through college is very expensive, and Social Security
is a little sparse, so we save money to pay for retirement cruises,
and don't have kids, or one or two at the most. Look at your own
extended family. How many women have had more than two children?
The fertility rate needed to sustain a population varies depending on
mortality rates, but it's generally between 2.1 and 2.2 children per
woman. Why do you think Germany welcomes Muslim immigrants? Because
they have a fertility rate of 1.44. In a few generations, without
those immigrants, there will be no Germans. They will be extinct.

And how many generations do you think it will take Muslim women in
Germany to wake up and stop being breeding stock?

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor
Europe is in a much worse situation than we are. First world (dare I
say Caucasian) populations have fertility rates that are
sub-replacement. This is largely a result of the modern welfare state
which has replaced reliance on children with old age pension systems.
Europe is surrounded by the Muslims of North Africa and the Middle
East. These Muslim populations have fertility rates double and triple
that of Western Europe, and they are flooding in, and have been for
years. That is the way Islam spreads. Not only is a human tide of
Muslim immigration moving into Europe, but those immigrants are
younger than the existing population and churning out babies. For
reasons beyond my understanding, Muslims have been welcomed by
European multiculturalists. Bat Ye'or, a Swiss Jew, has been writing
about this phenomenon for 30 years. Look her up on Amazon.
The Western Hemisphere is somewhat isolated from this, so it's easy to
laugh this off, but we have our roots in Europe, and the warped
psychology that welcomed Islam to Europe is doing the same here. The
canary in the coal mine is dying while we worry about getting the
latest 4K TV.

That is so much bullshit! The reason that fertility rates are declining
is due to nothing more than empowering women with the control of their
own bodies. It is due to the pill and little more.

You really need to do a little research before you reach into your
bullshit bag. In a largely agrarian society, children are important to
help with work on the farm and take over when the parents are too old
for manual labor. In early 19th century America most jobs were farm
labor, now it's more like 2%. I agree that birth control means that
people can more readily choose to have smaller families, but they
always had the means of implementing that choice, and pension systems
make the choice much easier -- encouraging small families, or no
children at all.
"The impact of pension systems on fertility rate: a lesson for
developing countries"
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=pension+systems+and+fertility+rates
"Why high pensions mean low birth rates"
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_high_pensions_mean_low_birth_rates/1493
"The introduction of Bismarck’s pension scheme and
the European fertility decline"
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1734.pdf?86b61b96a321c59408f046846e202b70
"Fertility rate and child care policies in a pension system"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0313592614000083
"Social security schemes around the developed world are facing a major
crisis due to greater longevity, declining retirement ages and — lo
and behold — below-replacement fertility rates."
https://mises.org/library/making-kids-worthless-social-securitys-contribution-fertility-crisis
"In this article we study the implications of different pension
systems on fertility and economic growth. We show that the
introduction of a public pension system to a developing economy with
informally financed pension benefits reduces fertility"
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/johannes.holler/Workingpaper/Dissertation_1.Paper_30_01_09.pdf
I am not arguing against pension systems. I merely pointed out that
pension systems reduce fertility rates. Look at your friends and
family. How many women have, or will have, more than two children? Two
children are not enough to sustain a population.

I'm glad that you are not arguing against pension systems. The articles
that you cited, however, are making the obvious mistake of confusing
correlation and cause. Women have only had the chance to control their
fertility rate in the last 50 years. Over the same period, women
learned that they could have a role in the workforce which gave them an
additional freedom from essentially being a slave to the man of the house.
It happens that pension systems evolved at the same time as declining
birth rates, but correlation does not prove cause. We need pension
systems because most people want to be independent and do not want to
have to rely on their children.

Of course we need pension systems because "most people want to be
independent and do not want to have to rely on their children", but
the subsistence farmers of Niger, Uganda, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Yemen
Belize, India, and Haiti (to name only a few) do not have CALPERS or
Social Security to rely on, so they have more children than we do --
lots more. We, on the other hand, can rely on our pension systems.
Putting a child through college is very expensive, and Social Security
is a little sparse, so we save money to pay for retirement cruises,
and don't have kids, or one or two at the most. Look at your own
extended family. How many women have had more than two children?
The fertility rate needed to sustain a population varies depending on
mortality rates, but it's generally between 2.1 and 2.2 children per
woman. Why do you think Germany welcomes Muslim immigrants? Because
they have a fertility rate of 1.44. In a few generations, without
those immigrants, there will be no Germans. They will be extinct.

And how many generations do you think it will take Muslim women in
Germany to wake up and stop being breeding stock?

Not many, but there will always be millions more young fertile middle
Eastern and African men and women waiting in line. Japan has an
interesting problem -- a very low fertility rate combined with an
insular society that resists immigration. The Swiss, on the other
hand, passed a law prohibiting the construction of more minarets, and
I read about a town in Italy that will pay a bounty to any woman
(presumably Italian) who has a third child.