Wednesday, 11 August 2010

Help Stop Stupid Swarthy Foreigners From Breeding

Seems to be the gist of this article.

Argentina is a democracy with an elected government. But these backwards people have made a mess of it as usually happens when left to themselves. They need some nice benevolent cough, rich white, hrmph, people to take them in hand and stop producing so many kids:

'international human rights law says that women have a right to make decisions about if, when and how many children they have, says Human Rights Watch. In Argentina, those rights have been "systematically flouted for years", it says.'

Firstly, what is 'international human rights law'? Is this a law based on values that ,cough, splutter, white, rich harumph, people draw up? Can I guess that these countries include the enlightened nations of the USA, Germany, Britain and Belgium for instance?

Let's see what Wikipedia has to say:
'Its headquarters are in New York City and it has offices in Berlin, Brussels, Chicago, Geneva, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, Paris, San Francisco, Tokyo, Toronto, and Washington D.C'

Ok, so except Japan, Russia and South Africa it is solidly white and first world. It includes two countries that have attempted to exterminate entire races, five that have had savage foreign Empires, one which has an appalling history of racism one which unapologetically benefited from Nazi banking and whilst I don't like criticising Russia, let's just say I wouldn't relish being teleported to 90s Grozny either. Pleased to see that poor countries have such benefactors to make sure they have access to contraceptives and sterilisation procedures. Also interesting to note that with the very dubious exception of France there is none with a strong Apostolic Christian presence.

Nor of course, do they have any Latin American countries there, which may explain their far from stellar record in those parts. And their vocab:

'Many become pregnant due to negligent care that deprives them of the right to make independent decisions about their health and lives, such as when the government does not purchase or distribute contraceptive supplies that it has promised to provide, and legal sterilization procedures are arbitrarily denied.'

Get that? The poor and stupid inhabitants (specifically poor and stupid women) from poor nations are deprived of the right to make independent decisions because the government does not buy them contraceptions so they 'become' pregnant and have unwanted offspring.

Some might think it curious that a Guardian columnist can find common cause with an organisation that's turned a Nelson eye to the Honduran Junta. But expect this bond to strengthen in coming years.


  1. All the more absurd considering that Western countries do not themselves have 1 or 2 child limits, or such like. There may well be an ecological necessity to consider restricting population growth, but it has to be approached in a different way to this, which implies one rule for 'us', one rule for 'them'...

  2. Thanks for your comment Tom. Of course it would be ridiculous to dismiss debate about the earth’s resources or of women’s rights in Latin America. But when a largely first world, largely white, largely secular/Protestant culture imposes its values on poor, ethnically diverse, Catholic countries it is imperialism. Of course, anyone is welcome to defend their ideas and to say they think they are superior. But they have to acknowledge that in so doing so they are being imperialistic.

    It’s the hypocrisy that gets to me: as if small-l liberalism transcends imperialism. And as if it justifies speaking about Argentinian women as if they are children who do not 'decide' to be pregnant, but 'become' pregnant because the state doesn't provide contraception for them.

  3. This is a very interesting post, my dear Gregor, and you 'spared' me from writing one on my blog, dealing with the same issue!

    Nevertheless, I dare insisting on one aspect that you and your reader Tom May are refering to - the need so safeguard the planet's resources.

    I hope none of you will be offended by my remark, but the more Brits are greedy and wasteful, the more some of them are 'brainwashed' to make a connection between population growth and the depletion of Earth's resources.

    As I have already witten here...'s all 'Malthusian bullshit' because, on the one hand, God can provide for billions and billions of more people, as He is not 'limited' by anything!

    On the other hand, a white Protestant family in the UK or USA, with no or less than 3 children consumese INFINITELY MORE than a family of black Africans, Central Asians etc with 10-12 or more children!!!

    Please, people, WAKE UP and realize how silly this fear of 'population growth' is! The real problem is our own reckeless, within the so-called 'civilised world'!

    We - the ones blessed with having an internet connection among other countless comforts - are harming the planet with our hedonistic, self-centered, self-indulgent and godless way of living!

    There's no "ecological necessity to consider restricting population growth", but a constant necessity for all of us to REPENT, to change our filthy ways!

    How I wish more & more people would realize this, but I'm afraid that many civilised ones (and especially Brits) can't think of their own personal guilt in harming the planet...

    It's so much easier, so comfortable to think about the 'fault' of the poor who give birth to children...

    I hope no one will be offended, but I sometimes (actually quite often, reading the Brit media) get fed up with this typically British hypocrisy!

  4. @Bogdan
    Good point about the dissonance in consumption. However, my point on natural resources was focused on freedom of expression, debate and research.

    For example if Westerners want to say that a country with poor soil, irrigation etc can only support a certain population they should have the right to say so. But firstly, they must accept that there is a difference between stating this and interfering and secondly, they should respect the right for people in the West and outside to disagree.

  5. Oh, my dear Gregor,

    You speak about "freedom of expression, debate and research", yet these are 'ideals' rarely respected in our 'civilised world', let alone in regard to relations between us ('the civilised') and the developing or poor countries.

    My opinion is that there rarely is any debate, and the rich simply DICTATE solutions to the poor. The rich set the agenda, define the problems, then impose solutions!

    For instance, there's no room for scientific debate; we must all accept the 'dogma' of global warming. Poor countries emit only a fraction of the CO2 (not that I'd be convinced of the harmful effect of this gas :-) dispersed by rich countries, however, they are compelled to 'limit emissions', that is to 'cap' development.

    Similarly, the poor are forced to accept aid (GMO seeds), plus any 'wise' Western know-how.

    'Interference' in former colonies is still there, although under a 'politically correct' mask :-(

  6. 'My opinion is that there rarely is any debate, and the rich simply DICTATE solutions to the poor. The rich set the agenda, define the problems, then impose solutions!'

    Well stated Bogdan. But what is the alternative? To deny freedom of speech? To use the state to tell people what to say?

    'Interference' in former colonies is still there, although under a 'politically correct' mask :-( '

    I'd agree with this as well and this was the gist of my article. The Guardian is as 'politically correct' as one can get, but this writer was endorsing a report from a quasi-imperialistic organisation.

    The thing is to change the way in which people view the 'politically correct imperialism' which it seems to me is something that will have to come from a grassroots movement. And of course to make the often narcissistic and middle class environmentalists realise how hypocritical a lot of 'solutions' are.

  7. The introduction to Eduardo Galeano's famous book, 'The Open Veins of Latin America' touches on this type of thing.

    He highlights the practice of sterilisation of women in some of the planet's most sparsely populated countries.

    'Easier to stop guerillas being born than it is to fight them in the hills' was more or less his summary.

  8. @CK

    Thanks for you comment, good to hear from you!
    Just looked Galeano up on Wikipedia. Sounds an interesting author.

  9. Great post, Gregor.

    The United States has a shameful history when it comes to eugenics. Many people were sterilized for simply being poor, the wrong color, or "feeble-minded" or "immoral" based on the arbitrary decisions of eugenics boards. In one of the worst US Supreme Court decisions ever, the Court upheld a Virginia compulsory sterilization law. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in his argument: "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

    One the topic of population growth, I think much of the problem is political and not as scientific as some would have it. First, I think it is hypocritical for First World people to complain about Third World people cutting down forests to provide farmland for farmers, or in other ways exploiting their resources.

    The people of North America, Europe, etc. all exploited their natural resources in order to become prosperous, why can't the Third World do the same? My guess is it is a mix of racism, fear of competition, and a desire to remake the Third World into vacation parks for rich people from the industrialized nations. This is why groups like the WWF support low-value added jobs like tourism as opposed to manufacturing, which is "dirty" although I suppose it was not dirty when their ancestors were making fortunes off of working ex-peasants half to death in the satanic mills.

    An interesting article that shows the weird beliefs Greens sometimes hold is this one about how the recession might be good for the environment:

    While I do believe we need to deal with resource depletion and other environmental problems like pollution, I don't think restraining human reproduction is the answer. For example, if we have to face resource depletion, why not develop synthetic resources or alternative fuels? The whole Malthusian argument is based on the false premise that Man is like a predator that consumes limited resources until they disappear, causing himself to disappear in the process. While Man can sometimes act like a predator, we are also cultivators, changing our environment to produce more than it would naturally.

    I am not sure why so many progressives beat on the overpopulation drum. You would think they would look into the history of people like Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes and others and see the elitist and racist implications of their ideas. Unfortunately, I think many progressive are no better than some people on the Right when it comes to these kinds of topics, and in many cases are actually much worse.

  10. Sorry for the quality of my post, I was writing in a bit of a hurry...

  11. Thank you for your comment John. I'd say the constant thing about left/ right is that the left is constantly outmaneuvered by the right. Hence my comment about not liking criticising Russia. There are many actions of the United Russia party that I find deplorable, but in the West there seems to be the unspoken conclusion that this means we have to use our effortless moral superiority to patronise them. Subsequently many on the left praise scum like Khodorkovsky and Berezovsky because it feels like the right thing to do, not realising that they are giving support to right wing imperialism.

    I think that environmentalism and population dynamism is yet another example of this and the left is giving plenty of moral support to neo-malthusianism.

    To put it in perspective, Sweden is offering lots of incentives for women to have more children. I find this entirely admirable, yet where is the environmentalist outrage over this?