Sept. 3, 2011 - The Political Cesspool - James Edwards
40:56
20110903_Hour_3
|
Time
Text
Welcome to the Political Cesspool, known worldwide as the South's foremost populous radio program.
And here to guide you through the murky waters of the Political Cesspool is your host, James Edwards.
Well, folks, if you turned into here, James Edwards, I'm afraid I've got to let you down.
Tonight, it's Bill Rowland sitting in the co-pilot seat in place of James Edwards, who is out doing the good work for our people.
He's on a speaking tour, has a couple of speaking engagements, and so his time is taken up this weekend.
So I agreed to come in and not fill his shoes, but at least feel part of them and to sit in on his behalf so he can do the good work out there in the field this week.
Well, as I promised, our guest this hour is the incomparable Sam Dixon.
Sam is certainly one of the most intellectually gifted people on the right, someone who we delight in having on this show.
And tonight, let's all give a big welcome to Sam Dixon.
Sam, are you there?
I'm here.
I'm here.
Well, I mean it when I say it's always great to have you on the show because I feel our chemistry works well together and we certainly know how each other thinks.
So we don't have any real bumps in the road in our attitudes.
But Sam, before I came on the air, I was thinking about something, a phenomenon of mass extinction.
And I'm sure when I mention that, you know what I mean.
But I was talking with my son and was telling him about mass extinctions that had taken place in the 19th century and in the early 20th century with regards to the passenger pigeon and the species of locusts which devastated the Southwest.
And despite the billions and billions and billions of these creatures, they virtually became extinct after that swarm.
And I've begun to worry, and I'll ask you this question, and I hope it's not a rhetorical question.
Do you think that our race, that white people, are on the path to mass extinction?
Are we pushing ourselves towards extinction with the policies and the ideologies that actually we created?
And, you know, in terms of speaking specifically of egalitarianism and this sort of universal idea of humanity and so forth.
Well, I don't think we're going to become extinct.
I think that history changes.
History doesn't reach a logical concluding point.
And I think that it's inconceivable that 500 million white people will just walk off the stage of history into extinction without something, without taking a stand.
And certainly right now, it looks pretty bad for us.
Our people have been so misled and so conditioned that the only morally acceptable policy in polite society is one of white genocide.
You say that and people think that sounds bizarre, but it's the case.
As I've said before, just go to a townhouse, town hall meeting conducted by one of the members of Congress, even a Republican conservative, and walk up to the microphone and say that, Congressman, I'm concerned about the survival of the white race.
And see the reaction you'll get from the Congressman and his aides and the security guards and the people in the room.
Because just saying that you're concerned about the survival of our race is enough to enrage people.
The only moral policy is one in which whites cease to exist.
Genocide is the only accepted policy.
But that will change.
I have faith that, like abused children, white people will eventually lose faith in the system.
One of the things that's killing us now is that whites by and large identify with the system and trust the system.
They believe the messages that the system sends them.
That won't go on forever.
And when white people plug-pull that plug and no longer trust the system, then they will be able to think different thoughts and they'll be able to take steps for their own survival.
An abused child, I'm told, tries more desperately than a normal child to win his father and mother's love.
But eventually most abused children realize that their parents don't love them and that their parents are not normal people and turn against their parents.
It's high time that white people in general, especially white Southerners, stop bleeding in the system and start trying to win the approval of the abusive federal daddy.
Well, you know, I'd, in the previous hour, had compared white liberals to, you know, I've given them the label they're postmodern druids.
You know, they keep up this superstition over equality and egalitarianism that's based really on their own incantations and sorceries, you know, that keeps these things alive and has nothing to do with reality.
And, you know, I'm wondering how much longer that rhetoric can sustain itself, how much longer these platitudes about equality and the joys of diversity and multiculturalism all should be appreciated by these different races in the rainbow communities.
And, you know, I'm reminded, too, that the term, you know, rainbow coalition was coined by none other than Jim Jones, who carried out his, well, he's the first to use this term like rainbow, like we're all part of this wonderful spectrum, you know.
And of course, he carried out his ultimate intentions in a most undesirable way.
But in doing so, it was carried out against this very multicultural sort of coalition.
But, you know, I just wonder when this rhetoric and this constant, you know, going back to the opium pipe of the civil rights movement is going to end.
Because I noted that, you know, Sarah Palin has said that the Tea Party represents a great American awakening, which is reflected by the Revolutionary War and the civil rights movement.
Automatically, the glory of the country is the civil rights movement.
What do you think?
I mean, is it coming to the point where eventually young whites like the anti-war movement in the 60s and the 70s and the radical movement, are they going to stand up and say, we totally, as you said once before, abjure the realm, reject the system.
We're anti-establishment.
And what would anti-establishment mean?
Well, I hope they'll come to that.
A lot of questions there to answer.
I think one thing that we need to recognize is that you said that liberals believe in a racial equality.
I think overwhelmingly conservatives do too.
Sarah Palin certainly does.
And if you went to a Tea Party meeting and asked the same question that I just mentioned, I think you would have people screaming and booing and you would be rebuked by the head table because conservatives have simply adopted what liberals believe.
There is very little genuine opposition to the establishment in America.
It's a brilliant move for an establishment to control its own opposition, its own alternative.
And you see that with people like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann and others.
Only things like your radio program.
There are little things like that that genuinely oppose the ideology and programs of the head table.
Sarah Palin doesn't, and neither does Michelle Bachman.
So they have been able to get their opponents to mimic their ostensible opponents to mimic their own views.
And this has been very successful.
You know, if Angela Davis came to Memphis, where you are, and gave a speech denouncing white people and attacking white Southerners and this kind of thing, it would have almost no impact.
There's probably hardly one white European in 100 whose thinking would be moved by Angela Davis.
I agree with you, Sam.
We got a break coming up.
Hold your thought.
We'll be right back after this commercial break.
And once again, joining us, Sam Dixon.
You don't ever want to miss Sam Dixon because he's a superstar on this show.
We'll be right back.
Jump in, the political says, pull with James and the game.
Call us tonight at 1-866-986-6397.
And here's the host of the Political Cesspool, James Edwards.
And welcome back to The Political Cesspool.
Unfortunately, James Edwards is out tonight, and I'm sitting in for him, Bill Rowland, and welcoming you back to the show.
Listening, I hope, we hope, either through WLNR or through our home stations, AM 1380 and AM 1600.
And as I mentioned before, our guest tonight is Sam Dixon, one of our all-time favorite guests.
And we were discussing the survival of the white race.
Are we doomed to extinction or will we make a comeback?
And as Sam rightly said, we're like abused children.
Eventually, we begin to doubt our parents and to, in fact, turn on them.
In this case, that would be turning on the liberal establishment.
But, you know, Sam, you were, you know, we were discussing this issue and how people will turn around and awaken to the realities of race and that, in fact, we'll see the light.
And continue.
I was saying that if Angela Davis went to Memphis and made a speech attacking white people, very few whites would be moved by it.
But if Hillary Clinton comes, then maybe 20, 25% of the whites will listen to her.
But if Bill Buckley came and attacked white people, then 70, 80% would listen to him, the former conservative editor of National Review.
And the people who really shut down the debate on issues like this and prevent white people from getting a better understanding are not so much the liberal left as they are the fake conservatives or the conservatives that buy into all the major premises that liberals push.
I've given up calling myself a right-winger or talking about the right or conservatives.
I think we need to get our own vocabulary.
And this right-left stuff is something that was given to us by our enemies.
I think we should think of ourselves as racial communitarians and racial idealists.
And I think that's what we are.
And we're something very different from left and right.
A bird has to have a left wing and a right wing to fly.
And the same is probably true of societies.
Our ideas are not necessarily those on the right.
And they're not necessarily ones that would be rejected by people who are more liberal.
Right now, they're rejected both by so-called liberals and so-called conservatives.
They're virtually criminalized ideas.
Irick and the SPLC want them to be criminalized ideas, and they wish to financially destroy anyone that expresses them because they don't want any kind of debate.
But in our society, someone who holds our views is held in great question.
Well, I think certainly the reaction to our views by groups like the SPLC and the ADL and some of the other alphabet soup of anti-white groups, that certainly their desperation to stop our message means our message has validity.
I mean, that's one of the hallmarks of the truth, is that it's going to disturb those who hold to falsehoods.
And so that's what gives me hope, is that the reaction of these powerful and wealthy organizations to this little radio show, which is volunteers and to views of people of our thinking, gets such a violent and desperate reaction tells me that they're scared that these views are gaining traction.
But, you know, we're discussing our situation in this country and also in Europe.
One of the things that certainly has come very drastically and very forcefully into public view is this phenomenon of these violent black flash mobs, which are a phenomenon known not only in the United States, and there have been several in Minnesota and Pennsylvania and other places, but also in Europe, where the flash mob turned into a virtual three-day riot in Great Britain.
I mean, what is driving this, that these blacks come out in vast numbers just to destroy a neighborhood or to attack a group of whites?
Well, they feel antagonism toward us.
It's natural that they would.
Whenever you have different people living in proximity to other people who are different from them, there is group conflict.
Contrary to what liberals teach, or conservatives too, that diversity brings social peace.
Diversity brings chaos like it has to Lebanon or to Sri Lanka or other countries.
Diversity is a generator of anger and hatred and violence.
It's not a pacifier.
So you have these blacks living in England.
They naturally hate white people.
They're in a society that is not theirs and can never be theirs.
They're around people of whom they're jealous and envious.
And they're poorer than those people.
And so it's just natural that they're going to hate them, even if they were not egged on.
One of the great things that works for us is the fact that the head table or the establishment cannot put the brakes on.
Their answer to everything is more anti-white hate, more hate.
We need more hate, all sold in the guise of love.
But they are indoctrinating black children in hatred of white people.
I've been in predominantly black schools in Atlanta, and I've seen the stuff on the walls, pictures of lynched blacks and Klansmen gathered around lynched blacks.
And we're talking about kids five years old seeing this, and they're told this without stop from the time they go to school to the time they go to college, graduate school.
It's just they're marinated in all of these hate stories about white people.
It would be the equivalent of turning the education of white children over to the American Nazi Party and having them surrounded from age five to graduation from a professional school, a law school, with stories of Jewish crimes against Christians and black criminality and all this sort of thing.
The good thing is that this makes it impossible that integration and racial mixing will ever work.
And the same thing goes on in England.
These people who have a natural instinct to dislike us and reason to dislike us, they're egged on by what they're taught in school.
So it's to be expected.
The white establishment reaction is where the action is.
And that's where it gets interesting because no matter what happens, the establishment's reaction is we need more hate propaganda against white people.
If a marginalized, mentally defective person in Norway goes to a youth camp and shoots a bunch of people who has some kind who's expressed some vague ideas about European survival, the reaction of the head table all over the world is this shows the danger of these ideas and we must work even harder to get more anti-hate, more and more hate propaganda into the Norwegian school system.
We've got to get more anti-white hate.
On the other hand, if you have these mobs in England and Britain and they riot and commit all these crimes, the reaction is exactly the same.
This shows we need more anti-white hate.
We need more of the same program.
They cannot change.
They cannot see that their program has failed and will always fail.
I like to say of these people, because liberals love to say that they're scientific and that they're not religious, that right-wingers are religious obscurantists and all this sort of thing.
I like to say of them that these people that are viewing these mobs and the obvious failure of their program, they see with the eyes of faith.
They do not see with the eyes of fact.
And I think that's the case.
Liberalism, again, I want to transcend the liberal conservative issue to be racial immunitarians, but liberalism is really a secular religion.
It's a religion based on the worship.
Sam, we've got a break coming up.
Hold your thought.
We'll come back with secular religion.
Sam Dixon, last half hour.
Don't miss it.
Don't go away.
The political cesspool, guys.
We'll be back right after these messages.
On the show and express your opinion in the political cesspool, call us toll-free at 1-866-986-6397.
We gotta get out of this place.
You get the last thing we ever do.
And we're back, audience.
Bill Rowland sitting in for the incomparable James Edwards, who's on a speaking tour this evening and speaking to an audience out a little further east of Tennessee.
But we certainly wish James well.
And our guest tonight, one of our favorites, what guest I consider a superstar, Sam Dixon.
We were discussing before the break liberalism as a secular religion.
And, you know, Sam, pick up from there.
I agree with you.
Liberals worship themselves in terms of their beliefs.
And certainly we'll not give them up without...
It's a secular religion based upon the worship of the unfit.
And this is their policy, to glorify the unfit, to set them above the fit, to breed them, to expand them, and to discriminate against fit people.
And it's hard to argue with the religion.
They don't argue.
They're not really willing to accept contrary facts or ideas.
And so the more their program falls apart, the more they insist that it must be implemented.
It just needs more of it, more of it, more of it.
The failure of the race mixing program is just so clear.
There's never been a study that showed that mixing the races in the schools brought about any improvement in black school performance.
That's just an astonishing thing.
If they had people, I tell that to people and they say, oh, that can't be.
But you know Goodwell that if there had been studies that showed that after the federal busing program in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, the average black SAT score jumped 100 points five years later, we would hear about these such studies.
Now you don't hear about them because the whole thing has just totally failed.
But it goes on regardless of failure.
Well, you know, I've noticed that there's a sort of a new anti-white movement.
And I say it's anti-white, but it's coming from an entirely new direction.
And that is, I guess it was that the movie that best demonstrated this new anti-white development was the movie The Blind Side, which was about a school and a family here in Memphis, and we know them well, know who they are, who bring in this black kid from the slums, and they raise him as their own, and they adopt him, and they make sure he gets an education and sends him off to old miss, and he becomes a big football hero.
And, you know, oh, this is the, see, if we just sacrifice ourselves and make little sacrifices, that everything will turn out right for these kids.
And also this movie, the help, that's absolutely just attacks the idea of southern aristocracy and the southern upper classes and tears them down and makes them look petty and small and stupid.
And as you certainly can see, the rise in these interracial adoptions, you know, let's bring home a little black baby because there are no white babies out there to adopt.
And it can be like Brad Pitt.
Yes, it's a new phase in this anti-white, this anti-white campaign is to give ourselves up for the unfit, as you say.
Yeah, well, that's sacrifice your own children.
Yeah, sacrifice your own children's benefit to help somebody else.
By bringing that black child into their own family, those people diluted the resources that were available to their own flesh and blood.
It's something completely unnatural.
For those who are Christians, I think it's St. Paul says that a man who doesn't support his own family is worse than an infidel, which is quite a statement.
The most natural and normal thing imaginable is for a father and mother, especially a mother, to favor her own children.
She gives her milk to her own baby, not another baby.
And these people that did this, I mean, it's so unnatural that it's horrifying.
Well, not only horrifying, but ultimately, I don't know if you remember, Sam, but 10 or 15 years ago, there was this fad of adopting pot-bellied Vietnamese pot-bellied pigs.
They were smarter than dogs, and they were easier to train, and they were just as lovable.
And so these people would get these little piglets and raise them, and they soon found out that these animals grew tusks and would root up their carpets and gouge their legs.
And that, in fact, they were farm animals.
They weren't house pets.
And I'm wondering if in the future, these black and non-white kids who were raised by white parents aren't going to come to resent the idea that they're different and in this family and come to believe that they were misplaced intentionally and actually take umbrage to the fact that they were raised outside their own racial orientation.
That may be, but also just remember that in general, especially in modern society where it's encouraged, children are often ungrateful to their own parents.
And the idea that these black children or Chinese children are going to be so grateful to their adoptive parents, adopted children often show very little loyalty to their adopting parents, even less than natural parents.
One of the great delusions that motivates people that are really, really gripped by this multicultural idea, white people are gripped by it, is they believe that they are doing something so good and that black people are grateful to them.
And this is false.
The black people are not grateful to them.
People look to their own heroes of their own race.
You know, the blacks erect a monument to Martin Luther King in Washington.
They don't erect one to Earl Warren or Ralph McGill.
They're not interested in honoring the people they see as the losers that surrendered their country to them.
People, you know, the blacks and the immigrants, they see themselves as what they are.
They're conquerors.
And they're not grateful to the sellouts of the people they're conquering.
Somebody once asked me if I had five minutes and could make Jimmy Carter listen to me, I could pry his ears open and prop his eye and make him consider an idea.
What would I tell him?
And I thought about it, and I thought, I said, what I would tell him is that you have this idea that 100 years after your death, cheery-eyed black children and mulattoes will gather around statues that they've erected to the great Jimmy Carter who helped them so much, and that on your birthday, there'd be all these commemorations in which black people would have lumps grow in their throats as they thought of what you did for them.
But no, they're not going to do that any more than the colonists erected statues in America to people like Edmund Burke, who sabotaged the British war to prevent our secession in the American Revolution.
Is there a monument anywhere in America to Burke or to the others that sabotage Lord North's government?
No.
We honor our own people.
We honor Washington.
We don't honor the sellouts in Britain.
And I would tell Jimmy Carter, no, there's never going to be any statue, and no black anywhere is going to remember your birthday, and none of them are ever going to cry about you.
You're just going to be totally forgotten as you deserve to be.
Well, it's interesting you should mention that because I was watching the video of this, I guess, pre-commemoration of King's statue in Washington, and his daughter got up and first said that, of course, her father was standing next to Lincoln who signed the Declaration of Independence.
But she also said something I thought was rather telling.
She said, Here's my father standing while Abraham Lincoln is sitting.
And I was thinking, well, what does she expect you to do?
Give up a seat so your father can sit down?
This is immediately, it was almost a backhanded insult to the great Abraham Lincoln.
Of course, he would freed slave.
I admire her for it.
I admire her for it.
Why on earth have American white people erected a monument to Abraham Lincoln?
That's the question.
Why should he be there?
What is there to honor in Abraham Lincoln?
That should be changed.
Well, of course.
I'd rather have King.
If I could, I'd have King's statue moved in, and instead of the American idol, the Zeus in a Victorian frock coat sitting in the Lincoln, we'd have King up there and just get Lincoln completely out of the way.
You know, it's interesting about Lincoln.
We talk about this change in attitudes, but I think you'd agree with me, Sam, that actually the Lincoln myth of his great sagacity and goodness and honor actually didn't exist until about 10 or 20 years after he was dead.
And then he was Honest Abe and Father Abraham and all of that.
I don't know that after the war, despite some warnings, once he was assassinated, like John Kennedy, once Kennedy was assassinated, it became almost impossible to say anything critical of him in public.
Before his assassination, Kennedy was extremely unpopular.
He was the most hated president in my lifetime.
I don't ever recall people speaking of president with the burning hatred which people spoke of Kennedy.
They had a lot of reason to hate him, too.
But the timely death, the martyr's death, that's a paint that can cover a lot of blemishes.
But getting back to this thing about Kennedy's daughter, I wonder if what she said was not just a slip of the tongue.
You know, that's always possible.
But you hear this kind of extraordinary ignorance about history from all kinds of people, not just a black woman, an African-American woman like King's daughter, but also from white people.
I am told that Saxby Chambliss, who is the senator from the Republican Senator of the State of Georgia, was being hammered at some kind of town hall meeting up in the mountains of Georgia recently, a week or two ago, and there were a lot of sort of Ron Paul supporters there who were criticizing him, and deservedly so because he's a pretty bad Republican senator.
and that Chambliss finally became angry.
Welcome back to Get On The Political Cesspool.
Call us on James's Dime, toll-free, at 1-866-986-6397.
And here's the host of the political cesspool, James Edwards.
Not James Edwards.
Bill Rowland, sitting in for James Edwards.
And we're in our last quarter hour here on the show, and our guest is Sam Dixon.
And Sam, I'd like to apologize.
You got cut off there at the very end when you were talking about Saxby Chambliss and historical ignorance on his part.
And, you know, please pick up there again, Saxby Chambliss, the senator from Georgia, and you say he was up in the mountains of Georgia and made a faux pas concerning history.
Well, he rebuked the sort of Ron Paul Tea Party types about what they were saying about attacking him about the Federal Reserve.
And he said that he couldn't understand why all these people that talk about the Constitution would attack the Federal Reserve when that's part of our U.S. Constitution.
And then you've got Bill Clinton, who many, many times said that the U.S. Constitution says that all men are created equal.
Barack Obama has said the same thing.
Henry Kissinger repeatedly said that the Athenians won the Peloponnesian War, which may seem obscure to a lot of modern Americans, but it's a pretty rude.
If you've ever had a class in ancient history, the defeat of the Athenians is a big thing that is threatened to the destruction of their walls and this kind of thing.
And the so-called Harvard doctorate, you know, professor to know that little about general culture is surprising.
But it's just we are ruled by a terrible, terrible elite of people.
We're led by this scum that has floated to the top of this society.
Well, when we're talking about presidents and their intellects, let me ask you this.
We've got a few minutes left.
We're going to get a little trivia.
What American presidents do you think were actually smart, understood the American people, and understood what was best for us and how to go about keeping America on the right track?
Do you have any American presidents that fill the bill there?
Yes, I think the greatest American president was James Polk, who led us in the war with Mexico.
He used to be rated as one of the top five presidents.
I think he's been dropped now because the white liberal, the anti-liberal elites, the anti-white elites can't stand the idea of a war fought to acquire territory for white people.
But he was a really great president.
It's hard to find anything he did that was not helpful to our people.
And he accomplished this in the face of massive opposition.
It was a masterpiece of political genius by which he dealt with the huge numbers of members of Congress and the Senate who did everything they could to thwart and disrupt him.
Already you had this sort of ethno-masochistic self-loathing.
And you had a lot of senators who were completely opposed to the war because they were on the Mexican side, and they thought it was just terrible for white people to fight a war to gain territory.
After that, I would say that Jefferson, that Thomas Jefferson probably was the most intelligent president.
Probably he was more intelligent than Polk, but his intelligence was marred by the fact that he was too much the product of the Enlightenment and too enthralled by the French Revolution and things like that.
But he certainly, he was an inventor, a genius, a person with tremendous education and all that.
I've not read enough about Washington to know how intelligent he was.
But turning to modern times, more modern times, President Taft in 1908 was, as far as I can tell, the last American president to put the interests of the American people ahead of the international insiders when he refused to abrogate the commercial treaty with Russia at the demands of the Jewish community, which wanted to use American foreign policy for its own ethnic purposes.
And that's why he was defeated in 1912 through the strenuous efforts of Jacob Schiff, as can be shown through not our sources, but their sources.
I don't know.
Those would be three that would jump off the page as being people who were well educated and who did a lot of good.
Yeah, I was going to mention Calvin Coolidge, if nothing else, because he was distinctively race conscious in many ways.
And I think even pro-eugenics in some instances, but certainly was, if nothing else, held back the federal Leviathan.
Well, everybody back then was pro-eugenics and eugenics.
I mean, how could anyone not be?
How could anybody, except some sort of strange religious obscurantist, be opposed to improving the physical and mental health of our species by having the most gifted people have more children and by discouraging reproduction among people with inherited mental and physical diseases.
It's inconceivable that this strange liberal madness has now made eugenics a dirty word.
I just can't imagine it.
Wouldn't you like to live in a society where your brain surgeon had six kids and a guy that carried multiple genes from multiple hereditary diseases, both of the mind and of the body, in which he had none or one?
Why would you want to breed an ever-inferior, degraded humanity?
It's just the strangest sort of value system of management.
It's the most unhealthy and unnatural thing.
The only thing more unhealthy and unnatural is this mother and father in Memphis who adopted this alien and reduced their own children's chances in life.
It's just bizarre.
Well, you know, one of the encouraging things that I have seen lately, and I hope to end this, always end our show on a positive note, is that in driving through one of the wealthiest white neighborhoods in Memphis, the one thing that struck me was the children teeming out of the yards and into the streets.
Children of all ages, and some of these families, wealthy, successful, as you say, the premium of the race, having six children, four children, five children.
And, you know, it actually lifted me up.
And I said, well, you know, here are the people who have the money to raise children of high quality, give them a high quality life.
And they're spending their resources instead of on a yacht or on another Mercedes or some other toy.
They're spending their money on raising healthy, intelligent, and well-educated children.
And that has given me a boost because I've noticed that among the upper classes, at least in Memphis, there is a definite trend towards having numerous children.
That's good that you wonder what the source of that is.
I'm told in England, and maybe it's true here, I can't say because I'm not plugged into popular culture, but I'm told in England that it's quite a status symbol now to have four or five children, for a yuppie.
Instead of having the one child and the rare breed dog like it was in the 70s when I was a young person, in fact, back then it was fashionable not to have any children at all.
That showed you were really intelligent.
But it's now sort of a sex symbol that I'm a real stud.
I'm a real guy.
And I may be a yuppie, but I've got four kids and I can support them.
And that shows what a winner I am.
And certainly people are led by that kind of thinking.
If they think that if you thought of the winner by having four kids, they'll do it.
It could be the same thing here.
Another thing that may be happening, people tell me this is not true, but maybe I've thought about it a long time, that we know that heredity, that genes control all kinds of things, not just eye color and general intelligence and hair color.
They control a lot of personality traits too, introversion, extroversion.
It could be that in the period when we came along, when for the first time contraception was cheaply available with the pill and things like this, the people who didn't have the genes to love children didn't reproduce.
And that they failed to reproduce because for the first time they had choice up until then.
If you had sex, you had babies.
That was just the way it was.
And it could be that maybe our race, to some extent, has flushed out of the gene pool the genes of people that don't like children.
Well, I think that's possible, but I also begin to wonder if, you know, I've read in some anthropological sources and the theories that the white race was created by a genetic bottleneck during the ice age.
And I begin to wonder if now our ancient genes are prodding us to reproduce now that we're in a racial bottleneck in the 21st century.
And that, in fact, our instincts are kicking in.
It says, you know, there better be more of us so there are none of us.
It doesn't come to the point where there are none of us.
I don't think that.
But, you know, for a woman, from what I understand, a woman's fertility rate in families and stuff is closely correlated with security and with an optimistic view toward life.
The reproduction rate of atheists and agnostics is extremely low, which is going to have some interesting effects in the next generation.
In Holland, which is the Netherlands, which is one of the most secular societies on earth, it's my understanding that the people who are having the babies are the traditional Calvinists of the Dutch Reformed Church and the fanatical elements of the Roman Catholics, that the agnostics and atheists are not reproducing and the religiously indifferent Christians aren't.
So Holland is going to face a situation with another generation where the people who come out of these extremely rich, quote, repressive, end quote, families are going to constitute a much greater percentage of the population.
And, you know, I think religion is positively correlated with the high birth rate because it gives people cause for optimism.