[Gammelpreusse]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You said we need mor babies, period. But that is wrong. You must make the destinction between later net-payers and net-receivers. Net-payers will be those getting good education and get well-payed jobs so that they produce tax revenues (as long as they are stupid eniough to stay in Germany). Net-receivers will be those that are raised in social wellfare conditions, will have Hauptschule as school diploma only, and have good chances to end up as unemployed social wellfare receivers. Our society is overaging, pensions will rocket through the ceiling. In this situation you currently have the circumstance that more social "loser" babies get born than social "winner" babies, that is demographical fact. That means the ratio n between payers and receivers is shifting towards the reciever. Few and fewer peopled need to pay for more and more peoplke - those being old and those being in social wellfare circumstances.

We need more babies. But the right ones. "Right" means: having access to b etter eudcation, thus better jobs, thus better poayment when they had grown up, and so: tax incomes for the state instead of ripping off the state.

You already wrote so, just elaborated on that, and I already wrote why I disagree with this kind of analyzsis. Right and wrong babies, in all seriousness, the mere notion of that is utter bollocks. There are neither right or wrong, their are only prepared and not prepared children. And I also wrote what can be done about those conditions. Your argumentation is based on the believe that ppl that are born into certain classes will also stay in those classes, you take that as a fact without even attempting to try to figure out "why" that is and what can be done about it.

Another example? the boss of the company I just left is the son of an ex Bundesbank Vorstand. In an interview, even available on youtube, he stated he was too lazy to look for a job and thus founded this company. This company now exists for 8 years and yet has to see black numbers.

It is a typical example of a rich boy that runs a company for the sole reason of societies standing, to present something to his friends and to be cool. He is the last to come in and the first to go in that company each day. This is the very same company that sees a couple turkish immigrants work their asses of to achieve something.

Thilo Sarrazin aimed at the same direction with his disputed statement that our society by average becomes more stupid in a natural way. He was about the discrepancy between the raise in low educated population groups both due to migration and births, and the decline in well-educated population groups. People may not like his provocative style, but by content he get things right.

Thilo Sarrazin is an idiot, who by his own words never met lower class member or immigrants in person. It is a frustatrated old man who wrote a book to adress the over the top political correctness in Germany, ranting and whining without presenting solutions or ways to get out of that problematic situation. His book is as helpful to the debate as was were the Nazis graphs that made out the very same statistics for the future of Germany, completely neglecting the fact that Germany always had and always will have immigrants and lower classes. As if that is an issue that only appeared in the last 30 years, instead of the last 3000 years.

You also may want to read this:

http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeit...arrazin-studie

Gunnar Heihnsohn is specialised on these issues of demographic developement and the consequences for our societies in the West, I urge you to read some of his books, they are science-statistic fact-bombs. His other "hobby" is the so-called "youth bulge" theory by him, showing that there is a link between the outside-bound, expansive aggressiveness of a society and the ratio of young adult men in its population. The more there are, the more aggressive and expansive that society is. Main focus here is on Islamic societies, of course. Heihnsohn therefore predicts that our current confrontation with Islamic challenges will continue for the next two generations, or 50-70 years. Not before thenh their socieites will be as overaged as ours are topday, and the ambitious expansive energy of them will decline.

Political very incorrect he is, and so he has many enemies and critics. But it is hard to argue with his numbers and demographic and financial statistics. He knows his stuff, and very well.

The problem with political correctness is that both sides of the argument use it as a weapon. The one side to stop discussion, the other side by making themselves heroes by claiming that being anti PC is somewhat closer to the truth. Both is bollocks. There are problems and problems have to be solved, and you do not solve problems by swinging from one extreme to the other and back and claim one fact to be true just because the other said the opposite.

Btw, the situation is as serious as ever.

A correction on your claim that there is the claim that social class is linked to intelliegence. At least that is not what I am after. What can be shown is that there is a link between social class, success chnaces in the edeucation system, and later job chances. That is no claim, it is a statistical link that has been shown so reliably that most sociologists do not deny it. Whether or not this effects intelligence, depends on your understanmding of the term (and as a former psychologist I can tell you that if you ask 10 differfent psychologists what intelliogence is, you will get at least 6 or 7 different definitions). But intellectual activity trains or "degenerates" intellectual capacities. So a class where people do hard labour or live oin wellfare, are dealing with depression, unemployment, boredom and do not get challenged intellectually, is very prpone indeed to score lower IQ value on avwerage. Hell, we even have been shown that there is a highly significant link between social class and eating and food habits. The higher your education level and social class, the lesser meat you eat. The lower your social cvlass, the worse is your food and the more meat you eat! Which may also be the reason why the lower the social class, the more fat people you seem to see on average

Now here I agree. But the obvious conclusion is that we have to bring those with lesser chances up to specs for better chances later on.

But a big point also is...you "need" the lower classes. We do not only have high management or academics jobs here. All the smaller stuff has to be done as well, it is not as prestigious, but just as important. We need folks collecting the garbage, we also need folks cleaning streets, toilets and so on. These people are a fundamentally important part of this society, though are only looked down onto. No wonder such people develop depressions and aggressions, I'd say that plays as much a role in their psychological development as their finances, which in return are a direct result of that attitude. I would, too, if my work were to be discredited all the time.

Statistics are about trends, mean scores and generalised average statements about groups, so do not cite the individual case you happen to know, that is pointless when dealing with statistics.

Statistics, most of all, are scientific attempts of categorisation. This is very helpful in desciribing obvious circumstances, but the more complex an issue becomes, the less suited statistics are to describe them. And this is especially true in the case of humans, even more so given the fact that science yet has to truly understand how humans actually work in their emotions, expiriences, genetics, biological chemicals and drives and motivations. That's like trying to describe the performance of a car based on their number of accident statistics, without taking into account how powerful the car is, what road it used, what the weather conditions were and so on. In my book this approach is utterly flawed and even worse, they base humanity solely on economic performance and worse of all, an economic model that is not sustainable in the future anyways.

All in all this debate is another chapter in the age old herrenrasse symptons in a new disguise. Once it was royalty, then it was the bourgeoise, then back to the royals, then the nazis, then back to the bourgoise. Every generation makes up it's own definition of people that are worthy and who are not it appears, some in more, some in less radical manners. No offense, but if suddenly humans are not treated as humans anymore, and some kind of people consider themlselves, or by others, as better for society then other humans, then this society has a major problem. And as a reponse we will have enother kind of communism trying to counter that with their own senses of extremes. Ppl obviously never learn. I am not saying this in polemics, but what I observe in society day in day out on a "real" life basis, not pictures created by medias and stomach feelings.

So, let me repeat. We need all day schools, to get ppl out of their environment, rich and poor alike, and make sure they get a good foundation of values and education. After that nobody can complain about a lacking starting field. What they make out of it in later life then really becomes a question of personal capability. But to differ between people to this degree and make their fate and perception based on their parents is nothing short of reactionary, with hardly any potential for a betterment in the future and not a single example in the past of such a concept working in the long run.

All in all this whole debate, in my personal opinion, is an attempt to find an easy explanation and solutions to a serious problem that is too complex and multi aspected for a most individuals to grasp in all it's extend due to lack of time, intellect or motivation.