Follow Dr. Waddy

Tragically, Google has suspended the service that allows blog readers to subscribe by email to the blogs of their choice. This means that, in order to keep up with all the WaddyIsRight excitement, you might want to add "WaddyIsRight.com" to your favorites and visit this site OBSESSIVELY! I can't think of any better use of your time, can you? Alternatively, send me an email at nlwaddy@yahoo.com and I will try to get you subscribed from my end.

Wednesday, August 12, 2020

Profiles in Fertility

 

 

Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show goes around the world in about twenty minutes -- no mean feat!

 

Historically, Brian and I talk about the unrest in the late 60s and early 70s and how it compares (and doesn't compare) to the anarchy besetting our big cities today.  We also cover Hitler's "Mother's Cross" and the Nazi policy of encouraging fertility among (Aryan) women.  We talk about the Spanish-American War and why it came about.  And we discuss Woodrow Wilson's and FDR's machinations to pull the U.S. into world wars that, ostensibly, they claimed we should stay out of.  Never trust a Democrat!!!

 

In terms of current events, Brian and I discourse on the resignation of Seattle's embattled police chief, Trump's Executive Orders on unemployment insurance, etc. and their relevance to the separation of powers; and so much more!

 

Don't miss a millisecond!

 

 https://wlea.net/newsmaker-august-12-2020-dr-nick-waddy/

22 comments:

  1. DR. NICK

    One thing for sure, and that is we don't have to worry at all about fertility among American White Women, do we? Those women are totally free to abstain from producing children so they can pursue careers, and multi affairs, to include lesbian liaisons. So not to worry at all about their fertility. In the meantime, kudos to African American, Arab American and Hispanic American women who will ensure that a future race of dusky people dominates all of us. With that said, you need to design a medal for them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yikes, and there goes the thunking of the head on the desk, Ray. Please don't group all women into this thought. Not all women are fertile, or pursuing careers by choice, and not all women are wanting lesbian liaisons. I propose a medal for those women who can do it all; jobs and family. Not all women can balance this. Kudos to them.

    Good grief, I forgot what I was going to say in reference to the Newsmaker. I'll be back. grin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Linda

      No offense, but it is true that a lot of White Women are not producing children in the same numbers as women of the "darker races". Also, I am specifically talking about Young White Women. With that said, the predominant race in the United States by 2050 will not be White, or however you want to describe what White means in terms of race. I lot of White couples are living together without marriage bonds, and tend not be having children. This pattern seems to be widespread, among Whites. Again, no offense. Perhaps marriage is a thing of the past anyway, don't you think?

      Delete
    2. Nah, no offense, Ray.{{grin}}

      Yeah, I agree...like my husband says, "Hey, white is a color, right?" I don't know what the underlying issues are etc. Ray on why this is. Being an old 53 year old woman, I have no idea what these young women think, and honestly, it is quite scary to even ask them. I sat in college classes for the last four years and I often wonder what in the world what they were thinking and why. I sure got tired of being jumped on for my morals and values. It's scary and I am sure you and Dr. Waddy see and hear a lot as well.

      Anyways, yes, Ray, I think traditional marriage is a thing of the past.

      Hey Ray, How about we talk about Kamala Harris? She is not black, but yet the powers that be are promoting her as such. What the heck? Hopefully Dr. Waddy will have a post on her soon.

      Delete
  3. Whew! You two are determined to get me skating on thin ice, aren't you? Okay, I'll take the bait...

    Ray, sure -- it's true that Western women in general don't have many kids. Quite a few have none at all. Our fertility rate is way below replacement level. Is that a "white" problem? Not really. It's more of a class issue. Upper and middle class Western women, and in particular those of a SECULAR mindset, don't think having kids is necessary or even desirable. That's the tendency anyway. Lower class people of all races tend to have a lot more kids. Is that a factor of ideology...or just a factor of laziness/inconsistent use of birth control? Or is it a factor of "population policies" that effectively reward poor people for having more kids? I dunno. A combination of all of the above. Don't forget that many young people these days also feel that the planet is about to self-destruct, so they see not having kids as being the more "responsible" choice. But I agree with both of you that these anti-child attitudes are fundamentally inhuman and degenerate. If human beings aren't here on this earth to "be fruitful and multiply", well, what ARE we here for? And if our civilization can't even reproduce itself, but has to import millions of additional worker bees from other civilizations just to keep an even keel economically, what does THAT say about us?

    Incidentally, Ray, if your goal is to slow down the demographic decline of "Euro-Americans", there are really only two ways -- get them to produce more children (fat chance), or slow down the growth of the non-white population. As a matter of fact, fertility rates among ALL races are in decline, so that has the effect of balancing out some of these demographic trends. In addition, in case you missed it, President Trump has essentially banned ALL immigration for the duration of the pandemic. That's an action that ordinarily would elicit howls of protest from the Left, but under these remarkable circumstances he got away with it, and the public even approves! If that immigration ban lasts a while, the tipping point (when whites become a minority) will be deferred somewhat.

    I hasten to add that I view that tipping point as INEVITABLE, and, since I am not a racist, I don't view it as an ominous development in and of itself. I think America can prosper regardless of its racial composition, BUT I do take note of the fact that the Left has brainwashed and terrorized many people of color, and it has demonized whites. Thus, while I have nothing against any person of color, I do fear being pressed down into minority status myself, because I believe it possible, even probable, that I and future generations of white Americans will be oppressed because of our "privilege" and our (always assumed but rarely proven) "racism".

    Here endeth the lesson. Ha ha.

    ReplyDelete
  4. HA! It's all good, Dr. Waddy. Really, it is. Somehow, I knew you would comment along these lines.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dr. Nick

    My solution to this is for White Men in particular to get busy and start courting more ladies of color and impregnating them. This will eventually produce a mixed race, or as Australian "racists" like to say, "Do The Funky Zebra". I truly believe that a mixed race is the spermatic wave of the future, and that the White Man must get a leg up and perform this duty. It is also "The White Man's Burden" to make sure that this is done.

    ReplyDelete
  6. DR. NICK

    Let's move on. My question now is will Joe Biden's choice of running mate affect voting trends and preferences? I'm always of the opinion that The American People tend to be very fickle, and might think that voting Democrat is the right thing to do, no pun intended. I personally know more than a few Whites (male and female) who had traditionally voted Republican, but then decided to go (and stay) with Obama simply because he is Black, although he is Mixed race. They sincerely believed it was time for a Black President, regardless of realistic qualifications. I have a feeling this might be true with Harris. Of course, everyone knew it would be a Black Woman as the VP choice, but most people don't really believe something until it happens. So let's move on to this subject if possible. I am NOT against Harris because she is a woman and because she is Black, or considered to qualify as such in people's minds. I am against her because she is a Leftist. She claims to be a so called moderate, but deep down, I don't really believe that word can be used any longer to describe a party that has been taken over by radicals. Actually The Left as an ideology has always been radical. I also have this feeling that she sees this position as a spring board to the presidency.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I couldn't agree more, Jack. We can discuss the effects of Biden's pick of Kamala Harris separately, but I totally am on the same page insofar as her race and gender really aren't the issue. It's her ideology -- which is to say her delusional, poisonous worldview -- that's more relevant. The Left has actually subordinated ideas and principles to likes and dislikes -- and if they decide they dislike you, then NOTHING, and I mean nothing, will save you. The "progressives" now define progress is terms of hurting people they view as enemies. We can't allow that philosophy to take root at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If we do, half the country will be marked for destruction, at worst, and abject submission, at best.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dr. Waddy et Al: Re yours just above: It would be NECESSARY for the imposition of the CURRENT dimocrat agenda to establish a totalitarian dictatorship as an essential feature of which would be suppression of all blasphemous dissent of any water. Featuring relegation of those certain to object due alone to their membership in proscribed classes, to their deserved subservient and 5th class status in the polity. Thatsaid(this thing will not allow me to space for paragraphs): So much to discuss from your broadcast: A question: were Uboats deliberately attacking American flag merchant ships in convoy or without, pre 12/41? It would seem that alone would be a casus belli as in WWI. I know about Neutrality Patrol and the US destroyers attacked therein but I understand Hitler wanted to delay war with theUS. I agree with you that the US tweaked the Nazi beard prewar. Hitler and the Japanese and Italians: I do not doubt that Hitler harbored and expressed racial disdain for the Japanese andhemay well have resented Japan's insolent seizure of German "possessions" in China after WWI. I think he used the Japanese to occupy the Brits and Americans in the Far East and that had the Axis triumphed he would have reckoned with them starting in the tank country of the Indo Gangetic plain in the '50's. As forItalians: apparently for awhile he genuinely admired IlDuce and justified his alliance with Italy with the consideration that the pompous four flusher dominated his despised subjects.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Just for fun let's suppose the US had not taken the Philippines in 1898. It would have been a perhaps irresistible target even in an early 20th century Japan feeling it's "Os". They had taken Taiwan in 1895. Would the US have intervened? It probably couldn't have done. The Japanese Navy was already quite powerful and warships were coalburners then; I think they had adequate nearby access to coal in Manchuria.Also,it could not have done a Pearl Harbor,thereby motivating the US public; no carriers and very primitive planes. So whenever they decided the time was right to establish their "Co Prosperity Sphere" they would have had a massive staging area in the Philippines. Their determination to do this stemmed in large part from witnessing the western colonization of much of Asia in the 19th century and was a prime consideration for them from the mid 1800's on.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dr.Waddy from Jack: one big difference I see between the '60's "movement" (eh, so to speak) and today's "woke" is that the former was powered by a very significant faction of the gargantuan Boomer generation which had just experienced the most prosperous and secure childhood ever. They were not about to give up the good life even to help defend their country from world communism.

    ReplyDelete
  11. To continue: and the cynical left was blithe to provide a convenient moral rationale to the naifs to justify threir recalcitrance. Lots a keen fun too; better than stuffing phone booths.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Today's ingrates are not as numerous but the country has been grievously polluted by a thoroughly compromised MSM, educational system and much of government so that today's worker ants are long since convinced of their unassailable justice!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Is biden losing heart for public appearances? As an amateur actor I know how stage fright can be and if I was as goof prone as him I'd be scared alright. Oh bring on President Trump; a wise assed street fighter like him knows how to game a self righteous chump like Biden.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dr.Waddy et Al: If the President wins, fasten your seatbelts because the left will go ape----. It will either go underground as the "New Symbionese Liberation Army" or it will commence general above ground insurrection, which President Trump and the real America will meet with renewed confidence and requisite force.If it is close the American taliban left will employ every tactic in its sociopathic bag to steal the election. If Biden wins? The deluge!

    ReplyDelete
  15. A byword for our time: do you want to be seattle or portland? Then DON'T VOTE for Democrats at any level, ANY level.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dr.Waddy et Al: Sure the American Taliban left turns a blind eye to protests against the police but it would be blithe to assail any demonnstrationn the nature of "blue lives matter or support our police". This must not be wondered at; it comes from their sociopathic, totalitarian souls!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jack, that's a good question whether the Kriegsmarine was attacking US flagged merchantmen prior to December 1941. I just don't know. US Navy vessels were definitely attacking U-Boats, however. Both countries could quibble over who provoked whom, but the simple fact is that Americans and Germans were killing each other. If that kept up, chances were good that FDR could spin it into a war. Did Hitler want to delay US entry into the war? If so, then why did he encourage the Japanese to attack the US -- and why did he declare war on the US? No, I think the preponderance of the evidence suggests, as you pointed out, that Hitler believed that the US and Britain would be "detained" by the Japanese in the Far East long enough for Germany to win the war in Europe. Assuming Russia was about ready to collapse in a heap, that reasoning might have proven sound, but...

    Agreed: had the US not intruded into the Western Pacific the whole history of the 20th century would have been dramatically different. Maybe, though, some version of US imperialism was bound to spook Japan? If not in the Philippines, then elsewhere?

    Jack, seems to me that most of today's protesters and those of the Vietnam War era have one thing in common: privilege/isolation from reality. Assuming you never have to confront the emptiness of your own nonsense, and the modern media struggles mightily to insulate leftists from this inconvenience, then the sky's the limit for self-delusion and conceit!

    Yes, a Trump victory will NOT be accepted by the left-wingers. The post office nonsense currently enrapturing them is just round one in a concerted campaign to explain any reverses in 2020 as the result of a fascist/Russian conspiracy. I believe the election returns will trickle in with unprecedented slowness, and this greatly reduces the possibility that the nation as a whole will accept the eventual outcome. Whoever "wins" better be developing sophisticated contingency plans for how to deal with massive civil unrest and even an attempted coup d'etat. A sizeable margin of victory would negate all this, of course, but only Biden is, I believe, capable of winning handily. If Trump prevails, it will be by the skin of his teeth -- and probably just in the electoral college. That means ugliness in the streets! But maybe Obama is right and we shouldn't underestimate Biden's capacity to "f*** things up"? We shall see.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dr.Waddy: I guess after December 7 Hitler would have had nothing to lose by disregarding his alliance with Japan. Japan was in for it! But then maybe he wanted Japan to attack the Russians? I'm going to do more reading.Good thing he turned out to be an unbalanced PFC. I think if Biden wins the crazies even on the barricades will give him a short honeymoon and then (surprise,surprise) decide he is not politically correct enough.He would then be muscled out in favor of the intended savior, perhaps by renewed mayhem. After that the disorder will be closely guided by the White House as the drive for final victory commences. An election in which the results are not immediately clear would be a potentially catastrophic mess. A Pelosi or McCarthy Presidency could happen if there is no resolution by1/20. Moscow '91 or '93? Not inconceivable.

    ReplyDelete
  19. True, Jack. The tanks might roll in the streets before all is said and done. As in 1991, however, one has to question whether either party has the stomach for a real fight.

    My understanding is that the Germans did not push the Japanese to attack Russia, because, when these decisions were made, they didn't feel they needed any help. Remember, though, that it took Hitler until December 11th to declare war on the U.S. That suggests that there was a real battle taking place over Germany's master strategy in the war. Would it have made a difference if Hitler had decided to make discretion the better part of valor? Hard to say.

    ReplyDelete