And coming up with some really strange ideas.

In Human societies. Who is breeding? In almost every country, even those considered "first world" or successful, it is the poorest who
outbreed the richest by a very wide margin.

You're assuming that poor people are somehow inferior to rich people, in some kind of genetic manner. Offspring of 'unsuccessful' couples may become 'successful'- that is one of many things that set human beings apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Our children are not necessarily doomed to fail as we did, if we did. In that same vein, our children may fail where we did not. This is a product of self-awareness.

Another assumption you are making is that a stable, rather than growing, population is bad. A world where approximately as many babies are born as people died is probably the best we can hope for. As it stands, the Earth is overpopulated already, a constant growth rate of the human population would mean disaster not only for us, but for every living thing on the planet. While you are correct in that in some highly educated countries the growth rate is negative, which is bad, it is unlikely that extinction via birth control could actually happen.

I'm not sure where your anti-socialist argument really fits, or even makes any sense. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe education is the primary factor in birth control usage. Rather than it being a populace's reaction to the kind of society a stalinist/soviet or even western socialist gov't creates. Ironically, both tend to be fairly well educated societies.