Why We Will, Eventually, Win.

Feminism simply doesn’t work. We all know that. The real concern is whether it will be ended by a return to sanity and patriarchy by the Western world, or by a new Ottoman Empire, a Muslim conquest of Europe and America. Which we may not be able to combat because of feminist appeasement foreign policy, the feminist hatred of the military, and the feminist child-rearing which has turned most of our young men into young manginas.

However, there is hope. And that hope rests on a little thing called “demographics”.

The short version is, in the long run, demographics will work in our favor. While Marxists are running around actualizing themselves and “liberating” their women, we are quietly producing the next generation. Democrats and Socialists and the various other flavors of the same thing will dwindle, as will Muslims, while we keep following that old commandment to be fruitful and multiply. And most people do vote the way their parents voted, and follow the same religion and everything else.

The population explosion will continue for a couple more decades, but then will start to reverse. And we’ll be left with a whole bunch of old people who need to be looked after, which is going to be a very difficult situation. The welfare state will collapse, which won’t be a pretty sight. Very likely the working-age people 20 years hence will curse the 20th century leftist politicans who promised all that government largesse (and were voted for by women).

And there’s a couple of other brewing problems I won’t go into just now. It’ll get worse before it gets better. But in the end, western civilization will resurrect and survive. Feminism contains the seeds of its own destruction.

It’s the Demography, Stupid
The real reason the West is in danger of extinction.
by MARK STEYN

The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birthrate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyperrationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism. Indeed, in its reliance on immigration to ensure its future, the European Union has adopted a 21st-century variation on the strategy of the Shakers, who were forbidden from reproducing and thus could increase their numbers only by conversion. The problem is that secondary-impulse societies mistake their weaknesses for strengths–or, at any rate, virtues–and that’s why they’re proving so feeble at dealing with a primal force like Islam.

*

Lady Kennedy was arguing that our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people’s intolerance, which is intolerable. And, unlikely as it sounds, this has now become the highest, most rarefied form of multiculturalism. So you’re nice to gays and the Inuit? Big deal. Anyone can be tolerant of fellows like that, but tolerance of intolerance gives an even more intense frisson of pleasure to the multiculti masochists.

*

If one wanted to allocate blame, one could argue that it’s a product of the U.S. military presence, the American security guarantee that liberated European budgets: instead of having to spend money on guns, they could concentrate on butter, and buttering up the voters. If Washington’s problem with Europe is that these are not serious allies, well, whose fault is that? Who, in the years after the Second World War, created NATO as a postmodern military alliance? The “free world,” as the Americans called it, was a free ride for everyone else. And having been absolved from the primal responsibilities of nationhood, it’s hardly surprising that European nations have little wish to reshoulder them. In essence, the lavish levels of public health care on the Continent are subsidized by the American taxpayer. And this long-term softening of large sections of the West makes them ill-suited to resisting a primal force like Islam.

*

Yet, even by the minimal standards of these wretched precedents, so-called post-Christian civilizations–as a prominent EU official described his continent to me–are more prone than traditional societies to mistake the present tense for a permanent feature. Religious cultures have a much greater sense of both past and future, as we did a century ago, when we spoke of death as joining “the great majority” in “the unseen world.” But if secularism’s starting point is that this is all there is, it’s no surprise that, consciously or not, they invest the here and now with far greater powers of endurance than it’s ever had. The idea that progressive Euro-welfarism is the permanent resting place of human development was always foolish; we now know that it’s suicidally so.

*

I watched that big abortion rally in Washington in 2004, where Ashley Judd and Gloria Steinem were cheered by women waving “Keep your Bush off my bush” placards, and I thought it was the equivalent of a White Russian tea party in 1917. By prioritizing a “woman’s right to choose,” Western women are delivering their societies into the hands of fellows far more patriarchal than a 1950s sitcom dad. If any of those women marching for their “reproductive rights” still have babies, they might like to ponder demographic realities: A little girl born today will be unlikely, at the age of 40, to be free to prance around demonstrations in Eurabian Paris or Amsterdam chanting “Hands off my bush!”

Just before the 2004 election, that eminent political analyst Cameron Diaz appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show to explain what was at stake:

“Women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. . . . If you think that rape should be legal, then don’t vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body,” she advised Oprah’s viewers, “then you should vote.”

Poor Cameron. A couple of weeks later, the scary people won. She lost all rights to her body. Unlike Alec Baldwin, she couldn’t even move to France. Her body was grounded in Terminal D.

But, after framing the 2004 presidential election as a referendum on the right to rape, Miss Diaz might be interested to know that men enjoy that right under many Islamic legal codes around the world. In his book “The Empty Cradle,” Philip Longman asks: “So where will the children of the future come from? Increasingly they will come from people who are at odds with the modern world. Such a trend, if sustained, could drive human culture off its current market-driven, individualistic, modernist course, gradually creating an anti-market culture dominated by fundamentalism–a new Dark Ages.”

Bottom line for Cameron Diaz: There are worse things than John Ashcroft out there.

This is a brilliant article, one that was reproduced in a lot of publications and on a lot of websites, but I believe Mr. Steyn was wrong about one thing. (Even Mark Steyn can be wrong occasionally.) Long term, the demography is, in fact, going our way. And by “our”, I mean the way of Western conservatives.

The Middle Aging of the Middle East

Yet a closer look at the demographics of the Middle East shows that the region’s population dynamics may ultimately work to Israel’s advantage, and in any event will present challenges far different from those most commonly feared. Throughout the Arab world, birth rates are plunging. And as a result, Arab countries, as well as Iran, will soon be experiencing population aging on a scale and speed never before seen in human history.

Is Europe Dying?
Notes on a Crisis of Civilizational Morale

When an entire continent, healthier, wealthier, and more secure than ever before, fails to create the human future in the most elemental sense–by creating the next generation–something very serious is afoot. I can think of no better description for that “something” than to call it a crisis of civilizational morale. Understanding its origins is important in itself, and important for Americans because some of the acids that have eaten away at European culture over the past two centuries are at work in the United States, and indeed throughout the democratic world.

*

Take, for example, the proposal made by a French Jesuit, Henri de Lubac, during World War II. De Lubac argued that Europe’s torments in the 1940s were the “real world” results of defective ideas, which he summarized under the rubric “atheistic humanism”—the deliberate rejection of the God of the Bible in the name of authentic human liberation. This, de Lubac suggested, was something entirely new. Biblical man had perceived his relationship to the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus as a liberation: liberation from the terrors of gods who demanded extortionate sacrifice, liberation from the whims of gods who played games with human lives (remember the Iliad and the Odyssey), liberation from the vagaries of Fate. The God of the Bible was different. And because biblical man believed that he could have access to the one true God through prayer and worship, he believed that he could bend history in a human direction. Indeed, biblical man believed that he was obliged to work toward the humanization of the world. One of European civilization’s deepest and most distinctive cultural characteristics is the conviction that life is not just one damn thing after another; Europe learned that from its faith in the God of the Bible.

The proponents of nineteenth-century European atheistic humanism turned this inside out and upside down. Human freedom, they argued, could not coexist with the God of Jews and Christians. Human greatness required rejecting the biblical God, according to such avatars of atheistic humanism as Auguste Comte, Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche.

Why Europe chooses extinction

For today’s Europeans, there is no consolation, neither the old pagan continuity of national culture, nor the Christian continuity into the hereafter. The French know that Victor Hugo, Gauloise cigarettes, Chateau Lafitte and Impressionist painters one day will become a matter of antiquarian curiosity. The Germans know that no one but bored schoolboys will read Goethe two centuries hence, like Pindar. They have no ambition but to die quietly, no concerns except for those amusements which might reduce boredom and anxiety en route to the grave. They have no passions except hatred born of envy. They hate America, a new kind of universality that succeeded where the old Christian empire failed. They hate Israel, which makes the Jewish people appear all the more eternal in stark contrast to Europe’s morbid temporality. They will pass out of history unmourned even by themselves.

CRISIS OF FAITH IN THE MUSLIM WORLD

America can ameliorate the impact of an aging population by raising productivity (so that fewer workers produce more GDP), attracting more skilled immigrants (and increasing its tax base), and, in the worst of all cases, tightening its belt. American life will not come to an end if more people drive compact cars instead of SUVs, or go camping for vacation instead of to Disney World. But the Islamic world is so poor that any reduction in living standards from present levels will cause social breakdown.

The demographics of radical Islam

Demographics still provide vital strategic information, albeit in quite a different fashion. Today’s Islamists think like the French general staff in 1914. Islam has one generation in which to establish a global theocracy before hitting a demographic barrier. Islam has enough young men – the pool of unemployed Arabs is expected to reach 25 million by 2010 – to fight a war during the next 30 years. Because of mass migration to Western Europe, the worst of the war might be fought on European soil.

Death by secularism: Some statistical evidence

Underlying the demographic crisis of the industrial world, I believe, is a spiritual crisis. If the above analysis has any merit, the issue is not wealth, but rather the desire of men to continue to inhabit this planet. Secular ideologies – socialism, positivism, and so forth – promised a world free of bigotry and hatred, and an unending vista of peace and prosperity. Humankind, however, has vomited up these ideologies. Secular Europe and radical Islam in that sense represent two sides of the same coin: both have rejected the secular order, the latter through open battle, and the former through fatal resignation.

Is Western Demographic Decline Self-Correcting?

James Taranto first publicized the idea of “The Roe Effect” and it has been expounded upon many others, including Mark Steyn and Rush Limbaugh. The idea is that, if one assumes that pro-life women are less likely to have abortions than those that are neutral or pro-abortion, then over time the percentage of the population that is pro-life will increase.

It can also be argued that women who pursue careers tend and delay childbirth will have fewer children than women who marry earlier.

Looking at U.S. electoral politics – and not taking into account people moving due to better economics or weather – states which voted for the Pro-Life George W. Bush in the 2004 election have a faster growth rate than states that voted for John Kerry.

The result is that the electorate becomes more conservative just on the basis of fertility. It’s an interesting path to conservative political victory – wait for liberals to go extinct because they’re not reproducing.

If we were literally at war with feminists, and I were in charge, I would never have advocated killing the enemy’s babies so that our children wouldn’t have to fight them. If I were a general in this hypothetical war, and had the means of killing the same number of feminist adults as feminists murder in the womb, I could not bring myself to use those means. This is what feminism is like: they will mass murder their own kind for us, in numbers and by methods we would shrink from.

Jewish fertility steady, Muslim down

Political Victory: From Here to Maternity

In states where Bush won a popular majority in 2000, the average woman bears 2.11 children in her lifetime — which is enough to replace the population. In states where Gore won a majority of votes in 2000, the average woman bears 1.89 children, which is not enough to avoid population decline. Indeed, if the Gore states seceded from the Bush states and formed a new nation, it would have the same fertility rate, and the same rapidly aging population, as France — that bastion of “old Europe.”

If Gore’s America (and presumably John Kerry’s) is reproducing at a slower pace than Bush’s America, what does this imply for the future? Well, as the comedian Dick Cavett remarked, “If your parents never had children, chances are you won’t either.” When secular-minded Americans decide to have few if any children, they unwittingly give a strong evolutionary advantage to the other side of the culture divide. Sure, some children who grow up in fundamentalist families will become secularists, and vice versa. But most people, particularly if they have children, wind up with pretty much the same religious and political orientations as their parents. If “Metros” don’t start having more children, America’s future is “Retro.”

The Roe Effect
The right to abortion has diminished the number of Democratic voters.

And if Republicans keep winning the presidency and appointing Supreme Court justices, Roe v. Wade may eventually be overturned. (This almost certainly would have happened in 1992 if the Senate had approved Robert Bork’s confirmation five years earlier.)

I hope God can forgive me for saying this, but a few decades of legal abortion will, in the long run, be good for civilization. It may even save it.

Hm. I don’t think I can forgive myself for saying that, even though it’s true.

Will the Rapid Growth of Islam Continue?

But there does seem to be considerable evidence that the Muslim population growth is declining faster than the total world population growth. For example, consider the following table of growth rates based on the figures in the World Christian Encyclopedia.

What if it’s a World Population Implosion?
Speculations about Global De-population

Forty Million Missing Girls:
Land, Population Controls and Sex Imbalance in Rural China

India and some other countries have the same problem: the easy legal abortion promoted by feminists has led to the prenatal murder of millions of baby girls for the crime of not being boys. Funny how everything feminists promote ends up leading to women being murdered, assaulted, or used and cast aside like soiled gloves.

Live and let die

“Culture is the stuff out of which we weave the illusion of immortality … Frequently, ethnic groups will die rather than abandon their ‘way of life’. Native Americans often chose to fight against European settlers to the point of their own extinction rather than accept assimilation, because assimilation implied abandoning both their past and their future. Historic tragedy occurs on the grand scale when economic or strategic circumstances undercut the material conditions of life of a people, which nonetheless cannot accept assimilation into another culture. That is when entire peoples fight to the death.”

The Palestinian Arabs fight to the death while the Guarani of the Amazon politely hang themselves. Europe, whose fertility rate is barely half of replacement, is committing suicide as well – perhaps one should call it suicide by vacation. In 200 years German, French and Italian will be spoken only in hell.

And finally, a quotation from an essay much beloved by MRAs:

The Return of Patriarchy

Across the globe, people are choosing to have fewer children or none at all. Governments are desperate to halt the trend, but their influence seems to stop at the bedroom door. Are some societies destined to become extinct? Hardly. It’s more likely that conservatives will inherit the Earth. Like it or not, a growing proportion of the next generation will be born into families who believe that father knows best.