Sunday, September 13, 2009

The Bomb That Wasn't or How To Thin The World's Population Without Trying

The occult globalists fear-mongering about environmental catastrophe from overpopulation, Ehrlich(The Population Bomb) and rising sea levels due to global warming, Gore(An Inconvenient Truth) need to pick up Steyn (America Alone, The End Of The World As We Know It) and get educated. Their unproven theories instead reflect a way to generate global carbon taxes to enslave us, and force humanity into the straight-jacket of the universal global citizen.

Soros, Rockefeller, Rothschild, Brzezinski beware! You won't need mass pandemics to thin the world's population, it's already happening.

Civilizations die from suicide not murder.
Arnold Toynbee, A Study of History
There is no "population bomb", (a term coined by Paul Ehrlich in the book by the same name.) There never was. Even in 1968 Paul Ehrlich and his ilk have understood that their so-called "population explosion" was really a massive population adjustment. The world's people are a lot more Islamic than they were back then and a lot less "Western".(1)

Take an alphabet list of nations of the world and start at the beginning:
1. Afghanistan. In 2005, the rate of births per 1,000 people in the country was 47.02.

2. Albania. In 2005, the rate of births per 1,000 people in the country was 15.08
That means that Albanians are breeding at a third the rate of Afghanistan. "Replacement" fertility rate-- i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller---is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Niger, is 7.46; Mali, 7.42; Somalia, 6.76; Afghanistan, 6.69; Yemen,6.58. Notice what those nations have in common? Starts with an I ends with a slam. As in:slam dunk.

Go back to that Albanian fertility rate. It looks low compared to Afghanistan but it's the highest in Europe. And why would that be? Because it's Europe's only majority Muslim country. At the moment.

Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.11 births per woman. New Zealand's just below; Ireland's at 1.9; Australia, 1.7. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain, 1.1--- about half replacement rate. So Spain's population is halving with every generation. Two grown-ups have a total of one baby. So there are half as many children as parents. And a quarter as many grandchildren as grandparents. And an eighth as many great-grandchildren as great-grandparents. And after that there is no point in extrapolating, because you're over the falls and it's too late to start paddling back. I received a flurry of letters from furious Spaniards when the government decided to replace the words "father" and "mother" on its birth certificates with the less orientationally offensive terms "Progenitor A" and "Progenitor B." This was part of the bureaucratic spring-cleaning of traditional language that always accompanies the arrival in law of "gay marriage." But with historically low numbers of progeny, the designations of the respective progenitors seem of marginal concern. No point renaming the teams if you no longer play the game. They might at least encourage young Spaniards to wander into the Barcelona singles bars and try the line: Do you want to come back to my pad and play Progenitor A and Progenitor B?" "Well, okay, but only if I can be ProgenitorA..."

Just as revealing, in 2006 Spain's ruling Socialist Party introduced a bill in parliament legislating that apes be included in "category of persons, and that they be given the moral and legal protection that currently are only enjoyed by human beings." The party's argument was that human Spaniard's do, after all, share 98.4 percent of their genes with chimpanzees, 97.7 percent with gorillas, and 96.4 percent with orangutans. Unfortunately, the 2 percent Spaniards don't share apparently includes the urge to reproduce. For the new Europe, instead of Gibbon's Decline and Fall, maybe someone should write Gibbon's Rise and Triumph. But why stop there? Why not give sheep the right to an abortion? Or allow gerbils to contract gay marriage? With a cockatoo? Why does the king of Spain not simply declare that henceforth, by royal proclamation, pigs shall fly?

By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22 percent, Bulgaria's by 36 percent, Estonia's by 52 percent--- or more. Seventeen European nations are now at what demographers call "lowest low" fertility: 1.3 births per woman. In theory, those countries will find their population halving every thirty-five years or so. In practice it will be quicker than that, as the savvier youngsters figure there's no point sticking around a country that's turned into an undertaker's waiting room. Not every pimply burger flipper wants to support entire old folks' homes single-handed and, aside from the economic argument, there are cultural factors too: I love going into Viennese record stores were the main floor's full of waltzes and operetta, and the hip-hop section's one tiny bin down in the back of the basement. But if you're young and fancy a burg with more of a buzz on the cutting edge of the zeitgeist you're unlikely to find it in Western Europe circa 2020.

As for America, demographic trends suggest that blue states ought to apply for honorary membership of the EU; in the 2004 election, the Bush-voting states had fertility rates 12 percent higher than Kerry-voting states. Barring a sudden change in electoral fortunes, Democrats are going to be even more depressed after the 2010 and 2020 reapportionments. Those who pooh-pooh the United States' comparatively robust demographics say they reflect nothing more than the fecundity of Hispanic immigration-it's the legions of the undocumented who are filling the maternity wards. In fact, white women in America still breed at a greater rate--1.85 or so--than white woman in Europe or Canada. And, from the Democrats' point of view, as they preside over dwindling school enrollments from San Francisco to rural Vermont, the reality is that red-state white Americans breed above replacement rate. In demographic terms, the salient feature of much of the "progressive agenda" --abortion, gay marriage, endlessly deferred adulthood-- is that, whatever the charms of any individual item, cumulatively it's a literal dead end.

As fertility dries up, so do societies. Demography is the most obvious symptom of civilizational exhaustion, and the clearest indicator of where we're headed. These countries are fading to oblivion unless they change their ways, or train those orangutan citizens to serve the food at the senior's community center. The tax revenues that support the ever-growing numbers of the elderly and retired have to be paid by equally growing numbers of the young and working. The design flaw of the radically secularist Eutopia is that it depends on a religious-society birth rate.(2)

The Math Of The Map

What's the Muslim population of Rotterdam? Forty percent. What's the most popular baby boy's name in Belgium? Mohammed. In Amsterdam? Mohammed. In Malmo, Sweden? Mohammed. By 2005, it was the fifth most popular baby boy's name in the United Kingdom. Yet most Europeans weren't even aware of the dominant demographic trend until September 11, and subsequent events in Madrid, Paris, and London.

Or put it at it's most basic: Why is the world we live in the way it is? Why is this book written in the language of a tiny island off the coast of northern Europe? Why is English the language of global business, of the Internet, of the paramount power of the age and of dozens of other countries from Belize to Botswana, Nigeria to Nauru? Why does Canada share its queen with Papua New Guinea? Why does a quarter of the world's population belong to the British Commonwealth and enjoy to one degree or another English Common Law and Westminster parliamentary traditions?

Because in the early nineteenth century the first nation to conquer infant mortality was England. Hitherto, the British Isles had been like the rest of the world: you had a big bunch of kids and a lot of them died before they could be of economic benefit to you or to society. But by 1820 medical progress and improvements in basic hygiene had so transformed British life that half the population was under the age of fifteen. In sheer numbers, the country was still a pipsqueak cluster of North Atlantic islands with 28 million people compared to China's 320 million. But it was the underlying demographic trend that proved decisive in the century ahead. Britain had the surplus manpower not just to settle Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, but also to provide administrative and business class in the West Indies, Africa, India, and the Pacific. And, fortunately for the world, this demographic transformation occurred in a culture that even then had a long-established system of law, property rights, and personal freedom.

Imagine what the planet would look like if the first country to conquer infant mortality had been a country with a less sustained tradition of individual liberty--China, say, or Japan or Russia or Germany. The "what," "where," and "when" are important, but the "who" is critical. It's hard to have a big influence in the world when there's just a few of you and you're all getting on in years.

So who's in the situation of England at the beginning of the nineteenth century? What country today has half its population under the age of fifteen?

Spain and Germany have 14 percent, The United Kingdom 18 percent, the United States 21 percent-- and Saudi Arabia has 39 percent, Pakistan 40 percent, and Yemen 47 percent. Little Yemen, like little Britain two hundred years ago, will send its surplus youth around the world--one way or another. Cultural relativists who sneer at the idea of English civilization should try to imagine what the world would be like if the U.S. Supreme Court and the Indian Parliament and the Australian legal system, not to mention Harvard and Yale, Oxford and Cambridge, had been built on Yemeni values.

The state of our civilization manifests itself both in the non-problems that terrify us beyond all reason--rising sea levels-- and in the real problems we need to pay heed to. So David Remnick, editor of the famously fact-checked-to-death New Yorker declares to the magazine's readers that the earth will "likely be an uninhabitable planet." In reality, much of the planet will be uninhabited long before it's uninhabitable. Yet environmentalists couldn't be less interested in politics of people--people who need people. Pace Barbara Streisand, they're the unluckiest people in the world--as we're about to find out. When my second child was born, a neighbor said, "Well, you've got two. You can stop now." She was being enlightened and responsible. After all, for her entire adult life, the progressive minded have worried about "overpopulation." And this view became so pervasive that, in an age of hysteria about "dwindling resources," it became entirely normal to look on our greatest resource--us-- as a liability. So today we're the dwindling resource, not the oil. We're the endangered species, not the spotted owl. The "population explosion" is a prop of the Western progressive's bizarre death-cultism. We are so bad, so polluting, so exploitative, so violent, so destructive that we owe it to the world not to be born in the first place. As Dr. Sue Blackmore wrote (in Britain's Guardian) in an unintentional side-splitter of an envir-doom column:
In all probability billions of people are going to die in the next few decades. Our poor, abused planet cannot take much more....If we take the unselfish route and try to save everyone the outcome is likely to be horrific conflict in the fight over resources, and continuing devastation of the planet until most, or all, of humanity is dead.

If we decide to put the planet first, then we ourselves are the pathogen. So we should let as many people die as possible, [Is this where Obama got his "death panels?", Steve] so that other species may live, and accept the destruction of civilization and of everything we have achieved.

Finally, we might decide that civilization itself is worth preserving. In that case we have to work out what to save and which people would be needed in a drastically reduced population--weighing the value of scientists and musicians against that of politicians for example.
We can't feed the world! they shriek. But we develop more efficient farming methods with nary a thought. The oil will run out by the year 2000! they warn. But we develop extraction methods and find we've got enough oil for as long as we'll need it.

But human inventiveness depends on humans--and that's the one thing we really are running short of, at least in the self-flagellating developed world.(3).

End Notes

1. Mark Steyn, America Alone, The End Of The World As We Know It (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2008),p.14.

2. Ibid., p.9-12

3. Ibid., p.6-9.


This blog is not affiliated with

No comments: