War of the Babies: When Modern Warfare and Demography Square Off, Demography Wins.

Taki's Magazine ^ | May 26, 2008 | Gary Brecher

[Bokababe]

...So there’s a shocking lesson that military buffs have been slow to face: military superiority doesn’t matter nearly as much right now as birthrate and sheer ruthless will.

Ah, birth rate -- funny how it’s become such a taboo subject for both Left and Right. The Lefties wouldn’t dream of telling third-world people to limit their baby-making, and most right wingers can’t bring themselves to endorse birth control even if it could slow the destruction of their own countries.

So birth rate is a weapon without a counter-weapon right now. So it tends to win.....

[Bokababe]

This article over two years old, but it is still right on target and I don't think it was ever posted.

[Minn]

and most right wingers can’t bring themselves to endorse birth control even if it could slow the destruction of their own countries.

That's a strange assertion? Does the author mean that birth control employed in other countries could save a person's own country from being overrun by a hoard? The best thing to save countries from Japan to Sweden would be a little less birth control, would it not?

[Westbrook]

Read my tag line.

We have 11 children.

We are a conservative, Christian, homeschooling family.

Our children know about the Bible, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

I put those things above all others.

[Bokababe]

Does the author mean that birth control employed in other countries could save a person's own country from being overrun by a hoard?

Yes. He's talking about birth control in the third world.

[PGR88]

“...The only Mexicans I ever met who really got all nostalgic about the old country were second-generation college brats, who’d never been there...”

So true!

[Dr. Sivana]

The Lefties wouldn’t dream of telling third-world people to limit their baby-making

Hey, I'm a rightie, and I don't think baby-making in the third world is really any of my business.

[Bokababe]

....To succeed in the post-1918 world, the world Woodrow Wilson dreamed up where “small nations” have rights even if they can’t defend them, you need to use slower, less obviously military methods, like birthrate and immigration. Immigration and birth rate actually have one of those “synergistic relationships” New Agers like to yammer about, because immigrant families tend to have more kids than they would have had if they’d stayed home—and the base rate for their home countries is usually way, way more than the locals have in the rich countries they move to.

The classic example of this kind of slow conquest is Kosovo. The Serbs could always defeat the Albanians on the battlefield, even when outnumbered, but the Albanians had a huge advantage in the most important military production of all—babies. According to the BBC, the birthrate of Kosovo Albanians 50 years ago was an amazing 8.5 children per woman.

The Serb/Albanian conflict offers damn near perfect lab conditions to prove my case that birth rate trumps military prowess these days, because the Serbs always beat the Albanians in battle, yet they’ve lost their homeland, Kosovo. Here again, we can blame Woodrow Wilson and his talk about “rights.” In places where tribes hate each other, a tribe that outbreeds its rival will become the majority, even if it can’t fight. So, after generations of skulking at home making babies, letting the Serbs do the fighting, the Albanians finally became the majority in Kosovo and therefore the official “good guys,” being oppressed by the official “bad guys,” the Serbs. At least that’s the way the naïve American Wilsonian types like Clinton saw it. So when the Serbs fought back against an Albanian rebellion in Kosovo, and dared to beat the Albanians, Clinton decided to bomb the Serbs into letting go of Kosovo, the ancient heartland of a Christian nation that had spent its blood holding off the Turks for hundreds of years......

[GonzoGOP]

So birth rate is a weapon without a counter-weapon right now. So it tends to win

It tends to win because the other side isn't fighting. However any tactic will win if the other side doesn't fight back. A little league team can beat the New York Yankees if the Yankees never come out of the dugout.

Don't get me wrong, having the advantage in numbers is a very good thing. But history is replete with examples where the quality of quantity just wasn't enough to carry the day. Rome was hammered while fighting on the defensive against much smaller Carthaginian armies. They only won when they went onto the offensive and attacked and destroyed Carthage itself. They never defeated the Carthaginian armies in Italy.

Persia had a much larger population and higher birth rate than Greece. Although defeated at Marathon and Salimis they would have triumphed eventually if given the time. But their large population didn't help when Alexander the Great, armed with better weapons and better trained soldiers decided to stop playing defense and went after the Persian empire on its home soil. At the turn of the century the Africans had a much higher birth rate and larger populations than the European colonial troops. But they could not attack the European homelands and so got wiped out when spear went up against Maxim gun.

If the West stays on the defensive and plays by Marquis of Queensbury rules they will lose, but it is not because of their smaller population. The destruction of the West will be because the other side is playing to win, and we aren't playing at all. If the West decides that their civilization is worth killing to preserve and the rule book goes out the window there are ways of rapidly reducing third world populations.

[Jack Black]

I’ll be surprised if a “Takimag” article is allowed to remain here, usually they are pulled.

This line jumped out at me “and most right wingers can’t bring themselves to endorse birth control.”

Really? I doubt it. Even most Catholics I know (ie: my entire extended family) support and personally use birth control.

As to the idea that Birth Control can “save the West” (by getting 3rd worlders to use it), there is of course the alternative option: we stop using it and INCREASE our birth rates to match theirs by abandoning our attachment to birth control and small families.

Essentially this would mean undoing the entire Feminist Revolution, and lets face it, that ain’t gonna happen.

Demogrpahics is a weird game of last man standing. The last ethnic group to move to ZPG will (due to the nature of exponential growth) end up much larger than those that get there only one or two generations earlier.

In 1900 Whites were approx 25% of the worlds population. Today they are about 7%.

Inevitably the power of the West is going to fade as our relative numbers continue to decrease.

One disturbing trend, if you are White, is that as things now stand there will be few if any White majority countries anywhere in the world in the 22nd century.

China will still be 99% Chinese, Africa will still be 99% African (the entire continent, and every country in it), but we will be guests in our own nations of the minority populations we’ve allowed to settle among us.

As we can already see their modus oporandi is to double down on punishment of us once they get to majority. Obama is a harbinger of things to come, with his justice department refusing to help out Whites who are discriminated against, his Black Nationalist apointees to the Agriculture department favoring Black reperations over programs that benefit the majority of farmers, etc.

So far we are not seeing that all these racial minorities ever will convert to being interested in meritocracy.

[ntmxx]

Real simple;

American Birth Control = Illegal Immigration and Invasion replacement population

Not the cost savings as promised.

[RightOnline]

I received this from a good friend today.

Watch it..........then reconsider your opinions on this topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t7L9cRiPPI

[Theo]

Or visit this site:

http://www.demographicwinter.com

[Bokababe]

He made an interesting point — if race is important to you, then you are going to lose as we become a more racially mixed country. But if it is culture that is important to you, then there is a chance of saving the culture if you think that it’s worth fighting for.

I don’t have a racist bone in my body. It’s all about preserving culture for me and keeping the US a meritocracy.

[Jack Black]

Yes. We are setting ourselves up to be the “Christian Kosovo” in America circa 2100. I notice that many who say “who cares” have no kids: they are the ultimate LibTard Surrender Monkeys. They are happy to surrender the entire West to over-breading, illiterate thrid-worlders as long as they get their Social Security and can retire at 62.

I believe that these demographic trends have already gone so far that there is really little chance of reversing it, short a failure of the American Republic itself (which is more than a little big likely).

FedGov is, it seems to me, inalterably the enemy of Traditional American culture and the people who built it. I don’t think this will change.

Therefore I tend to prefer some peaceful dissolution of the Union, secession of the states, and at least some remnant of America being able to be retained for us. I fully expect that large swathes of USA will become majority LaRaza and quite unfriendly to my descendents (ie: Spanish as first language, Mexican cultural norms, etc.).

I’d like to find some way for my grandkids to be raised in “the West” and “European-American culture” and not in something like Brazil or Mexico.

Staying in LA or San Jose and voting Republican ain’t it! (Which is why I moved to southern Washignton state). More and more though it seems that all of the USA is being overrun. And certainly the FedGov shoves my face into the pavement every single day.

[Bokababe]

"Watch it..........then reconsider your opinions on this topic."

I've seen it, saw it a few years ago and that video proves the point rather than counters it.

[GonzoGOP]

The Serb/Albanian conflict offers damn near perfect lab conditions to prove my case that birth rate trumps military prowess these days, because the Serbs always beat the Albanians in battle, yet they’ve lost their homeland, Kosovo. Here again, we can blame Woodrow Wilson and his talk about “rights.” In places where tribes hate each other, a tribe that out breeds its rival will become the majority, even if it can’t fight.

Bad example. The Serbs we well under way to eliminating the Albanians. The theory says the faster breeder wins even if the can't fight. But that is not correct, there are enough genocides in history to prove that point. The Mongols while never having a large population conquered most of the world. They are the only army to ever pacify Afganastan. They did it by killing every male over the age of ten. And the Serbs were well under way to using this same tactic against the Kosovo Albanians. They failed because while Albanians troops might not have been able to win on the battlefield, their diplomats were able to bring in UN troops who could. So it was superior weapons (in the hands of European and American troops) and not faster breading that turned the table in favor of the Albanians.

[I am Richard Brandon]

"War of the Babies: When Modern Warfare and Demography Square Off, Demography Wins."

Read the Bible for the history that it provides. Winning in those olden days seemed to consist of (a)Beating the army and killing them (b)Killing or enslaving the women (c)Killing or enslaving the children (d)Burning the towns to the ground (e)Salting the fields. (f)Taking, or killing and eating the livestock

At this point, you have pretty much won the war for the forseeable future, but the enslaving thing might lead to some renewed resistance in 15 - 20 years. Killing is therefore desirable for the long term - thus 'Raping and Pillaging' became popular followed closely by the killing thing. Colin Powell was the most recent person to articulate a policy of warfare something like this.

[GonzoGOP]

'Raping and Pillaging' became popular followed closely by the killing thing.

Remember the first rule for highly successful pirates. Pillage, then burn.

Also if violence is your last resort you didn't resort to it soon enough.

[hellbender]

Amen. American whites have been sold on the idea that the goal is to produce only a few children and to have them attend a few Ivy League schools. Those schools are now training grounds for the Leftist aristocracy, and preferentially admit non-white elements. So the traditional American elite is committing cultural and ethnic suicide.

[Jack Black]

He made an interesting point — if race is important to you, then you are going to lose as we become a more racially mixed country. But if it is culture that is important to you, then there is a chance of saving the culture if you think that it’s worth fighting for.

I don’t have a racist bone in my body. It’s all about preserving culture for me and keeping the US a meritocracy.

I used to think those exact things, I don't anymore. I don't see any trend what so ever towards most groups moving to the ideals of meritocracy.

• Blacks have now had 45 years of special treatment and society bending over to accomodate them. Everything from Affirmative Action to The Great Society to no-cost community colleges have been put in place to help them uplift themselves.

  What do you see? Do you see some larger percentage of Blacks voting Republican (which would be a good indicator that they are moving from the racial-spoils view of politics to the traditional American belief in limited government, equality, level playing fields and merit.) No, you don't. Even leaving the Obama election aside, Blacks are more and more a Statist-loving, block-voting group inside our culture demanding more and more concessions.

  As mentioned above, Obama is not administering a 'post-racial' government. He's dishing out reperations.

  I see no end in sight.

• The latinos are also becoming more and more a monolithic group, and are even more explicit about their inevitable cultural victory of "gringos". I lived in LA for much of the 1980s. The transition is palpable. As Latinos gain wealth and power they are not becoming "more like us".

• Even the Asians, the so called "model minority" are trending towards permanant racial grievance group identity. The Chinese-Americans and especially Japanese-Americans who have a few generations here mmay be standing against the current on this, but the vast influx of Laos, Thais, Vietnamese, Phillipinos, Hmong and other Southern Asians who came staring the 1980s seem to be firmly in the grievence group side of the ledger. Organized as racial / ethnic teams to promote their own identity first and foremost.

• The Jewish minority, the most financially successful minority in America, the vast majority of whom trace their roots in the USA back to the late 18th and early 19th centuries, still vote for, and supply much of the money behind, the Democratic party, liberal agitation groups, and are firmly committed to making the USA a majority-minority nation while upholding the "get whitey" programs like Affirmative Action. They vote Democratic almost as predictably as Blacks.

Ultimately I think the idea of maintaining the culture while replacing the race that created, nurtured and advanced it, will result in failure. I can't think of any examples of it working in history. Conservatives are very idealistic.

Many of us, for example, were swept up in the neo-Conservative view that if we just took the boot off the neck of the Iraqi people and kicked out Saddam that they would quickly use their considerable oil wealth and generally high-for-the-region education and literacy to create a (perhaps slightly Islamic flavored) modern social democracy. Instead, they convulsed into a parody of Middle Eastern tribal/sectarian division and killing.

Trillions of dollars dumped into Africa since 1960 in hopes of growing some reasonable Western-style society and nations has largely failed.

Based on all these examples we should expect that when, for instance, unassimilated Latinos become a working majority in a community that the values and habits, the social norms, the politics and view of law, all change to meet their cultural expectations. Why would it be any other way? Why should it be? They do not have any particular reverence for the gringo founding fathers: Jefferson who? Santa Ana is their hero, not Sam Houston.

And, when you look at the news from Southern California that's exactly what is happening! Little cities are seized by politicians who milk them dry, paying their cronies half million dollar salaries while failing to deliver basic services. It's the Mexifornication of the US.

I find people of other races inherently understand this, the very idea of a race-neutral society doesn't make a lot of sense to them. They all are proud of their race, believe their race is the best, and want to see their race prosper. Only whites are denied this, and forced to align with abstract ideologies that we hope can attract enough cultural converts to maintain our culture and society.

China for the Chinese. Africa for the Africans. The Nations of the West for all the people of the World.

That's the plan. I can not, and do not, agree with it. Ultimatley it is another failed liberal ideology. (Multiculturalism) that you are buying into with your beliefs, in my opinion.

These are difficult issues, but we must begin discussion of them in ernest while we are still in a position to effect our own future, and not merely a disliked minority in what was once our own land.