This is a religious divide. The president thinks people we see in bondage want to be as free as we Americans. In fact, many of them regard us as the ones in bondage and, in their religion, they see themselves as free. They regard our ways as decadent and our culture corrupt. They want no part of it. They are welcome to their 7th-century ways, but they are not welcome to impose those ways on the rest of the world.
In order to feel superior, one must be able to look down on others. It is difficult for these fanatics who have never invented, discovered or created anything but chaos and bloodshed to look up from the bottom of their pile of rubble to see that the world has long ago passed them by.
Their region of the world has taken in huge amounts of money from petroleum sales to the developed world. Has that money been used to upgrade people from their squalid lives? Have great universities been constructed, cures for diseases discovered, products invented to benefit all humankind, music composed and art created that the world envies and admires? They have not, so they blame their miserable existence on the Jews and the West who have done such things and more.
Unable to cope with their failings and to justify their guilt, they seek to bring others down to their level. They will not be stopped by diplomatic appeals, or reason. They have taken up the sword and they must be made to die by the sword in sufficient numbers that even they will see the futility of their ways and be forced to engage in less warlike pursuits.
Cal Thomas
Thursday July 27, 2006
Cal Thomas writes that the conflict between the West and the Islamic world is not open to being solved by politics as usual:
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
...why is it that he and others love to get all charged up about birthrates?
Tom, I believe you are referring to me here...
TFR is a quick number that tells us future numerical values of a culture. The political concern? Two reasons:
1) Population migration into democracies changes their politics and thus their policies.
2) TFR gives a quick view of the natural health of a culture. Ours is sick and declining.
Why care?
An example of case 1): Muslims are about 10% of France right now. You ever wonder why France, one of the original supporters of the creation of Israel, suddenly hates Israel so much? And why they oppose the US on Iraq now, but not 10 years ago? Demographics, not politics.
Birthrates also tell us which cultures are inferior via Darwinian natural selection. Remember a TFR of 1.3 (with aging birthrates for first-time mothers) cuts the population in half nearly every generation. Think: 100k, 50k, 25k. Each person generally lives through 3 generations. Now that is death far exceeding any major war, and you must have young people to fight a war Now imagine a TFR of 4 along side them: 50k, 100k, 200k.
Note that the countries of the West's populations won't fall much, though, as Muslims and Hispanics will move in to fill the gap, and bring in their big birthrates. This happened with Europe's domination of the Americas over the Indians, and now it will with Muslims and Hispanics in Europe and North America. Forget a wall, ain't gonna be effective. Never has been.
Bottom line: war doesn't work in the battle between civilizations unless you are willing to use genicide - kill the entire culture. We will not do that (rightfully so). So we will lose the 'war' on terror by default. They will move in and take over. That is why Cal's article is so weird, worrying about this and that as if we even stand a chance. Our culture is history unless we somehow regain the will to live.
Basically, the 'war' on terror has nothing to do with Muslims, and everything to do with us. We are simply feeling the push of a growing culture against our self-absorbed, declining one. If we were a healthy civilization, we would be exporting Christianity over there, not the other way around.
Demography is destiny is not some weird saying. It is simply reality.>
M_D: Thanks for clarifying your views for me. I don't think that your assertions are self-evidently true, but I also am in no position to reject them out of hand. Let me set out some thoughts, and let's see where we get. I realize I'm bombarding you with questions, here-- I certainly don't expect you to go look up the answers to all this, but, if nothing else, it'll give you an idea of why I'm not on board with you.
(1) The numbers you cite are, for the most part, forward-looking. What does history have to say about this? Has some academic somewhere done a study of TFRs through history?
Was England's world conquest fated by its ability to grow more quickly than India and all those other places? Was it one of a number of factors, like economic growth and quality of education of the elite? Can it be shown that TFR was even a factor at all? If high TFRs are generally associated with military/economic gains, are there exceptions to that rule? Doesn't, say, South Africa, or Bangladesh, have higher TFRs than us? Did they 50 years ago? 100 years ago? If so, where's their destiny? Maybe you are of the view that high TFRs are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for world powere status?
(2) It is not clear that, even if our population does not increase at the same rate that it has in the past, we will be unable to defend ourselves. Obviously, if our population drops by 20%, that's bad. But it's not self-evident that our not reproducing as fast as agrarian cultures, or at least less productive countries economically, will leave us at a disadvantage, economically or militarily. After all, there are disadvantages to population booms-- ie, more young mouths to feed, oftentimes too few job opportunities.
(3) I don't think that TFR rates remain constant for generations. If our TFR dropped to .5, it wouldn't necessarily remain there till everyone died out or till Muslims moved in to replace us. If a country is faced with underpopulation, it can take measures to increase birth rates.
(4) Immigration is (a) not inevitable, and (b) when it occurs, not guaranteed to alter political views. I don't agree with your statement that France didn't support the Iraq invasion b/c it's 10% Muslim. France has resisted many US foriegn policy positions over the years, long before Muslims lived there. Anne Appelbaum wrote about this in Slate in the late 1990s, during the NATO bombing of Serbia (which they supported, b/c it was perceived as altruistic). The reasons the French offered in not supporting the war-- ie, unclear what the WMD threat was, unclear that overthrowing Saddam would bring stability-- have proven to be well-founded, not just ethnicity-based.
It's also not clear to me that higher immigration is inevitable. Incidentally, why mention Hispanics? They're super Christian, so it should be no problem, right?
Also, even if there _is_ a whole pile of Muslim immigration into America, it might not be your average suicide-bomber-loving family in Gaza that sends people here. At least as to coming here to study, it'll be, by and large, middle class plus people.
Odds & ends:
You wrote: "Birthrates also tell us which cultures are inferior via Darwinian natural selection."
Natural selection takes place over hundreds of generations, not 20, 50, or even 1000 years. If I'm reading too much into this, and you're just making an analogy, it's not clear to me what your standards are for inferiority. Are you arguing that simply having more people makes your culture higher, nobler, and better? I'm not sure that's the case. When England conquered India (and all those other places), was England's population larger or smaller than India's? I suspect England's was higher, but I don't know.
You wrote: "Demography is destiny is not some weird saying. It is simply reality."
That's an assertion. Does history bear it out?>
(1) Maybe you are of the view that high TFRs are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for world powere status?
Yes. Everything you wrote under (1) falls under this comment: without at least a replacment TFR, you will not grow and export you culture.
(2) It is not clear that, even if our population does not increase at the same rate that it has in the past, we will be unable to defend ourselves.
This is a common mistake. We are not talking war here, we are talking about cultural decline and subsequent cultural invasion. For example, England is still undefeated in war since her great empire, but she is now a minor force and her culture is vanishing. Downtown London is Muslim.
there are disadvantages to population booms-- ie, more young mouths to feed, oftentimes too few job opportunities.
No. Each young mouth has two hands. Job opportunities are created, not some limited resource. Granted, many areas with large populations have no jobs, but that is a cultural problem (Africa, Middle East) not a population one.
3) If our TFR dropped to .5, it wouldn't necessarily remain there till everyone died out or till Muslims moved in to replace us. If a country is faced with underpopulation, it can take measures to increase birth rates.
You have a common error here; no culture in the world has ever been able to force birth rates up willy-nilly. Rome tried and failed. Having a multiplying culture is not just breeding - it is making a culture selfless and family focused and living for the future. Not easy. Over and over again in the world, one culture has dominated another and won as the other either will not or cannot breed. This is natural selection; humans are not immune to it.
(4) Immigration is (a) not inevitable
Yes it is, if you leave any resources unused. This is natural selection, and it has happened in every culture all over history.
(b) when it occurs, not guaranteed to alter political views.
Ever wonder why the US is so supportive of Ireland, England, and Israel? Why political types won't challenge Mexico or illegal immigrants here? Or why in in Southern Cal they cheer for Mexico not the US in the world cup? Demographics, not political 'views'. Politics follow culture and creed, not the other way around.
It's also not clear to me that higher immigration is inevitable.
See natural selection above. If you don't breed, someone else will, and you can't keep them out forever. No culture in world history has been able to do this - not even the mighty Roman Empire.
Incidentally, why mention Hispanics? They're super Christian, so it should be no problem, right?
You seem to think I have a Christian bias here. My arguments are all based on reality, not 'problems'. My point is simple: if your culture has a low TFR, you are going extinct. Hey, you might be replaced by someone more 'Christian' than you, or not. My point was and is that if you do not breed, don't even think about winning a long cultural war.
Also, even if there _is_ a whole pile of Muslim immigration into America...it'll be, by and large, middle class plus people.
As long as they find a way to keep that TFR up when they do. If they don't, they will have lost their culture and again be replaced.
You wrote: "Birthrates also tell us which cultures are inferior via Darwinian natural selection."...it's not clear to me what your standards are for inferiority.
Survial here is my standard for superiority.
Are you arguing that simply having more people makes your culture higher, nobler, and better?
No, only alive and passing on their culture to the next generation. This is the only standard that matters if the opposition (the West in this case) is not willing to compete and fades into the dustbin of history.
You wrote: "Demography is destiny is not some weird saying. It is simply reality." That's an assertion. Does history bear it out?
Yes. Every living person is a reflection of which cultures have breed and which have failed. This is a fact, not an assertion.>
M_D, your arguments remain plausible, but unproven. You have yet to offer any specific evidence for your claims, instead resting on assertion.
As I wrote before, "Was England's world conquest fated by its ability to grow more quickly than India and all those other places? Was it one of a number of factors, like economic growth and quality of education of the elite? Can it be shown that TFR was even a factor at all? If high TFRs are generally associated with military/economic gains, are there exceptions to that rule? Doesn't, say, South Africa, or Bangladesh, have higher TFRs than us? Did they 50 years ago? 100 years ago?">
Tom:
You have your logic backwards. Let's go over this slowly:
TFR is a prerequisite for cultural growth. This does not mean that high TFR alone means cultural success. It does mean that is mandatory for success - without it, you are going down.
All of your questions show you do not understand this. You think I'm saying that high TFR means you will necessarily be successful. Not so.
Your arguments are like me saying "you need at least one arm to play basketball" and you saying "prove it to me using stats!" I reply: You cannot prove a negative. Show me one culture that is growing and taking over other cultures that has a TFR below 2. You can't - it hasn't in all of human history.
The burden of proof here lies with folk like you who think you can do the impossible: prevent a culture from being taken over without a growing TFR. How can you? You will be shrinking and vanishing.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.