July 16, 2010

The first step in unconventional war: depopulation

N.Y. Times: The new abortion providers
N.Y. Times: No babies?
International Analyst Network: The coming of Eurabia
My post yesterday: An interesting debate over the ground zero mosque

Matthew 25:34-36:
Then the King will say to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.

Sometimes I look out at the world today and the only thought in my head is, "Who put the lunatics in charge of the asylum?" Has there ever been a time in human history when so many incompetent and/or immoral people have held positions of power and influence? Has the world ever known such all-pervasive corruption? Has any point in time since the destruction of Sodom and Gomarrah so perfectly epitomized the society-kiling, self-destructive drive of widespread individual self-indulgence as well as the era we are living in now?

If you are seeking to conquer a nation there are two things you must do: demoralize the population and destroy their military. It does not matter if your society is dependent on wood and stone or a full range of futuristic weapons we can barely imagine, the principle is the same. Your enemy must be completely demoralized so that they will not rise up in rebellion and their military capacity must be completely destroyed. A quick and easy tool for performing both tasks at once is genocide.

Stepping back from the blood and gore and looking out on a conflict with eyes that can see beyond the immediacy of a battlefield allows a strategist to recognize that there are many forms of depopulation which will achieve the same end result as genocide without the danger to yourself. If you can use propoganda, scholarship, and entertainment to convince a population that homosexuality is far more natural than heterosexuality, and then convince those few stubborn heterosexuals who remain that birth control or abortion improves their quality of life, the nation you are seeking to destroy will simply stop producing children. Once you achieve that goal, the only thing left is to wait until their population naturally declines to the point that they can be removed with little or no risk to yourself and your people. Even better, as they reach the point of no return convince some other group to go in and clean them out; preferrably a group that will be easy for you to incorporate into your own society later on.

Simple, no? Depopulation is the first step in fighting an unconventional war.

In the International Analyst Network article linked above the writer shows how this is exactly what is happening in Europe and postulates that it will soon take place in America as well. At 2.11 births per woman, the United States of America is already at the lowest birthrate ever recorded in her 234 year history. After the baby boom scare of the sixties and early seventies, birthrates in America have mostly declined (with a few exceptions regionally or during short bursts of economic prosperity). As a predictive comparision it should be noted birthrates in Europe are now so low that in many countries their populations are dropping by half every twenty years. Muslim immigrants are flooding into Europe to fill the vacancies left by non-child-bearing couples. In the United States, Mexican immigrants (mostly illegal) are serving the same purpose, although rates of immigration from Muslim countries (both legal and illegal) have risen dramatically since 9/11.

Homosexuality has become mainstream and abortion has become accepted as a standard form of birth control. The reason that it was so important for the 2010 healthcare reform package to include provisions allowing for federal funding of abortions is that birthrates in inner city ghettos and other impoverished areas have stubbornly refused to follow the same decline. It is not accidental that the first two states to set up pools of federal money which include funding for abortions for uninsured and underinsured women are both states with large populations living at or below the poverty level. Perhaps it truly is only a genuine desire to see that poor women have access to the best healthcare available, but the end result will be the same: fewer babies will be born into large population groups deemed "undesirable" by progressive scholars and academics. The one thing I do know is that it is frightfully odd that federally funded "family planning" revolves around abortion and sex education rather than around pre-natal care and early infancy.

On the surface, it has all the earmarks of a grand design with clear diabolical intent. I still find the conspiracy angle difficult to swallow, but I will admit conspiracy advocates do indeed clearly see where all of this "progress" is leading.