If babies disgust or terrify you, take heart: there are far fewer of them in humanity’s future.

If babies disgust or terrify you, take heart: there are far fewer of them in humanity’s future.

It’s no secret that the “Left,” defined as ideological liberals, communists (whether “out” or taqiyya) and Marxists harbor a deep-seated hatred of nation and family. Various excuses are put forward for their hatred of such “trad” stuff, such as overpopulation, “inequality” of various sorts, climate change and environmental degradation, to name a few.

It’s worth asking why Leftists hate humanity so much. But since the answer to that would require a tome, for now let’s take a quick look at one of the techniques they use to promote their anti-human agenda, via one of the many cultural bullhorns they control – the New York Times.

Resistance is Futile

A popular and effective propaganda technique, used in this case by the New York Times, is to observe that some phenomenon is taking place, and then claim or imply that it is inevitable. This claim of inevitability is made because the Leftists are in favor of the phenomenon. The goal is to persuade the reader, who may dislike the phenomenon himself, that resistance to the phenomenon is pointless, because it’s going to happen no matter what you do.

Marx himself was famously fond of this technique. Marxists believe, without evidence, that a “dictatorship of the proletariat” is inevitable. Note that this justifies using any means whatsoever to achieve said dictatorship. After all, if you are working toward something that is inevitable, you obviously have the moral high ground. Anyone that resists the inevitable is obviously irrational, not to mention retrograde, anti-progress, and a rube.

In an article entitled Long Slide Looms for World Population, With Sweeping Ramifications, the progressive misanthropes Damien Cave, Emma Bubola and Choe Sang-Hun argue both that global population decline is inevitable and imminent, and that it is a good thing:

All over the world, countries are confronting population stagnation and a fertility bust, a dizzying reversal unmatched in recorded history that will make first-birthday parties a rarer sight than funerals, and empty homes a common eyesore.

Maternity wards are already shutting down in Italy. Ghost cities are appearing in northeastern China. Universities in South Korea can’t find enough students, and in Germany, hundreds of thousands of properties have been razed, with the land turned into parks.

Like an avalanche, the demographic forces — pushing toward more deaths than births — seem to be expanding and accelerating. Though some countries continue to see their populations grow, especially in Africa, fertility rates are falling nearly everywhere else. Demographers now predict that by the latter half of the century or possibly earlier, the global population will enter a sustained decline for the first time.

A planet with fewer people could ease pressure on resources, slow the destructive impact of climate change and reduce household burdens for women.

Well thank God for that! There won’t be any children in sight, but that means less laundry!

Note the use of the “avalanche” metaphor: you can’t stop an avalanche. You’d better just accept it and get out of the way.

The writers never advance any compelling explanation for why women might not want to have children. The usual platitudes about economic inequality or “choice” are mentioned, but these are superficial and unconvincing.

Could it be that women are reluctant to start families because, for decades, demographers have been warning of population explosion? And singing in the same choir, the environmentalist lobby has been screaming about degradation and resource scarcity. Feminism has been preaching that motherhood is slavery and debasement. Enabled by easy and often subsidized access to abortion and birth control, “liberated” women are free to spend the most fertile years of their lives working for a wage, while sharing an apartment with men who won’t marry them.

By the time they’re finally “ready” to start a family, such women will find that their bodies won’t just pop out healthy babies the way they would have at nineteen, or even twenty-two. They will experience “geriatric” pregnancy, complete with its array of medical and psychological problems, not only for the mother, but for her child. This aging mother certainly won’t have a large family. And since she can’t wait to get back to work, where she believes she is most useful, she won’t be an attentive or present mother, either. She’ll rely on daycare, nannies, family or even the state to raise and indoctrinate her child. The child will grow up with no admiration for motherhood, but instead a sense of dread or contempt for it. Girls approaching adulthood will develop a deep cognitive dissonance due to the tension between a natural maternal urge and a deeply-inculcated feminist ideology that debases motherhood and all maternal feeling as weak, vulnerable, and undesirable.

There’s no “population bomb”

Contrarian sociologists and demographers have rejected the “population bomb’ narrative for some time. In Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline, Darrel Bricker argues that predictions of a global population explosion have failed to come to pass, and that population decline has already begun. Like all other works of Leftist propaganda, the book relies on a highly selective set of facts to support an ideologically-motivated analysis.

In particular, “women’s empowerment” is given as the reason for decline in fertility rates. Who could argue that “empowerment” is a bad thing? By “empowered,” Bricker means a woman that sincerely believes that her maternal instinct is unnatural and worthless; that her career is the most valuable part of her life and the source of her self-esteem; that motherhood is slavery; and that killing an unborn child is not only her right, but maybe even her duty. After all, it’s not “human” if it can’t survive without her. And not only this, but she has the legal right and moral sanction to judge herself and her life by a set of masculine values that Feminism has incorrectly taught her are “universal,” rather than merely masculine.

Armed with these beliefs and values, is it any wonder that White people – and White women in particular – cheer their own demographic decline? Isn’t dying out altogether the best “middle finger” ever to Nature? And to the oppressive, patriarchal White Man in particular?

Jimmy Fallon's audience can't wait for population decline, especially among White people.

If that’s “empowerment,” I think we had better disempower women, and quickly, before their empowerment destroys civilization and us along with it.

hate speech zone

Leftist trigger warning: The comments below have not been moderated. They may challenge your beliefs, opinions or values, or even offend you. Proceed with caution and intellectual preparedness.