"41.2% of Vienna Students Are Muslim: ‘No Longer Immigration,’ But ‘Displacement’"--Legal Insurrection. "According to newly released data from the City Council of Vienna for the 2024–2025 academic year," the article reports, "Muslim students now represent 41.2% of the population across primary, secondary, and vocational schools—making them the largest single religious group. By comparison, just 34.5% of students identify as Christian (including 17.5% Catholic and 14.5% Orthodox), while 23% report no religious affiliation."
It reminds me of a piece by Vox Day from a few days ago entitled "Failure = Replacement" which makes the obvious point that if a nation or people refuse or otherwise fail to have children, they will be replaced. The issue came up because of a comment from Owen Benjamin in which he stated: "if you refuse to have children and you refuse to do labor, you should be replaced. Mexicans, Somalians, it doesn’t matter, you’re not valuable to society, no one owes you anything, your skin color is not a credit, it doesn’t make you special." Vox defended Benjamin's comment, observing that "the point is not that these people 'should' be replaced, it is that they 'will' be replaced and that they 'are' being replaced because they a) won’t breed, b) won’t work, and c) won’t fight."
Benjamin, I think, approached the issue more from a money class or libertarian perspective which was that if you are not useful to the overclass, you "should" be replaced; whereas Day is approaching the issue from a pragmatic perspective. But they both reach the same conclusion.
Of course, saying "go have children" is easy to say but more difficult in practice. It does, after all, take two to tango, as the saying goes. I discuss this topic regularly it seems, but here is a piece from Town Hall that recognizes that "It's Not Just a Population Crisis," but is a dating and marriage crisis as well.
Yes, people aren't having as many children, but that's not really the issue. It's a symptom of the issue.
Children, you see, are the end result of a series of decisions made by men and women, and the way society suggests people make those decisions has ramifications that go well beyond the short-term ramifications people see.
People aren't having kids because they're not getting married like they used to. They're not getting married as much because dating is a lot harder than it used to be, and they're going on fewer dates. Part of this is because both sexes have some warped ideas about dating, coupled with some legitimate concerns about where lines are that shouldn't be crossed.
First, let's talk about the warped ideas.
While I'm long out of the dating pool – thank God, considering all of this – I've kept an eye on it because I have kids, one of whom is an adult and is one of those having issues.
What he encounters is a world where a lot of women, including some who frankly shouldn't even think about being picky, follow the 666 Rule. What that means is they want their partners to be six-feet tall, have a six-figure income, and have at least six inches...um...downstairs, let's say. Some will say the third six is six-pack abs, which is a bit less dirty, but still pretty superficial.
The author notes that only 3% of American men meet the first two criteria. The author also points out:
Men aren't blameless in all of this, though, because a lot of women aren't that superficial. They're open to dating guys. The problem is that men don't approach them anymore. Part of that could be due to the whole #MeToo movement, which brought up sexual harassment as something that should destroy your life. I'm not going to condone sexual harassment, either, but when you've been told that it's defined as, "An unwanted sexual advance," guys can be a little gun shy of risking it, not understanding that asking a woman out, then accepting no for an answer, shouldn't be a problem.
And then there is the hypergamy:
And that's without getting into the fact that even more sane, rational women want a man with at least a comparable level of education, only to miss the fact that women are being accepted and graduating from school at much higher rates, meaning the dating pool is going to be skewed.
There are ways to fix this, but it would never be accepted by any group with power and influence, and so it will not happen.
The traditional reason to encourage having children was to be able to raise an army to defend your land. In this era of high population worldwide, that might still be a reason. However, the existence of nuclear weapons means you don't need a large army to defend your land. If your country has a stockpile of nuclear weapons, you can annihilate an invading army with relative ease. So the reasons for encouraging having children become: you want them, or you need a workforce. The first is personal, and the second economic. For the latter, a change in welfare and tax policies could be sufficient.
ReplyDeleteThere are several countries that have tried economic incentives, but they either haven't worked or only work temporarily. The problem is that the small subsidies given aren't nearly enough to make up for the additional cost of having children, including larger homes, larger vehicles, etc.
DeleteAnother deterrent to marriage and children is divorce-rape. The woman can divorce for any reason or no reason, even if she is at fault. The courts side with the woman, strip men of assets they have worked to accumulate for themselves and their family, and make the men pay child support while the same courts deny them access to their children.
ReplyDeleteNo fault divorce has proven to be disastrous from a societal point-of-view.
DeleteDon't forget war brides.
ReplyDelete