Thursday, January 05, 2006

Mexico The West's Best Chance Of Survival? My Take On Mark Steyn's Article

If you haven't read Mark Steyn's piece yet do it right now.

For those who don't have 15 minutes. Here are the main points:

Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries.

Yet while Islamism is the enemy, it's not what this thing's about. Radical Islam is an opportunistic infection, like AIDS: It's not the HIV that kills you, it's the pneumonia you get when your body's too weak to fight it off.

They know they can never win on the battlefield, but they figure there's an excellent chance they can drag things out until Western civilization collapses in on itself and Islam inherits by default.

That's what the war's about: our lack of civilizational confidence. As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder"--as can be seen throughout much of "the Western world" right now. The progressive agenda--lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism--is collectively the real suicide bomb.


Steyn hits it dead on. We are not losing, and can not lose the war against Islamofascism except by refusing to fight it, and refusing to reproduce and reinvest in and re-assert our own western culture. Not only are most Europeans and a good percentage of of Americans not willing to fight, they are unwilling to accept the fact that we are in a war for the very survival of our civilization.

He also offers these eye opening statistics:

"Replacement" fertility rate--i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller--is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?

Scroll way down to the bottom of the Hot One Hundred top breeders and you'll eventually find the United States, hovering just at replacement rate with 2.07 births per woman. Ireland is 1.87, New Zealand 1.79, Australia 1.76. But Canada's fertility rate is down to 1.5, well below replacement rate; Germany and Austria are at 1.3, the brink of the death spiral; Russia and Italy are at 1.2; Spain 1.1, about half replacement rate. That's to say, Spain's population is halving every generation. By 2050, Italy's population will have fallen by 22%, Bulgaria's by 36%, Estonia's by 52%.

By 2050, there will be 100 million fewer Europeans, 100 million more Americans--and mostly red-state Americans.

Just to recap those bald statistics: In 1970, the developed world had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30% to 15%. By 2000, they were the same: each had about 20%.


and follows with these poll results:


According to a poll taken in 2004, over 60% of British Muslims want to live under Shariah--in the United Kingdom.


and finally this conclusion:

If a population "at odds with the modern world" is the fastest-breeding group on the planet--if there are more Muslim nations, more fundamentalist Muslims within those nations, more and more Muslims within non-Muslim nations, and more and more Muslims represented in more and more transnational institutions--how safe a bet is the survival of the "modern world"?

Not good.


So as Steyn says this is a battle of attrition fought more in the bedroom than on the battlefield. I agree completely.

Which brings me to something I have been thinking about and contemplating posting on for quite some time. One of the strengths of the United States over the last 2 centuries has been its ability to take immigrants and incorporate them into society hence the nick name "the melting pot". Unlike European countries or any other country in the world for that matter, immigrants to the
United States have proudly considered themselves "Americans" no matter their country of origin. That certainly isn't the case in France, or Germany, or Italy. Ask any immigrant in those countries what nationality they consider themselves to be and they will tell you Turkish, or Armenian, or Kurdish, or Somali, etc. I have asked them myself. Never is the answer "I am German" or "French".

Now here is the unfortunate twist. Due to our fairly recent immigration policy we have created an entire generation of immigrants mostly from Mexico but to a lesser extent from all over Central and South America who still consider themselves "Mexican" or "Brazilian" or El Salvadoran". Only because we have forced them to.

I am completely against illegal immigration but our country thrives on immigrants. Like it or not these people are here to stay. They are not going home next week, or next year or six years from now as President Bush would like us to believe. So why don't we embrace them?

Why don't we encourage them to become Americans?

No matter how poorly considered the law to have been they have broken it and need to be penalized but that penalty needs to also be handed out with a path toward citizenship that can be earned.

Why am I bringing this up now and how in the heck does it relate to Mark's article?

Well The fact is
Mexico is our next door neighbor and Mexicans, have a whole lot more in common with Americans than Egyptians, or Nigerians. We share they same religion (Mexico and Brazil have the 2nd and 3rd highest Christian populations in the world next to the United States). Most of Central and South America is Catholic. They have a hard work ethic which is one of the major factors that led them to leave their families and lives behind in their home countries in the first place. They have high birth rates which if you didn't get the message above in Mark's piece WE DESPARATELY NEED.

We share a common history being discovered, and colonized by the Europeans. Hell the entire
Southwestern USA used to be part of Mexico as the names San Diego (my home town) Los Angeles, San Francisco, El Paso, and Las Cruces would suggest.

So my answer to Mark Steyn's dilemma begins with the "Americanization" of our existing 12 million or so Mexicans, Guatemalans, El Salvadorans, et al. Secondly I suggest we encourage more "LEGAL" immigration from these countries and give them p
referential status over European, Middle Eastern, and African immigrants. The next step is making a serious effort to end the kleptocracy governments of Mexico and the southern Americas. Again starting with Mexico, by simply putting an end to the corruption and replacing the oligarchies these countries could be very much Like the USA. Most of them are rich in resources. Mexico certainly is.

We should encourage the Mexican government to send us their citizens for the foreseeable future. We will welcome them with open arms but they will be our citizens, and as a condition of this new Mexican friendly immigration policy we should require and even subsidize Mexican schools to teach every Mexican child English. As that becomes established we should extend this policy farther south.

Sounds like a long term strategy doesn’t it?

As Mark pointed out the Islamists are thinking long term.

The fact is the people of
Mexico and eventually South America could be the West’s best hope of winning this war of attrition or reproduction however the case may be.

And again to draw from Mr. Steyn's article:

In July 2003, speaking to the U.S. Congress, Tony Blair remarked: "As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible but, in fact, it is transient. The question is: What do you leave behind?"


If we can not encourage the people of
Mexico and the Southern America's to become us at least they will be much more like us by the time we have committed civilizational suicide. That is something we could be proud of leaving behind, and just may give modernity a fighting chance.



Other People talking about Mark Steyn's Article: Peak Talk,Bird of Paradise, Deep Keel, The Only Republican In San Francisco, UNCoRRELATED, Sun Comprehending Glass, All Things Beautiful, scottish-right, Pekin Prattles, OKIE on the LAM,

Hugh Hewitt has an even larger list of bloggers discussing this article.

In a related article check out this post titled The Other War at Freedom Folks. If you haven't figured it out already, my suggestion would partially address this problem as well. We will still need much better border enforcement but it should effectively stop the flood of hard working, legitimate immigrants and leave only the criminal elements to police.

instead of looking South Heliopause is looking north WAY NORTH. Something I am also very in favor of btw.

Open Trackbacks can be found today at these fine blogs: Third World County, Adams Blog, Bloggin' Outloud, Don Surber, TMH's Bacon Bits,

I have read and linked to them you should to!

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home