Part of the series ‘Communism → second-wave feminism → social re-engineering’
Index and preamble for series
Women’s liberation triggered population decline, not immediately, but it not only intensified the demand for birth control (that is, the prevention of conception), it also intensified the demand for “birth control” by means of abortion. The consequences of that are now becoming visible, because actions have consequences. We are harvesting what the feminists and other liberals of the ’60s have sown.
Any country that has total fertility rates (the number of children born to an average woman of fertile age) that are above replacement level, that is, they suffice to maintain the country’s population and then some, will see increasing prosperity and rising life expectancies. Average life expectancies have been declining in the US since 2013, and TFRs since long before that. Like it or not, the US has become a dying country. That is not an accident. It is planning policy, but consider this:
At the bottom of this article is a link to a discussion of that trend. The United States are not alone (misery likes company), as is the case with liberalism and feminism that drive the population decline. It is not happening by accident. It is by design. The shadow powers wish to reduce the world population down to between 300 million and one billion people. It appears that they will succeed, not overnight, but within a couple or three hundred years from now.
I will not insist that feminism is one of their tools. Let it suffice to say that what the feminists are doing, with respect to working on the planned destruction of the family, they would not be able to do better if they were being paid to do it.
It would not be totally fair to lay all of the blame for that at the feet of advocates of
- Free love (that is what Marx and Engels and their contemporaries called it, but love is never free, especially not its consequences);
- Sexual freedom (that is what it is called today, but it is nothing more than a euphemism for free love and still has identical consequences), and of
- No-fault divorce (that was ostensibly the intent under which it was promoted, but, never fear, where the fault is always laid at the feet of the man) and other liberal divorce laws and even legalized lawlessness with respect to committed sexual relationships that last on average a handful of years and can end after a few days or weeks, but that everyone clamors is his entitlement to have and to have sanctioned by the state. The variety is large and bewildering. The best way to describe it is to consider it chaotic, that is, lacking order.
Sexual relations without fear of consequences, without the burden of having to raise children in families (or in taxpayer-funded orphanages) was a lure too hard to resist. NOW addressed that demand with Reproductive Rights in its 1996 agenda. Means of effective contraception came on the market. That launched the sexual revolution. Anyone who failed to use contraception would chance the risk of conception and having to take on the burden of raising a child.
Increasing numbers of mothers have whole passels of children. Many of those women have many children by different fathers. They use the children as sources of income derived from the never-ending generosity of Father State and, of course, a multitude of fathers for income diversification. After all, the more fathers and the more children, the less likely it is that the flow of income will dry up. Many women are quite practical about that, and – let there be no mistake – they insist that they are entitled to that income.
The demand for reproductive rights resulted in the legalization of abortion. The land mark case in the US was Roe vs. Wade, Jan. 22, 1973. Keep that date in mind when contemplating this article and its charts: Thirteen charts that explain how Roe v. Wade changed abortion rights , By Sarah Kliff January 22, 2014
Never mind that all of that catered to instant gratification of current desire and gave little or no thought to what would happen to the people who did not want children now, when those people would become old and decrepit, when they would have to rely on other people’s children to pay the taxes and make the contributions to social safety nets that would then have to suffice to keep increasing numbers of elderly comfortable, if not
at least alive, let alone healthy and well.
Birth rates began to fall. The stage was set for population declines due to birth rates that fell below replacement levels.
Nature abhors a vacuüm. A population dearth, in an area of low population density, could be considered to be a vacuüm of sort. Areas with low population densities always were targets for migration from areas with high population densities, all the more so when governments in areas with low population densities fear that they cannot maintain their standards of living when lacking sufficiently large population sectors of young, productive people.
The example of Japan provided in the following is not as specific as it is generic. It applies to many and increasingly more developed nations.
Actions have consequences. Declining population numbers intensify the demand for immigrants. Not all countries are rich enough to be able to house their elderly poor in their jails and prisons, such as in Japan.
‘This is death to the family’: Japan’s fertility crisis is creating economic and social woes never seen before
“…compared to other countries Japan’s case is extreme, particularly as it pertains to ageing. Adult diapers have outsold baby diapers in Japan for the last six years, and many jails are turning into de facto nursing homes, as Japanese elders account for 20% of all crime in the country. With no one else to care for them, many re-offend just to come back. Stealing a sandwich can mean two years of jail time, but it also means two years of free housing and meals….”
Japan’s case is extreme? Not at all! That is a misperception, perhaps due to insufficient inquiries. Japanese demographics are not too different from those in other developed nations, say, Russia or Germany (there are more like that).
Things are really bad in countries where there are neither sufficient social safety nets nor sufficient jails, where the only productive and constructive social safety net is a country’s children who may or may not be responsible, by law, to care for their elderly, non-productive parents and grandparents. In such countries, the only avenue open for vastly most of the elderly who have no children, is to starve and die, with no one to care for them.
No one should be under the illusion that things are necessarily better in wealthy, developed nations. Those are all deeply in debt. Their tax revenues are grossly and increasingly insufficient to finance their social safety nets. Their solutions to the crisis of the growing proportion of the elderly, non-productive population sector is pressing and involves very distasteful and even deadly solutions, such as that elderly people entering hospitals with relatively minor complaints, such as an arthritic knee, come back out in a pine box (because the instructions to the hospital staff, for their care, are “Sedate, withhold food and liquids.”). The comment by the administrator of a large hospital district in London, England, when that was discovered, was, “What do you expect us to do? We need the beds.”
No, Japan is not an extreme case. It is the norm and has, perhaps, one of the best sort of outcomes for the elderly in the developed nations, but Japan has very little immigration, compared to other nations.
It remains to be seen whether a nation encouraged to import economic migrants or instant mitigation of its population dearth–after women’s lib helped to create it by deconstructing the traditional nuclear family and turning the womb from the safest to the most dangerous place for for human life in the history of mankind–will truly benefit. It appears doubtful that anything will be gained through having ready-made producers and consumers who don’t speak or understand the local language, and fail to let themselves be assimilated by a culture that even many of the locals hate.
Somehow it seems that we were better off to have and raise our own, even if it took a couple of decades for them to become full-fledged producers and consumers, who appreciated the ringing of church bells more than the cries of the muezzins.
More on the subject of immigration and population transfers: Falling birth rates cause painful demographic changes, December 21, 2017 by Walter Schneider