COLLECTIVE MADNESS


“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Monday, October 23, 2006

Mr Ahmadinejad said:"Westerners have got problems. Because their population growth is negative, they are worried..."

Is this the face of our future?

The true insidious nature of the Islamic threat to the West is often softened by the contention that Islam has been hi-jacked by "militant Islam". Those sounding the alarm are scoffed at and ridiculed as needlessly provocative. The Left dropped us into this mess with their muti-culturistic futuristic view of the world. We have a big and growing problem. It is a numbers game. It is just becoming understood because of those that have stepped aside from the politically correct nonsense of our era.

Mr Ahmadinejad certainly understands the demographic imperative. This is a struggle for destiny. He is helping us state the case. We need to face the facts as they are and not a situation that we would prefer. We will have to have our dealings with Mr Ahmadinejad. The first order of business is to determine where we need to go with Iraq. It is a needless distraction and a terrible political and military drain with no apparent up-side.

It is my contention that Iraq is as much a side show as Viet Nam was to the "Cold War", bloody and costly, but over time not terribly important in the big struggle. The big struggle is more problematic than the Cold War because it is out of the context of the Nation State, and all of our resources, experience and diplomacy is focused on the Nation State arena. Even the recent debates over trials and rights for terroristic detainees apply to Nation State conflicts.

The Iraq debacle needs to be concluded promptly, so that we can focus on the real growing threat against us. There is time to make some counter moves to ensure that the West remains the West and our legacy will not be determined by Mr Ahmadinejad and his ilk, abetted by the Denying Class who mostly lead the West.

Read what Mr. Ahmadinejad has to say. There is a small glimmer of hope in that he is receiving criticism in Iraq.



Ahmadinejad urges Iranian baby boom to challenge west

Robert Tait in Tehran
Monday October 23, 2006


Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for a baby boom to almost double the country’s population to 120 million and enable it to threaten the west.
In remarks that have drawn criticism, he told MPs he wanted to scrap existing birth control policies which discouraged Iranian couples from having more than two children.

Women should work less and devote more time to their “main mission” of raising children, Mr Ahmadinejad said.

His comments amounted to an attack on official policies - sanctioned by senior Islamic clerics - aimed at limiting Iran’s population, currently around 70 million. The government supports a range of birth control measures, including female sterilisation, vasectomies and mandatory family planning classes for newly-weds. Iran also has a state-owned condom factory.

However, Mr Ahmadinejad said: “I am against saying that two children are enough. Our country has a lot of capacity. It has the capacity for many children to grow in it. It even has the capacity for 120 million people. Westerners have got problems. Because their population growth is negative, they are worried and fear that if our population increases, we will triumph over them.”

He said he wanted to bring in legislation reducing women’s working hours based on how many children they had. Women could work part-time on full-time salaries.

Critics reacted with alarm and said the president’s call was ill-judged at a time when Iran was struggling with surging inflation and rising unemployment, unofficially estimated at around 25%.

The reformist Etemad-e Melli newspaper warned that Iran could pay a high price for such “ill-considered” comments. It wrote: “He stresses the necessity of population growth and the triumph of Iran over western governments, ignoring the fact that what leads to such triumph is not population size but knowledge, technology, wealth, welfare and security.”

Mr Ahmadinejad’s call for a higher birth rate echoes a similar demand by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini after the triumph of Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1979. The policy led to a population explosion but was later reversed because of the strain on the economy. As a result, population growth dropped from an all-time high of 3.2% in 1986 to around 1.2% today, similar to that of the United States.


The Guardian

31 comments:

  1. Deuce,

    The picture says it all, doesn't it?

    One's heart goes out, perhaps as that of Mr. Bush. Yes, what the young lad needs is the touch of Christian charity. But, Mr. Bush is far too wise to attempt the change of hearts and minds with charity alone. No, Mr. Bush contemplates something like the Little Sisters of Charity with Chain Saws (or Chain Guns, as you wish). Unfortunately, the US military is completely incapable of such a mishmash (or mismatch, if you prefer).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Allen,
    When I find something that would interest me or the crew, my mind goes for the graphic theme. I'll go to work on a photo or graphic and compose it to convey the focus. Sometimes in doing that a real irony occurs.
    The Guardian foucused on the numbers and concept. I wanted to focus on simple idea that captures what it means in human terms. The photo was certainly never taken for the purpose it is being used here, but with the power of Photoshop it conveys the irony of the dilemma we face.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yep, that's what they need: More folks on welfare.

    The man's a freakin genius.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The issue looms large in Europe. I have seen different figures in different places, but I believe the Nehterlands will the the first country to be Muslim-majority in its population, currently predicted to be so around the year 2030, if memory serves correctly. Most of Europe follows soon thereafter.

    ReplyDelete
  5. While Turkey continues “talks” with European governments about entering the European Union, that prospect is all but dead. The major governments remain in support, but across Europe the publics are opposed, and their governments are starting to bend. Recently the French parliament passed the first reading of a bill that would make it a crime punishable by prison to deny that the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians in the First World War. As this is in fact denied by virtually all Turks, not simply the nationalists, many very mainstream Turkish public figures would be inviting prosecution by travel to France if the bill becomes law. While such a law would serve no practical purpose for France, it would ensure that Turks know they are not welcome.

    Threatswatch.org

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why is the State Department and LGF upset with Mr. Fernandez? He merely gave voice to a reality long understood by many in the West, particularly by his employer. Granted, when Mr. Fernandez speaks of US arrogance and stupidity, he means these in totally different ways than conservative critics of the Bush administration’s ME missionary policies. Well now, if Mr. Fernandez has brought together liberals and conservatives under the banner of “Arrogant, stupid government”, applause is in order.

    Link

    ReplyDelete
  7. No, rufus, he know that in 15 years Iran will need another wave of soldiers.
    They lost a million or so 15 years ago, they're ready to do so, again.

    Just planning ahead.
    Abracadbra is in a serious religious war, the US is not.
    Iranians will sustain hugh losses to defend it's homeland, if needed,
    the US will not take light losses to defend it's international interests.

    The Iranians know who their Enemies are. While the US is conflicted in that regard.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Abracadbra says Iran's nuclear capacity has increased ten fold.

    Guess the plane got back from NorK

    ReplyDelete
  9. 2164th,

    The photo conveys so much, on so many levels. Thanks!

    As Spengler at Asia Times has repeatedly pointed out, Iran is in spiraling demographic decline. As is so often the case, the government of Iran projects its shortcomings on the West.

    If the eventual consolidation of the US, Canada, and Mexico can be accomplished rationally, North America will be a colossus the equal to anything rising in Asia over the century.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Over 500 million people, the most populous city in the world, energy independent, tri-lingual and economicly competitive.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You guys come up with the strangest ideas, sometimes. The Republicans want to shut down the border, and the Democrats want to do away with NAFTA; and from this you extrapolate a move to consolidate the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rufus, they just wanted to see if you were paying attention. Allen will have to elaberate.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, the market's up, and gasoline's down; he'll have to elaborate After nap-time.

    ReplyDelete
  14. On October 15, 1951, I Love Lucy debut on TV. In 1946 Herman Goering took cyanide and cheated the hangmans noose. And on Oct 15, 2002, over four years ago the demographic tocsin was sounded.
    On that day "The Death of the West" was published, authored by Pat Buchanan. Pish-tosh was the reaction. Now it is the universal anthem in Europe and America.
    In it Mr. Buchanan layed out what we talk about today as a revelation. Pish-tosh turned into right on real quick.
    The premise in "The Death of the West" is that the United States is no longer a healthy melting pot, but instead a confused, tottering "conglomeration of peoples with almost nothing in common." Relying on United Nations population statistics, and citing such diverse sources as Yogi Berra and Rhett Butler, Buchanan sees for America four "clear and present dangers": declining birth rates; uncontrolled immigration of peoples of "different colors, creed, and cultures"; a rise of "anti-Western" culture antithetical to established religious, cultural, and moral norms; and a "defection of ruling elites" to the idea of world government. His solutions include higher wages and tax breaks for parents than for singles, and a dramatic rollback of immigration quotas.
    This cri de coeur is now the laser focus of the entire civilized world. Some pish-tosh fro a four year old book...looks like a good many people world wide are late to the party.

    ReplyDelete
  15. re: North America

    The operative word in my commentary was "rational". Permitting the massive flow of currently illegal aliens across our borders is irrational, without attending to reciprocal political accommodations by Mexico, for instance. At the moment, the US government is willing to play catch me, chase me. In the case of Mexico, that means literally turning a blind eye to policies that benefit Mexico but which operate to change exclusively the political dynamic of the US.

    Eventually, the US will do what should have been done in the 19th C, Mexico will find itself incorporated. Whether rationally or irrationally, peacefully or violently, the end will be union. NAFTA was but a step in that direction. A look at the Camino Real is to see the future.

    It should be remembered that the people making there way into the US from Mexico are voting with their feet. What is to keep these millions of disillusioned Mexicans from using the US as a base of operations for the overthrow of the Mexican oligarchs? Warfare waged back and forth across the border cannot long be tolerated.

    The trends have been apparent for centuries. TWAT may act as the catalyst to union. A major terrorist attack from Mexico will certainly bring cries for in-depth security. Finally, the massive US capital investment at the border will not be abandoned to the vagaries of inept Mexican governance.

    ReplyDelete
  16. One last thing: It sounds like Buchanan and Amadingdong see things pretty much, eye to eye. Similar solutions, and everything. Anti-semitic, racists, both of them.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Let's just close our eyes, for a moment, and visualize the extent that the people of the United States would go "Bonkers" if an American President ever broached the idea of "Annexing" a hundred million dirt-poor Mexicans (with their attendant welfare/social services/educational needs,) along with fifty thousand drug lords, into the United States. Oh, it would be a fireworks celebration to behold.

    ReplyDelete
  18. By the way, the U.S. has Not made any Capital investments south of the border. Private Businesses (mostly multi-national corporations) made those investments. How they work out doesn't, in any way, lead old taxpayer/voter Rufus to want to pay thrice the income taxes he already pays, just to pay for social services for poor Mexicans.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Our borders and why you need a gun. A new report from our government.

    Titled, "A Line in the Sand -- Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border," the just-released report confirms what many have long suspected: Our border is a sieve, not a barrier, for radical Islamic terrorists transiting into the United States. The Investigations Subcommittee charges that from September 11, 2001, to the present, hundreds of illegal aliens from countries "such as Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan... and Afghanistan" were apprehended crossing into the United States.

    Infiltration of USA

    ReplyDelete
  20. Rufus,
    Number one. I'll bet my future social security checks forever that you've not read Mr. Buchanans four year old book.
    Secondly to constantly write off a idea because you believe the person to be racist is myopic.
    Thirdly, tarring Mr. Buchanan with the adhesive you apply to Mr Adxxxx is intellectual flatulence and insulting to a man who had insight four years ago that you only now see.
    Fourth, the neocons don't seem to have done such a great job of anything except getting the US bogged down in a no win situation in the ME witch now may include begging the pardon of the terrorists we said we would never negotitate with.
    It's easy to call someone a racist, it's another thing to prove it and you can't.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Deuce,

    Like you, I have been much impressed with the sometimes lucid and always interesting C4. However, today I must take exception to a point made by him:
    “Fascism. Which was erected as a bulwark against the Red Terror and was successful in that aspect of an otherwise destructive movement.”

    This is patently wrong, as a look at the globes of January 1939 and those of January 1950 would prove.

    Link

    From this glaring misstatement may be derived C4's true sympathies.

    ReplyDelete
  22. re: Mexico annexation

    The US is already permitting all the ills cited by Rufus, but irrationally. In short, as this is written, the US is taking well deserved pressure off a corrupt and incompetent Mexican government by taking in millions of Mexican citizens, without deriving any of the benefits of sovereignty. I suggest reciprocity in the form of systemic change within Mexico to bring its governance in line with ours.

    For instance, if the citizens of Mexico were to own land in fee simple, endemic poverty would be significantly reduced. Private ownership of land and capital can do wonders for an economy, when additionally protected by equitable force of law.

    Should conditions in Mexico call into question either the ownership or security of billions of American venture capital, the capitalists will call upon the American government to intervene. I believe the call would be heard.

    Obviously, if the US bungles the annexation of Mexico as badly as it has pacified Iraq, the public will be rightly aggrieved. An invasion of Mexico without adequate pretext would likewise be declaimed unlawful. However, an enabling plebiscite coming from Hispanics both within the US and Mexico would be seen as legitimate. Why, the fear of a US government sponsored plebiscite might, in and of itself, move Mexico to reform itself.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The beginnings of Unification have already begun:

    The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) was launched in March of 2005 as a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing.

    This trilateral initiative is premised on our security and our economic prosperity being mutually reinforcing. The SPP recognizes that our three great nations are bound by a shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions.

    The SPP provides the framework to ensure that North America is the safest and best place to live and do business. It includes ambitious security and prosperity programs to keep our borders closed to terrorism yet open to trade.

    The SPP builds upon, but is separate from, our long-standing trade and economic relationships. It energizes other aspects of our cooperative relations, such as the protection of our environment, our food supply, and our public health.

    Looking forward, President Bush, Prime Minister Harper and President Fox have identified emergency management; influenza pandemics, including avian influenza; energy security; and safe and secure gateways (border security and facilitation) as key priorities for the SPP. The Leaders also announced the creation of North American Competitiveness Council to fully incorporate the private sector into the SPP process.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Allen, astute obersavation and you are quite correct. I missed that. Fascism and communism are two peas in the same pod. They both need to create an external threat and revert to oppression and to scapegoat internally. Their sustenance is on creating threats if they cannot genuinely find them.

    Arnold Beichman noted the phenomenon in
    "The Surprising Roots of Facism" where he says:
    …Nikolai Bukharin, the leading Soviet ideologist whom Stalin purged, began to have misgivings about the Revolution and began to allude to the fascist features of the emerging system. Gregor wrote:
    By the early 1930s, the ‘convergence’ of fascism and Stalinism struck Marxists and non-Marxists alike . . .. By the mid-1930s, even Trotsky could insist that ‘Stalinism and fascism, in spite of deep difference in social foundations, are symmetrical phenomena’ . .

    I will put this up at BC.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This just in:

    Several days ago, a young E-5 was hit by a car while riding his bike. He has multiple pelvic, foot, and spinal fractures. He has been moved to home care, under the supervision of his mother, from out of state. His mother is also babysitting a three year old child.

    Where is the Airman's wife and the toddler's mother, you might ask. She is in Japan waiting for a visa. She has been waiting years for a visa.

    While hundreds if not thousands of illegal aliens cross our southern border daily, under the noses of the US Border Patrol, a woman sits patiently in Japan, while her severely injured military spouse and her child must beg an insensitive, irrational INS to expedite bureaucratic paper chasing.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 2164th,

    My point is: by 1950, China, Eastern Europe, most of the Balkans, the Baltic States, and East Germany had gone communist. This does not include communist unrest on the Korean peninsula and in Southeast Asia.

    To claim that fascism had blunted the spread of communism and was made, thereby, palatable is absurd and obscene. Sorry to say, C4 is a closet fascist.

    As you have said, to many, there was not a dime's worth of difference between the state envisioned by Hitler and that developed by Stalin. I suppose a singular difference was the overt anti-Semiticism of the Reich.

    ReplyDelete
  27. TP,

    re: rock throwing youngsters

    During this season of the World Series, why not send out missionary baseball scouts? If any kids are drafted, the families could be held hostage for the money by Hamas/Fatah.

    ReplyDelete
  28. TP, let's just hope that ordinary Europeans are as concerned about maintaining their national identity as it seems that Muslims are in taking it away. If that happens, we will be fine. Some of my American friends may not be aware of this, so bear with me.

    The Russians got pounded by the Finns at the beginning of the war. After the allies won, the Russians dismantled many a Finnish factory and hauled it back to Russia, but were so incompetent, they had to bring the Finns in to help them set it up and run the factories.

    The Finns, being Finns, figured out a way to make money from it and set up businesses in Finland, designing, engineering and manufacturing entire factories for the USSR. It was a huge financial success. The Russians could not even steal factories wiithout having the people from who they stole them from help them!

    ReplyDelete
  29. TP,

    re: baseball

    Well, TP, in a market economy, the best player would take the field without respect to anything other than merit. But, the US is not a market economy in oh so many ways; affirmative action in education comes immediately to mind. At any rate, Mr. Bush's very liberal Secretary of State could probably pull some strings for the Palestinians in the interest of diversity. Further, such a baseball draft could open a covert means of funneling cash into the PA, without the embarrassment of public disclosure of the exception to Mr. Bush's TWAT.

    ReplyDelete
  30. tp:

    re: economics

    President Truman refused to talk to economists if possible. He saw in economists vacillation, i.e. an economist would lay out an argument and immediately follow-up by saying, "On the other hand."

    While purists demand unvarnished capitalism, no society has ever really chosen to pursue a pure model. Mercantilism has and will always intrude. Additionally, at this late date, a serious effort to introduce capitalism would be as revolutionary as the introduction of the Marxist-Leninist model to Russia – bad karma.

    ReplyDelete