Posted on 12/22/2006 8:06:16 PM PST by B-Chan
Here's how it happens: America stupidly and immorally withdraws from the War on Terror, withdrawing prematurely from Iraq and leaving it in chaos. Emboldened, either Muslims unite against the West (unlikely) or collapse in a huge war between Shiites and Sunnis (already beginning). It almost doesn't matter, because in the process the oil will stop flowing.
And when the oil stops flowing, Europe and Japan and Taiwan and Singapore and South Korea all crash economically; Europe then has to face the demands of its West-hating Muslim "minority" without money and without the ruthlessness or will to survive that would allow them to counter the threat. The result is accommodation or surrender to Islam. The numbers don't lie -- it is not just possible, it is likely.
America doesn't crash right away, mind you. But we still have a major depression, because we have nowhere to sell our goods. And depending on what our desperate enemies do, it's a matter of time before we crash as well.
Why? Because we're that Syrian village. Except that what we make is food -- enough to feed half the world.
What we don't make for ourselves anymore is ... everything else. We don't produce steel. We don't make most of our own computer equipment. We have exported our textile industry.
Some of these industries could recover. But they would be producing only for domestic consumption. We'd have nowhere to sell anything except to ourselves. That's when we find out just how much of our new "service" economy is smoke and mirrors, dependent entirely on the surpluses generated by the global system of trade...
(Excerpt) Read more at ornery.org ...
"Second is that rather than wanting to become Americans, many want to continue living as Mexicans while enjoying the benefits the U.S. provides."
I doubt facts back up this claim. Hispanic citizens in America today would probably argue against this claim, too.
Lumping all hispanics together, making no differentiation between citizens, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants doesn't hold up, either.
The amnesty of 1986 saw subtantial numbers step forward, and do what was required to become citizens.
I attended a funeral last week of an 85 year old, who immigrated legally from Italy after WWII. He went to great lengths to become 1st a legal immigrant; then citizen.
His daughter married a man who is the son of legal immigrants from the Philippines.
When polled many illegal immigrants in the US would gladly pursue citizenship, if allowed.
The US military admits legal immigrants, giving them a path to citizenship. Many hispanic origin folks died and continue to die, in service of this country.
For certain, we should and can do a better of of regulating immigration. The goal should be reducing illegal immigration to the barest minimum.
Legal immigrants and citizens dislike illegal immigration, just like native born citizens.
He is not joining the elites, he is capitulating to them on this issue. He doesn't want to be dismissed as a bigot, and is afraid he will be if he takes the wrong side here.
Stephen Pinker does this sort of thing constantly in his writing. He wants to prove himself a liberal so that his anti-liberal message will be taken seriously.
Besides, I thought Futurologists went out of style sometime in the '80s.
Aetius, your words remind me of why I come to FreeRepublic. When our civilization begins to fall (as perhaps it already has), I will come to this forum to read what the best minds have to say about it. Your comments are very insightful.
His is one of the greatest minds around. Freepers' knee-jerk hatred of the guy is unfortunate.
Malthus wasn't wrong in principle -- his math was just off by several orders of magnitude, because he did not predict exponential increases in productivity brought about by technology.
The more fundamental development that Malthus missed was that death control, in the form of fighting starvation and disease, would be accompanied by birth control, in the forms of both contraception and cultural and behavioral changes.
Both those developments are works in progress, of course.
I read it. He's probably right.
The skin hue and language change, but the song remains the same. During the War of Northern Aggression, the Union had Irish brigades with the promise of fast-track citizenship for those who completed a tour of duty.
A lot of the Irish immigrants had the notion of getting arms and training, and then taking them back to Ireland to kick the English out. After surviving one brutal war, arguably the first modern war, most of them found second thoughts about starting another.
["We could easily survive blockading the Islamists and letting them stew in their own barbarism."]
Are you sure about that? (sigh)
As Steyn persuasively argues, demography has already doomed Europe, unless they unexpectedly find enough cultural energy to deal with the problem. But it's probably already too late. Demography is not predictive but actual, since the number of new Europeans reaching adulthood now and over the next twenty years was already determined twenty years ago and cannot be changed.
America is also vulnerable, but is not yet in that dangerous a position because of the relative demographics. We are still reproducing, and most of our immigrants are Latinos. Muslims are still limited in number, though I would agree too many for comfort.
Given the continuing and fairly long term dynamic trend (and not a bad thing in my opinion) of our lifestyle and prosperity being wholey dependent on world trade--and the capacity of Islamism to interrupt that, does not seem like static analysis, to my non-MIT mind.
Malthusianism says particular commodities like food or as you said, coal, are static--which of course we know is untrue. However world trade is not such a commodity--nor is this analysis based on static patterns. If worldwide trade is severely curtailed, whether the Falkland Islands become the new Japan or not, will make no difference--as whatever the goods are or are from would become unavailable--our civilization could indeed suffer a serious long-term catastrophe.
Just because someone predicts potential catastrophe, it does not mean he is a Malthusian, basing analyses on static points.
Yes, what you say is no doubt true. Who knows how many intelligent people have not even bothered to think about the immigration issue (and other hot-button ones) because they fear where it might take them. It is much easier to just accept the official PC stand that says unending mass immigration is a benefit to our nation that should never be questioned. You'll never have to worry about having your reputation tarnished if you fall in line with that.
"It is very Churchillian in it's visionary realism and reminds me why I think Rick Santorum is not quite done with public life."
Have a wonderful day!!!
Nancee
We need to be ever vigilant in the preservation of this country. My mind reels in the absurdity of those in congress who will not vote to drill in Alaska for oil, to make out country self sufficient because of what?... Caribou? (Don't get me started on that stupid argument...)
We have a constitutional right to protect the free killing of the unborn, but can be prosecuted for calling someone a name.
Either we will fight to survive, or we will perish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.