Making war by making babies, the Eeevil insidious plot to displace the first world.

I read an article today that had the curious effect of first making me shake my head in disapproval and then slowly turning that sideways nod into a up and down head bob of assent. By the end of the article my head was doing circles and I looked like Linda Blair from the exorcist. Immediately I felt that I should post about it. Anyone who has been following the post just below by the analyst and the string of impassioned comments that follow should find this piece very interesting. It touches on many of the talking points from his post and the comments.

Entitled - How Birthrate Is Turning Modern Conventional Warfare on Its Head, the author Gary Brecher(who is also writing a book called "The war nerd") argues that the most effective method of modern warfare is to simply out breed the opposite side. He makes some very far fetched claims in the article about the conscious efforts of Kosovo Albanians, the Palestinians and the Northern Irish Catholics to out breed their enemies, the Serbians, the radical Zionists and the Protestants, respectively and thus oust them from the lands being disputed. In making this argument he invokes the Nazi policy of Lebensbraum - extermination of the Slavic, Polish and Russian people from the east to secure land for the German born pure bloods to flourish.

In making this comparison he completely ignores the ground realities that persist in the three countries mentioned. He actually implies that the Kosovars were responsible for inciting the Serbians to genocide and that they somehow used the United States as an unofficial army faction on their side. The west's weak minded awoval of violence and support for the autonomy of poorer, smaller states is being used by these states to their advantage according to his sneaky logic. His argument is as far fetched and ludicrous as that of the most far fetched conspiracy theorists. According to him the west's squeamishness(the very same that led to WW1 and WW2) makes them vulnerable to the alarmingly high fertility of the rabbit like Africans, Asians, Arabs and Catholics. As we sit here gently discoursing from our ivory towers, the Huns and Moors are copulating away in a frenzy of nationalist fervour so as to topple our weak walls of immigration laws and peace keeping forces, foolishly kept on a tight leash.

Is breeding a tool of state - yes, it has been infrequently used. The Palestinians in refugee camps and the radical Zionists both propagate the idea of out breeding the other. As the article shows, both groups have laughably similar birth rates that end up cancelling each other out, if rocket attacks don't do it for them. I can hear Joe's teeth grind(and with good reason) at their myopic logic and attitude that reeks of feudalism. However there is a huge logical fallacy in this theory that the only reason repressed groups have so many children is to defeat the other side, his presupposition that Catholics, Kosovars and Palestinians breed as an expression of nationalistic strength and expansion. Firstly why can one not suppose that people breed more because of higher mortality rates in the war zones mentioned?

Brecher himself provides the facts to topple his tottering argument by stating that, in a strange paradox, these very same people who bred in such huge numbers when they lived in slums abandon their profligate breeding as soon as they become middle class citizens. He shows us the case of the Catholics whose breeding rates have dropped as they near a historic majority over their Protestant brethren in Ireland. It seems to me that the obvious conclusion one draws is that as the prosperity and education levels of the Irish Catholics increased and as birth control techniques became more effective and more commonly accepted their growth rate naturally declined.

He doesn't really make much of an effort to show how the two imperatives, of state and of necessity both play a role in determining birth rates. It's either one or the other, depending on the case he is trying to make. This is my problem with the first half of the article. I could by now see where he was leading us in his heavy footed and discursive way - why to the topic of immigration of course. Sure enough he drops some big bombs with the invasion rhetoric that he insists on marrying into his overall thesis on immigration- "As far as I know, nobody’s claiming the Latino immigrants decided to have a lot of kids as a way of reconquering Texas and California, the way the Israeli settlers are doing. La reconquista, if it happens, will be an unforeseen result of rising birth rates and falling death rates for countries like Mexico that are just moving up from the third world to, say, the second-and-a-halfth. " Go on, Brecher says, it's ok to say that they planned this all out decades ago, these Mexicans who are descended equal parts from Conquistadors and the poor Mayans and Incas who were conquered by them. They have the conquering mentality of the Spaniards but it is mixed with the submissiveness of their native forefathers so that the only technique they may to wage war is this passive aggressive invasion.

His next statement is truly startling - "By 1970, Mexico was at that dangerous stage where there’s just enough basic medical care to keep people alive, so death rates are falling sharply, but people are still poor enough to want a lot of kids." Dangerous? Dangerous to whom? So it is dangerous to us that they can save lives and propagate. The self centred, extreme North Americans first nature of that statement is abhorrent to me. The author persists in looking at things solely from the point of view of the effect it has on America or the west. His neo - colonialist outlook is about 50 years behind the norm.

However, the worst part of the article was over. Here came the surprising part where I found myself actually agreeing with Brecher. He echoes my sentiments about assimilation expressed in some comments on analyst's post. He says that after a couple of generations the descendant of the average immigrant is going to be more Americanised than say a 7Th generation Quaker(I have no clue how many generations ago those guys got here but they have been around a long time so I picked them). In fact they are going to be so Americanised that they will be complaining about the need for border fences and their social security benefits being eaten up by the infernal newcomers from down south.

He argues - "This is one point where people’s anxiety over these slow, demographic conquests splits according to their real fears: do you just not want to see that kind of face when you go outside, or do you not want to import the culture of the immigrants’ home country? The whole debate right now is so censored, so totally dishonest on both sides, that nobody will come clean about which it is. I suspect for some people it’s the faces: they want the faces on their street to be the same shape and color they were when they were growing up." I have to agree with both analyst and with Brecher about this point. Forget the whole issue of social security benefits or the effect that immigration has on the medical infrastructure and focus for a moment on all the people whining about the effect immigration has on the cultural landscape of America. Think for a second about the fudged statistics about immigrants bringing their diseases(and the implication that by extension they bring with them their corporeal and moral squalor) and degenerate criminal ways. The tenor of those arguments is irrefutably racist. One needn't even make those points in order to argue against immigration. I respect Joe's points about the economic points and may even be someday convinced of the seriousness of some of the issues he brings up. However the invasion rhetoric that so many of the news pundits and everyday Americans use sets me on edge.

One telling example is of Pat Buchanan whose racial views are prehistoric to say the least. He has stated - "Any man or any woman, of any color or creed, can be a good American. We know that from our history. But when it comes to the ability to assimilate into a nation like the United States, all nationalities, creeds, and cultures are not equal. To say that is ideology speaking, not judgment born out of experience." If that does not qualify as white supremacist talk I don't quite know what does. That however is the ultimate meaning of what so many Americans mean, but dare not say aloud, when they discuss immigration. The funny thing is this is far from true. Even if it was true however, isn't there room enough within America for divergent cultures to co - exist. Will there be occasional tensions- sure. Is it worth our while to deal with those issues on a day to day basis and go on with our lives - I think so. Did the LA riots mean that the city should be forcibly segregated - Hell No. Haven't racial divides improved and healed somewhat since then?

The very last section of the article explains the idea of immigrant assimilation succinctly by using the example of a sailboat filled with Congolese immigrants moving to Paris. The idea expressed, that immigrants move to another country to escape the strict cultural and social confines and also the disorganised state of affairs of their home countries is absolutely spot on. They move as much to absorb the advantages of the host county's work culture and order as it's immediate financial incentives. Immigration, people seem to forget, is not just a physical move that immigrants undertake hastily without any thought for the future and with only an eye on the magical honeypot of dollars lying 5 miles north of the Rio Grande. It is a big decision that is made with the future interests of their families in mind. With that kind of mindset, there is no incentive to commit crimes or harm the host country.

I can identify with the analogy of the boat completely. Let me give you an example. When my family drives to Jersey to pick up supplies from the ubiquitous Indian grocery stores situated there, I sometimes go with them. One or two visits to the interiors of the shops however were enough to satisfy my curiosity and since then I usually wait for them in the car blasting the AC and the stereo with the album - 'Speak English or Die' by Stormtroopers of Death. I love this seminal grind core album of right wing, anti immigrant nuttery and hysteria for it's speed, musical brilliance, campyness and over the top values - including racist jokes about Indian shop owners in S.O.D's native NY. The irony of my situation in the Indian store parking lot listening to this album puts a huge grin on my face - especially when harried looking, older Indian fathers and mothers stare at me curiously as if I was some new species of fish or fungi.

I hate going inside the stores because it reminds me of the utter, unnecessary chaos of grocery stores back home - Aisles too narrow to fit two way cart traffic, rudeness, selfish disregard for other shoppers, in short provincialism of the narrowest order. I hate to, but am forced to admit that there is some correspondence between the rants of singer Billy Milano and the scenes within the store. However that store is a little slice of India; pretty or not it represents some aspects of what living there can be like. It does not threaten America, it simply exists as a little outpost of another culture. The people shop there and conduct some aspects of their lives through the goods they buy there. However come Monday, they will be seated in offices performing tedious corporate tasks that keep the wheels greased for the machinery of commerce and globalisation. In short what the fuck is the big deal? Five generations from now, the Hispanics and miscellaneous brown people are gonna be most of the code monkeys and cops - symbols of conformism and corporate slavery.