Globalism Destroys Traditional Western, White Families

The main goal of socialism/globalism/marxism is to undermine Western civilization. One of the ways that they do it is by undermining the family unit that built Western civilization.

Socialism is anathema to the nuclear family – which is male husband, female wife and their children – since the family unit by nature seeks to be independent and self-sufficient. And if given freedom then the family unit will attain that independence.

The family is also a source of human happiness and confidence. Families want to be left alone. Globalists and socialists are by nature dour, controlling and insecure.

And when globalists and communists see happiness and confidence – as in president Trump and his success and his close family – they want to destroy it out of envy. After all it is vastly easier to destroy than to build.

But we should be frightened of the system that socialists offer as an alternative to the family, which is government. Because governments by nature become tyrannical and controlling and as the family is destroyed the need for government becomes stronger, i.e., government as provider, mentor, teacher, etc.

Consider abortion. It is one of the ‘sacraments’ of anti-family socialism. It has destroyed more than 40 million American children and has harmed the well-being of tens of millions of women who have undergone the procedure.

On the other hand, all you need to do is to look at the smiles that naturally come to the faces of mothers and fathers, aunts, uncles, grandparents, brothers and sisters and even strangers in the street from the presence of children.

Below are excerpts from two articles, the first by professor Ted Malloch on about the decline of the family in Western nations. Each excerpt is followed by a comment:

Malloch writes: Emmanuel Macron, the newly elected French president, has no children; German chancellor Angela Merkel has no children. British prime minister, Theresa May has no children; Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni has no children; Holland’s, prime minister, Mark Rutte, Sweden’s Stefan Löfven, Luxembourg’s Xavier Bettel, and Scotland’s, first minster Nicola Sturgeon — all have no children.

The list goes on… Latvia’s childless president is Raimonds Vējonis, Lithuania’s childless president is Dalia Grybauskaitė, and Romania’s childless president is Klaus Werner Iohannis. And, Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission too, has no children and is family-less.

So to put it rather bluntly: a grossly disproportionate number of the people making serious decisions about Europe’s future have no direct personal sibling, child or grandchildren’s interests at stake in that future. They are not part of a family and have come to see all their attention focused on one dominant and all-powerful social unit to which they pay obeisance and give their complete and devoted attention: The State. comment: It is amazing to see the facts presented in such clear terms. And we can be sure that people without children take a different view than those that have kids. The future is less ‘real’ if you don’t have kids because as far as you are concerned, the world ends when you die.

Malloch writes: The demographics look problematic. Among native Europeans, the birthrate is currently between 0.2 and 1.1. Europe is not replicating itself and will, if trends are extrapolated—cease to exist.

The numbers are disturbing combining an ageing population, very low birth rates and an inability to pay for their rich benefits: what will come of Europe? comment: This birthrate number is called the “replacement rate”. It is officially 2.1

In other words two people who have two children are roughly “replacing” themselves numerically for the future after they die if they have two children. If two people have one child or no children, then the population is eventually going to fall and even crash.

Malloch writes: Why precisely, is the family dead or dying in Europe and the west?
In the western world, the traditional family continues to crumble and unravel — anyone who defends past tradition … is ridiculed and rejected as we give up hope and resign in despair to a future without family or its attendant values. Speaking up for the family has almost no constituency and makes one look nostalgic at best and retrograde at worst. comment: This is how socialism always works. Anyone who defends historic traditions like national borders or families or capitalist self-sufficiency is smeared. Look at the hysterical international uproar over Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, as if the sky had fallen.

Malloch writes: Is something larger at stake? Yes, family decline is undermining civilization itself.

Already in the 1930s Christopher Dawson, the Catholic historian at Oxford bemoaned in his, The Patriarchal Family in History, that a long term decline since the Renaissance had led to a point of no return for the family. He was prescient and saw then what we have come to factually experience now.

And why is an ascendant statist/globalist political culture so hostile to the family?

The crisis of the family is not simply a result of changed sexual mores or feminist ideology, while they contribute to it. It has far deeper roots.

The family has lost its social significance because to the State, the family is a threat. As a precursor and basic unit of life it preceded the state and always balanced its interests.

But in the last fifty years, the welfare state has done everything in its power to break it up. Dividing families, encouraging divorce, supporting abortion, coercing fatherlessness, and building dependencies, the state has not idly watched in the demise of the family structure: it has been the active and primary cause of its very plight.

As one pundit put it, “the State became master of the family; the result is that the family is now truly the agent, the slave, and the handmaiden of the State.” comment: So there you go. Socialists, globalists and communists want “the State” as the father, mother, brother, sister, provider and mentor. In other words they well recognize the human need for these family figures and so they replace them with government.

Malloch writes: With each generation, it seems we witness a further evisceration of the family. Atomized and acculturated, the family is no longer recognisable, where it even exists. We have seen the total politicisation of filial rebellion, particularly in Europe.

The nations themselves are no longer the collection of their many member families but have become a centralised Babylon, known as (the European Union), the unionised functional state over all states.

G.K. Chesterton once remarked that the family was the check on state power and that weakening it would defeat freedom. His remedy was a smaller state and a system of plural social commitments, none of which usurped the other.

The Dutch Anti-Revolutionary prime minister, Abraham Kuyper, who himself had a large family, at the turn of the last century, called this, sphere sovereignty and saw all of the structures of society—family, economy, schools, communities and states in balance — under a sovereign God and each with their own domain. comment: How true. And at the top, they want God out of people’s lives too.

Meanwhile Jeremy Carl at Fox News wrote: Americans and Europeans are abandoning parenthood at an alarming rate, profoundly changing the nature of our societies, our politics and our cultures.

Last year, women in the U.S. had children at the lowest rate ever recorded . There were just 60.2 births for every 1,000 girls and women ages 15 to 44 in our country. As a result, there were fewer births in America last year – 3.85 million babies – than at any time since 1987. This was a 2 percent drop from 2016.

The man who called the DotCom crash, the housing boom & bust, and market’s surge since ’09 warns of a new panic ahead. comment: Yes, and by the time we see the real effects, it is far too late, like all of socialism. Just look at Venezuela.

Carl writes: In addition, those having the most children are the least able to pay for their upbringing. American women became mothers last year at rates that were inversely proportional to family income. The birth rate was almost 50 percent higher for those with less than $10,000 in family income than for those with family incomes of $200,000 or more. comment: Yes indeed, the stereotype of the poor black woman with lots of children whom she cannot afford to raise is no stereotype. In my formerly all-white hometown in Massachusetts blacks have moved in by the thousands to escape their dangerous urban ghettos.

My town now has the highest teen birth rate in the state and an exploding black population in a declining economy. In another case two black females with a total of 13 children between them, and no husbands, recently moved to my town from two big cities in New Jersey.

At the same time younger, skilled and educated white people are leaving my town in large numbers. This is causing my town to spiral downward into poverty and crime since there are no jobs to start with.

Carl writes: There are many wonderful mothers in impoverished families. And a good income is no guarantee of good parenting. But in general, children being raised in very low-income families will struggle, while children being raised in middle- and upper-income families will do better without relying on taxpayers to finance their upbringing.

The lack of commitment of middle-class and wealthy Americans to having and parenting their own children goes hand in hand with our elite’s casual approach to other issues – in particular, mass immigration.

The notion that we can simply import foreigners to make up for the child-rearing job we have refused to do ourselves completely ignores the cultural, civic and economic impacts of immigration – as well as the impacts to ourselves when we bring in foreign adults as a substitute for raising our own children.

While selective immigration in conjunction with a naturally growing population and economy can be a healthy phenomenon, using immigration as a substitute for having enough of our own children leads us down an easy and comfortable but ultimately perilous route without precedent in American history.

People having fewer or no children at all may seem at first blush to be simply making a personal choice, of consequence only to themselves. However, this decision is actually one with profound political implications.

No matter where on Earth a person lives, parenthood is a lifelong investment. The willingness to make that investment is a critical indicator and determinant of a person’s political viewpoint.

In the U.S., parents with more children are embracing a more traditional lifestyle and also are more likely to vote Republican. In the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump won all 10 of the states with the highest fertility rates – as well as 16 of 17 states with the highest fertility rates. And the bottom 10 states in fertility were all carried by Hillary Clinton.

The most family-friendly element of the tax cuts Congress approved and President Trump signed into law was increasing the child tax credit from $2,000 from $1,000 (where it had been stuck since 2003) and substantially raising the phase-out threshold from $110,000 in family income to $400,000. It’s a change that puts real money in the pockets of taxpaying American families.

Still, even under the new tax regime, the fertility of women of childbearing age in households paying no federal income taxes is almost 25 percent higher than the fertility of those paying income taxes. To say this demographic trend is incompatible with the long-term viability of a welfare state is understating matters considerably.

But for all the challenges we face in the U.S., the problem is far worse in Europe, where the current attitude was summarized in a recent report by Population Europe titled “No Kids, No Problem!”

European women of child-bearing age had an average of 1.56 children each over their lifetimes – far fewer than the 2.1 necessary to even keep their population stable. The comparable figure in the U.S. is 1.76 children per woman. And both the numbers in the US and in Europe would be far worse were it not for higher immigrant fertility.

In Europe, it’s not just that they are having fewer children – more and more people aren’t having any children at all.

The Europeans who are declining to become parents are only following the example of their leaders. Of the six founding members of the European Union (Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) today only one of them (Belgium) is led by someone who has had children.

Britain and the European Commission are also headed by childless leaders. Amazingly, these eight core leaders of modern Europe have a total of only two children among them.

Contrast this demographic collapse to the situation of the leaders of this same group of countries in 1951, when they founded what became the European Union. At that time, the eight leaders of these countries had 32 children.

If you wanted to summarize the forthcoming demographic and cultural collapse of Europe in one statistic, the decline in children among Europe’s core leaders from 32 to 2 in a little more than a generation would be an ideal place to start.

At an individual level, each of today’s European leaders may have had compelling or even tragic reasons for not becoming a parent – perhaps at great personal sorrow. Yet while we cannot judge any one particular situation, we can almost certainly say that such a dramatic pattern is not coincidental. Nor is it harmless.

In both Europe and the U.S., the decline in motherhood – and the increased decline in the number of men accepting the responsibilities of fatherhood (40 percent of births in the U.S and Europe occur out of wedlock) are indicative of a materialistic, pleasure-seeking, live-for-today ethos. This attitude minimizes or denies the obligations we have toward future generations.

It is a sign of our crisis of parenthood that to even raise such issues publicly is uncomfortable. Certainly, maximum childbearing is not an outcome we seek – countries with the world’s highest fertility rates are mired in poverty and face many challenges. But with so many of the West’s citizens and leaders abandoning parenthood and responsibility, some response is needed.

I say all this not as an academic observer but as the father of five young children, with a wife who works part-time at night. We have taken no paid maternity or paternity leaves and utilized only very limited outside child care. So I know from my personal experience every day the sort of social, emotional and financial sacrifices that parenting requires.

While I would be the last person to insist that large families like ours be the American model, an America where only the poorest have large families and most people choose to have small families – or no children at all – is not economically or culturally sustainable.

In his book, “The Disappearance of Childhood” the late cultural critic Neil Postman wrote: “Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see.”

We need to keep sending those messages, not just because it is our responsibility or because of the profound love and joy children bring into our lives, but because we realize that a society that abandons parenthood is a society that forfeits its future.

This entry was posted in Current Events (More than 1,500 previous editorials!). Bookmark the permalink.