Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?

Eric Kaufmann: Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?

A lecture describing demographic trends against secular liberals. In short, pretty much all fundamentalist, orthodox and evangelical groups around the world are vastly out breeding liberals. In some countries like Israel, orthodox Jews will soon be a majority. Liberals by default are committing genetic suicide by abstaining from having children. The greatest possible weapon against a liberal, is having children. I see the trends here as good news for us, as religious folks are thee closest mainstream contingent to a working coalpha model.

One of the many things that liberals seem blind to is the fact that they need to reproduce, and that they can't just co-opt reproducing people with their ideas to further their ideology. But since liberalism is ensconced with feminism and anti-natalism, as well as unrestricted low-IQ immigration, they will self-destruct.

I really don't understand it. Most liberals are intelligent, right? What is there not to understand about replacement rates? A lot of them seem to not care about their progeny or where the world is going. I think this is the result of being too insulated and entertained.

It sucks for the rest of us who have to have this dogma shoved down our throats.

I wonder if we should remove "but we do not want to be tied to a specific religion" from our mission statement.  If we find a compatible religion, it might make sense to work with it.

Scorpius wrote

I really don't understand it. Most liberals are intelligent, right?

Most people aren't intelligent in any group.  Liberalism is basically a religion itself.  Religions evolve as memes.  The liberal meme is clearly an evolutionary dead end.

:Scratch scratch:
[ Being intellectual just for the heck of it ]

Could it just be a byproduct of the extreme investment humans put into their kids? AKA Its better to have one kid and invest a lot in him/her so he/she is successful (and therefore goes on to make up for it by having more than 2 kids of his/her own etc) rather than have 2/2+ kids with lower investment in each.

Such a strategy would make some sense for the very rich, and liberalism seems to pop up whenever nations get very rich. So, in effect, its a mistake on a large scale that would makes sense on an individual level.

[/ End being intellectual just for the heck of it ]

Strongly encourage one religion but maybe not discriminate? I dunno.

Birth Rate Categories:

0 = Genetic suicide.
1 = Below replacement.
2 = Replacement.
2+ = Above replacement.

I've calculated out the cost of having kids. Western society seems to have created a cost structure that makes "0" or "1" children the only affordable options for most average people. In order to have "2" or "2+" children with a modest quality of life you either need to have an above average income, have dual incomes (both parents work), work multiple job (by a single parent) and or cheat the system (welfare, food stamps, ect). The vast majority of people I see with "2+" are just cheating the system. They breed well beyond what they can afford. This in turn creates an environment that gives incentive to a dishonest reproductive strategy. As anyone whom has children within their means (honest reproductive strategy) will be out bred.

This has left me with a riddle. Hasidic Jews work low paying jobs yet fall into the "2+" category, often having as many as five children. Some Hasidics don't work at all, because they don't have time with all their Torah studying. Hasidics compensate for this by having their wives work part time. Mormons face a similar crises.