Life or obscurity - the European choice | OC Comment
Europe, the continent, the idea, the birthplace of the pillars that presently undergird the world system today, is slowly, yet nonetheless visibly on a slow trajectory towards death. Not through the actions of any hostile power, though enemies of Europe abound. Not through the myriad inefficiencies and incompetencies of the European Union, though these aren’t exactly hard to find. No, Europe is dying through a single, conscious, and irreversible choice: The decision not to reproduce.
As the French sociologist Auguste Comte proclaimed: “Demography is Destiny”. And if we are to look at Europe through a demographic lens, its destiny is grim indeed. With fertility rates plummeting due to the spread of abortion, with the nuclear famirely ripped apart by the forces of postmodern activism, with the vilification of traditional gender roles by third-wave feminism, Europe stands on the brink of demographic extinction.
Fertility rates in Europe have been on a decline for almost 60 years. Since the high of 2.62 births per woman in 1964, the average number of children per woman has cratered, reaching 1.5 in 2020. This is far below what is considered the “replacement rate” by demographers, which is 2.1 births per woman (as 2 children will replace the 2 parents needed to create them, with the extra 0.1 to account for premature deaths). Southern European countries are the hardest hit, with Italy reaching 1.3 births in 2020. To illustrate the gravity of the situation, this number means that each successive italian generation will be half of the generation preceding it.
One only needs to apply the laws of mathematics to see that if nothing changes, Italy stands on the precipice of a drastic population implosion. As if it couldn’t get any worse, it is necessary to remember that the fertility rates are artificially inflated by extra-European migrants from developing countries. Mothers from the African subcontinent, the principal source of current migrant influx into the EU, have fertility rates drastically higher than their European counterparts. For example, the Sudanese fertility rate is 4.5 births per woman, with neighboring countries matching or even exceeding it. (Nigerian mothers have almost 5.5 children per capita), meaning that the actual “European” fertility rate is lower than currently considered. This makes immediate action all the more urgent.
Current EU directives and national government policies seem to prefer immigration as a substitute for organic population growth. Wolfgang Kaschuba, professor of European Ethnology at the Humboldt University Berlin, says that ““If Germans want to maintain their economic well-being, we need about half a million immigrants every year,”. Mathematically, of course, he is correct. But what are the implications of such policies? Can the European societal fabric, already tested to the breaking point by the 2008 financial crisis, political polarization, and globalization stand up to this added burden, or will it irreparably rupture? What are the sociocultural ramifications of such a large influx of largely foreign, largely extra-European migrants? Will Europe be able to assimilate and stabilize these new communities, or will they become unstable areas of racial and religious tension as has happened in Malmo, Sweden? Current EU representatives appear to have few answers and many platitudes, yet they plunge ahead with radical policies with no thought for future implications.
This dramatic reduction in population, which will be reflected to a similar degree in all European countries, will have drastic implications for Europe on the international scene. Just like Russia, Europe seeks to return to primacy in global affairs, having been surpassed by the US and later China during the 20th century. Yet just like the ageing eastern giant, Europe will soon realise that international ambitions must be matched by domestic strength, and that a declining population means a declining economy, a declining military, and a declining nation. As illustrated by the example of Japan, the “zombie economy”, demographic factors will have a marked effect on any measure of international clout.
While politicians can only hope to have a mild effect on sociological changes, they must nevertheless try. The issue of population decline must be recognised as an urgent and critical threat to national security, with European governments taking targeted measures to increase fertility. Building on the Hungarian model of “marriage loans”, with payments reduced as couples have more children, European states must create fiscal and legal incentives to boost fertility and marriage.
The Hungarian government has realised the existential threat posed by low birth rates.
While the measures instituted by Orban’s government are commendable, more must be done. Tax benefits, access to childcare services, and other measures must be deployed by the state if the demographic trends are to be reversed.
The government’s role is not only restricted to the economic sector. The cultural stigma and perception of traditional gender roles and two-parent households are arguably more influential and important. States must embark on a coordinated media campaign to reduce the stigma around stay-at-home parents and encourage young adults to have children. This could be done in tandem with religious organizations to have a more pronounced influence. Traditional gender roles should be encouraged as they provide the most fruitful base for child rearing.
Let us be clear: We are not proposing that women have their opportunities restricted in any way, but simply that society should not vilify so-called “housewives” or stay-at-home mothers, instead lauding them for the sacrifices they make to raise the next generation. Contrarily to progressive activists, conservatives consider a woman who performs her maternal duties just as brave, resilient and courageous as a woman who succeeds in the labour market, and that human worth is not only found in the zeros on the end of a paycheck but also in the human capital one is able to foster and pass on in the form of the next generation. This is merely a dose of realism when considering our civilisation’s chances of continuity.
However it is done, this task must be at the forefront of domestic agendas in the near future. As the United States has moved to reduce the influence of postmodernism, with President Trump’s restriction on critical race theory, so too must Europe face its own demons. The inherently divisive and inflammatory rhetoric espoused by promoters of intersectional feminism does no favours to Europe’s catastrophic demography, and its influence must be limited in government agencies.
While, of course, few would be so crass as to disagree that intellectual freedom is paramount, and any are welcome to subscribe to these ideas if they wish, favouring this ideology by allowing it to proliferate in governmental institutions (while justly preventing other ideologies from doing so) violates the basic spirit of democratic plurality and the neutrality of administrative government. Initiatives like the so-called “Pink Quota” considered by the EU Commission, or the hard 50% inclusion law passed by the CDU in Germany must be rejected and reversed by governmental initiatives. Discrimination, whether it is intended to only be in favour of some or to the detriment of others, in not the answer to complex social problems, and only serves to promote ideologies that have European families as their main target.
What will save or condemn the Continent is a simple life choice; a choice made by millions of Europeans; a choice that must be made and that cannot be avoided or compromised with. Shall we live, or shall we die?
–
If you liked this article and want to help our organisation expand, please consider donating. Every little helps.
