The depopulation crisis is real
By Walter H. Schneider, 2006 05 06
It is a characteristic of any decaying civilization
that the great masses of the people are unaware of the tragedy. Humanity in
a crisis is generally insensitive to the gravity of the times in which it
lives. Men do not want to believe their own times are wicked, partly because
they have no standard outside of themselves by which to measure their times.
If there is no fixed concept of justice, how shall men know it is violated?
Only those who live by faith really know what is happening in the world; the
great masses without faith are unconscious of the destructive processes
going on, because they have lost the vision of the heights from which they
Archbishop Fulton J.
Is the world overpopulated?
If all of the world's people were located in the Province of Alberta (just a
touch smaller in area than the State of Texas) and each were to have an equal
share of all of the land in Alberta, then each of the world's people would have
98.6m2 of land to live on.
Assuming that the average household consists of three people, a family of three
would have enough space (3,184 ft2) for a moderately-sized house and
a garden large enough to grow some of the food consumed by the family.
- Alberta land area: 661,565 km2, 255,541 miles2
- World population: 6,706,993,152 (Source:
CIA World Factbook, July 2008 est.)
It is obvious that the world's population density will be
the controlling factor. Is that a problem? Will people any time soon
be standing on each other's shoulders?
How can the world be overpopulated if it is possible to fit the world
population, fairly comfortably, into a province the size of Alberta or a state
the size of Texas, even if we divide the whole population into families of
three and give each a bungalow and a good-sized garden to boot?
The following table list a number of nations, ranked by their population
Does anyone seeing those numbers still think that the world is overpopulated?
John (not his real name) wrote:
Overall, the human population is growing nicely - some would say
alarmingly - so using declining birthrates among whites as a reason to
focus on boys' success is IMO a weak argument. We should be addressing
the gender gap because it's the right thing to do. If we let boys
flounder then we risk stagnation vis-ŕ-vis innovation and advancement as
a society and a species. For all the talk about the importance of
having women and girls in science, the fact is that even when given the
advantages of affirmative action, etc., women simply have not shown
themselves to be equal or even comparable to men when it comes to
innovation in science, engineering, etc. Thus, we not only waste a
tremendous amount of time and resources when we favor girls over boys,
we risk losing our best and brightest innovators in the name of
politically correct policies.
Unless I misunderstand what you meant by the first sentence of your
observations, it appears that you fell victim to feminist and
depopulationist propaganda. That criticism applies only to the first
sentence of your observations. The rest of your observations is valid, for
the reasons you offered. Those reasons and the solutions you suggested,
believe it or not, apply also in addressing the very real depopulation
crisis that is dismissed so easily by far too many.
The point of this rather lengthy response to your observations is that
fathers rights — and fathers within, not without, families — are what the
welfare and the very survival of civilization depend on. The very real
depopulation of the world has been caused by the vilification and abrogation
of fathers rights and by the implementation of the international agenda for
the planned destruction of the family. The survival of our civilization depends on the
restoration of fathers rights and on the restoration of the respect society
once had for fathers and their families. If it is not possible for people to
accept that, if not even Fathers Rights or men's rights activists recognize
that, then we are done for.
Still, we must recognize that all of us have to varying degrees become
sophistry and cannot blame all people for their failure to understand
the truth, let alone the failure to search for it.
Sophistry causes the
abrogation of the search for the truth and abrogates people's willingness to
look objectively at the truth and all of the truth. I experience time and
again that people will point at all of the benefits and blessings feminism
brought to women, while they adamantly refuse to consider the enormous price
civilization had to pay and is still paying in the form of fatal
consequences to all of society. As important an issue as discrimination
against men and fathers is, it is far more important that that
discrimination will cause
the death of
civilization. (There is a great need to promote IMD
Men's Day) to raise awareness, largely even amongst men, about
systemic discrimination against men:
YouTube video about discrimination against men (off-site))
North America, Europe, all of the developed nations, and now increasingly so
even the developing nations face a depopulation crisis of massive
proportions. The depopulation crisis has even the UN worried, although the
UN proposes that the crisis must be solved through means that differ from
your suggestions. The UN wishes to effect a solution of the depopulation
crisis, through massive redistribution of the world's population. Thereby
the UN would achieve the same thing that the feminists and depopulationists
wish to achieve, the obliteration of the western cultural heritage.
By about 2150, the world population would be reduced to about 3.5 million
people and a short time later would be less than a billion people —
somewhere around what the population levels were at the time of Columbus.
The blame for the depopulation crisis must be squarely laid at the feet of
feminism. However, feminism is not the fundamental cause of the depopulation
crisis. It is an agent in the employ of forces behind the scene.
Feminism is the daughter of communism, it is communism in drag; and
communism is an outgrowth of the social forces launched during the time
leading up to the French Revolution, the Renaissance, the age of
"enlightenment" that produced humanism and liberalism, an outgrowth of which
social and cultural evolution is
relativism (a.k.a., in a wider sense,
(See Matriarchy in
USSR — off-site)
It is encouraging that lately many good journalists, writers, social critics
and researchers have begun to pay increasing attention to the consequences
and causes of depopulation. To bring you up to speed, have a look at these
The Return of Patriarchy
By Phillip Longman
Foreign Policy, Mar/Apr. 2006; published Feb 28, 2006
Across the globe, people are choosing to have fewer children or
none at all. Governments are desperate to halt the trend, but their
influence seems to stop at the bedroom door. Are some societies
destined to become extinct? Hardly. It’s more likely that
conservatives will inherit the Earth. Like it or not, a growing
proportion of the next generation will be born into families who
believe that father knows best. (Full
Another version of this article, under the title "Revenge of the
Patriarchs", nearly identical but different in a few very important
aspects, was published in Canada's National Post, Mar 27, 2006
that version and detect the differences). Another version yet, under
the title "In the name of the father", was published in The
Australian, Mar. 24, 2006 (see
that version), but I have not yet found the time to check for
differences in that version; it should not surprise anyone to find
important differences in the Australian version as well.
The second article is,
Why women's rights are wrong
By Vox Day, WorldNetDaily
Vox Day considers "women's rights to be a disease that should be
eradicated," and discusses how and why the promotion of women's "rights"
brought justified complaints by women as well as social and demographic
calamities throughout the world. (Full
(2005 08 08)
For the third article, go to
The 1989 Montreal Massacre in the context of men’s sacrifices, 2008
12 07, by Professor Jeffrey Asher.
If you wish to delve deeper into the background and statistics of the
deadly, world-wide, feminist-driven depopulation trend, have a look at the
However, don't take just my word for all of that, regardless of the sources
I cited and quoted.
A search of the Internet for "depopulation crisis" will provide you with
much more information on the issue of depopulation.
The preceding comments pertain only to the first sentence of your
observation. I am in full agreement with the rest of what you stated. Yes,
the solutions you recommend are the right thing to do, however, not because
a depopulation crisis does not exist but because it does. Your
recommendations will address the crisis, which, incongruently, you partially
admit by stating, "If we let boys flounder then we risk stagnation
vis-ŕ-vis [lack of] innovation and advancement as a society and a
recognized that, and he had to die because he did and spoke out about it.
However, it would be wrong to be concerned about nothing more than
stagnation of our society and species. We must become concerned about the
very real demise of our society and species.
There are parallels in history to our present population crisis and its
causes. There is an excellent essay that illustrates such a parallel, the
demise of ancient Greece that followed within about a hundred years after
the Cult of Apollo deliberately began to teach
sophistry to the young
men of Athens, for no other reasons than to destroy the superior Greek
culture from within. Socrates opposed
sophistry as a state-
or cultural aim. On account of that he was sentenced to death for corrupting
the youth of Athens, and he was made to execute himself by drinking the
Read the following:
From Plato’s Theaetetus to Gauss’s Pentagramma Mirificum: A Fight for
by Bruce Director
Socrates was the last to oppose sophistry for a long time before anyone dared to do that
again. Sophistry was victorious then (as
political correctness and
relativism are today). The rest is history. Aristotleian "logic"* ruled for
more than a thousand years, causing cultural evolution to stagnate, and
causing much death, poverty and other suffering in the process. History
repeats itself. This time the outcome will be similar; now only the scale of
the social catastrophe differs. (*Aristotle was not a sophist, but sophists
love to pick and choose from Aristotle's explanations of logical arguments,
thereby giving themselves the appearance of wisdom and their assertions,
which are nevertheless false, the appearance of being true. See "On
Sophistical Refutations," by Aristotle)
Engels, both the
products of an education system that taught students to be fluent in Latin
and Greek, were right, although they called for bloody revolution to achieve
their aim: the destruction of
the patriarchy. They quite correctly surmised
that the destruction of
the patriarchy cannot be achieved without first destroying its foundation,
the traditional nuclear family. However, they and their acolytes did not
quite succeed. (See
Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926
a more exhaustive history of the evolution and destructive social impact of
Soviet divorce laws)
Antonio Gramsci (leader
of the Italian Communist Party under Mussolini) had studied
Russia. He became disillusioned with Marxism (and became as well very afraid
that he would be swept up in one of the many purges under Stalin) and
recognized that for the cultural revolution fostered by communism to succeed
totally, it would be necessary to teach people sophistry, thereby to achieve
what Marxism had failed to achieve, the destruction of
through attempts to systematically destroy all families. Gramsci correctly
realized that to succeed it would be necessary to destroy all cultural
institutions and traditions from within, not through conquest by a bloody
revolution but through nothing other than to indoctrinate children, students
and adults with sophistry aimed at vilifying all traditional social
institutions and moral standards. The
Cult of Apollo
(look for "Who are the magicians" at that page) had achieved the very
same by exactly that method in relation to the demise of Ancient Greece.
That works exceedingly well today, far better than Marx and Engels ever
hoped for, although it was not necessarily Gramsci who sparked the
reeducation of the world. The torch of reeducation with the aim of dumbing-down whole populations was carried by many powerful and influential
individuals behind the scenes and by their acolytes in public life.
installed child-centered learning (relativism versus the
absolute truth), and thereby
the start of the program for the deliberate dumbing-down of the nation and
of the world. The members of the Frankfurt School who had been invited to
come to the USA (they all were communists) in the early 1930s proved
themselves to be very effective in spreading the religion of sophistry. Out
of that came the hippie movement, the world-wide student revolution of the
'60s (sponsored and organized by East Germany and Moscow), the sexual
revolution, and the cultural revolution that led to our current state of
Now sophistry, relativism and
political correctness rule, but perhaps not
for much longer. Let's hope that the restoration of our former respect for
the truth will come in time to save us all.
All the best,
Many of the links on this page will lead you to articles at Wikipedia,
the most popular of all encyclopedias accessible on the Internet.
Caution is advised when using articles at Wikipedia (as well
as when using articles or definitions in any other encyclopedia or
dictionary). Although in some respects Wikipedia is a much more
objective source of information than many other similar sources when it
comes to social and philosophical concepts, the absolute truth in such
matters is difficult to discern. That is especially true given the
single and greatest shortcoming of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is ruled by consensus. However, consensus at
Wikipedia is not the result of an objective survey of opinions based on a
randomly selected sample of opinions. It is based on the extent of
concern raised in and expressed by self-selected and often emotional
factions. Even if the "truth" of any given thing were based on a
randomly selected sample of opinions, that would still not provide a
guaranty that the particular "truth" is absolutely true. The "truth"
of that thing would still be nothing more than a consensus of opinions and
reflect the collective bias of those opinions, even if it does so more
objectively. Any similarity between that and the absolute truth would
be more or less accidental.
The absolute truth is not a matter of a consensus held by a
committee or by a democratic majority.
Regardless of cloaking themselves with the word science,
political- and social "sciences" are not hard sciences, they are arts.
However, rule by consensus is making inroads not only into arts or soft
sciences, such as political and social "sciences" or the "science" of
psychology, it is making headway into somewhat harder sciences, such as
meteorology, climate research and the medical professions, where
profit motives and politics determine
what is acceptable or not, and where researchers who insist on teaching the
absolute truth become actively persecuted — very much as Socrates had been
persecuted for opposing the ideology of sophistry.
Formerly it was that whatever was taught in hard sciences was
the truth, within the limits of the state of the knowledge and understanding
of the truth at the time. When a new truth or a refinement was sought
and found in trying to seek perfection in the understanding of the truth, it
would not be considered to be one amongst many opinions. Once the new
truth or the refinement of an accepted truth became accepted, it ruled
out all previously held beliefs. One single truth made all other
opinions regarding the given thing that the truth pertained to wrong.
A discussion of a Wikipedia article on
Correctness is an excellent example of Wikipedia's shortcoming.
page pertaining to the dispute regarding the correctness of the
Wikipedia definition and description of
a very lucid comment that laments the absence of a single unifying voice.
In other words, although the comment does not say so, a consensus of
opinions is not as good as the absolute truth. The comment uses the
disagreements over the definitions of
correctness as an example of
Apparently the moderator of that discussion added his own
criticism of that
Fresh View, namely that the given talk page is not intended for anything
other than definitions of
political correctness. That may be perfectly
logical and proper in the moderator's mind, as his primary objective is to
reach a consensus and not an absolutely correct conclusion. However, I
sure wish that all participants involved in the compiling of Wikipedia have
a place where they can form a consensus on how the absolute truth can
be used to temper and verify the correctness of a consensus of opinions,
keeping in mind that the absolute truth is the universal principle
by which any given consensus must be judged.
Back to Mail for Fathers for Life
The White Rose
Thoughts are Free
Posted 2006 04 18
2011 11 21 (added links to information about IMD)