Breaking Islam's Back? A conspiracy hypothesis.

Andrew Atkin

If you think long-term then you have no choice but to agree that one of the biggest concerns of our time is population control. Population simply has to balance to resources, and if it's not balanced actively it will be balanced passively - that is, through wars and famines.

China does population control through direct control - caps on the number of children people can have. That's incredibly efficient, but it takes a tyranny (not democracy) to pull it off. The West does population control a little differently. We broke down old religions and traditions (video here), and invented social movements of sorts to erode low-cost child rearing, and even the human desire to have large 'expansionist' families. Southern Africa, to further contrast, mostly does population control the ancient way - violence and famines.

  

Now the world is about to change dramatically, once again, and it will be a consequence of key infrastructural technologies. Namely driverless car technology, and ultra fast and universal Internet (5g). With these technologies we will quickly see the implementation of mobile robotics, where in theory nearly no-one will need to leave their homes to get anything done. The overall result will be an incredible level of streamlining in our production processes; the elimination of the need for institutional schooling (as we know it); and most critically very cheap food and cheap housing.

Now that's all very well and dandy, except for one thing. Cultures that are tuned to generate high fertility rates are then destined to explode in population as nothing will be holding them back, if their cultures do not critically change with our coming technologies. Africa and the middle east, Islamic nations, will sustain about 4 - 10 children per couple. This will lead to their exponential growth - rapidly dwarfing the Western and East-Asian worlds, where cultural life has become more about being a child than breeding a child.

So what does this mean? It means we're in for a global Islamic take-over via imbalanced fertility rates (see here). From there we risk a true Malthusian nightmare as there will be little resistance to exponential population growth, soon to exceed the carrying capacity of the earth in spite of modern and developing technologies.

Within this scenario, the world would see another concern. Once the globe is well over 50% Islamic, the fundamentalist-Islamic threat becomes serious. A radical minority (extremist Islam) can always dominate a not-so-radical majority, through shear ruthlessness alone. It happens. The following result could well be a global war, eventually turning the entire world into Saudi Arabia, or worse, which is in fact the ultimate objective of the fundamentalist-Islamic faith. The "global caliphate".

So what is my conspiracy hypothesis? 

Well if we take it as given that our public politicians are basically like the Spice Girls (puppets who just do what they're told - driven by polls and special interests) then the powers that be, if they're long-range thinkers (they must be, I believe) may well take the population threat seriously and, for all we know, may be operating a plan to derail it. Because as politically incorrect as it is to say, turning the world into an extremist-Islamic empire is not a happy ending. That worst case scenario should surely not be allowed to eventuate, if we are to have compassion for the generations coming after us.

So adopt a pragmatic frame of mind: How do you break the Islamic world's back?

One way is to go to war with the Islamic world; through Africa, the middle east, and other Islamic areas like Pakistan. The purpose of the war (once won) would supposedly be to enforce Western controls in existing Islamic nations. 

Those controls could be:

1. Pervasive information-based security systems to block the potential for Islamic radicalisation.

2. Anti-cult laws, which dictate that young children must be exposed to theology studies before their religious convictions becomes dictated by their parents.

3. The secure creation of safe-places to facilitate apostasy (the freedom to abandon your religious faith).

This would break down the Islamic fertility threat, as it would break down the faith system that would otherwise make other fertility-control initiatives impossible, or brutal. 

Is this, very crudely, the game? Are we being primed for war against Islam, ultimately to the end of controlling global fertility? We were certainly primed to destroy Iraq, if you remember. Is the idea so irrational and improbable?

In New Zealand for example, due to the Christchurch massacre, it's fast becoming taboo to even question Islam out of fear of being associated with the "extremist right". This 'code of silence' threatens give a free pass to the development of Islamic radicalisation, which may in turn allow for extremist-Islamic revenge attacks in New Zealand and elsewhere. Tit-for-tat terrorism could prime the public sentiment for war, which could lead to what some believe to be an ultimate necessity - the necessity of breaking down the Islamic world's fertility, to bring them in line with the rest of us.

Conclusion

Just a hypothesis! Make no mistake I do not endorse war. It's just my wild speculation on how others might be thinking, and maybe powerful others. I have long been suspicious that so many public policy movements throughout the world point to [deliberate?] population control, in their effect, because that is exactly what they do....

Who knows what really goes on behind closed political doors. But it's ultimately true that population will need to be controlled (see here) and on a global scale, somehow or another. And I don't believe that the powers-that-be would have failed to think that far. It's just too obvious.

How do we suppress the coming hyper-fertility of the Islamic world? The political question might be as simple as that. And doing nothing may not be an acceptable answer.

Further relevant article: The Eugenics Question.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Post Note:

New Zealand's new hate speech laws that are about to be imposed will be interesting. The included video below is not hate speech by any honourable standard, because the expression is strictly objective and the motive is entirely constructive. 

However, the government could claim that the video paints Islam in a negative light, and in turn threatens to offend Muslims and incite negativity towards Muslims, and is therefore hate speech and should be shut down. If so then this is exactly what radical Islam will want. They will be protected from serious criticism and in turn win a free pass to infiltrate New Zealand and do who knows what.

Conversely, hate speech laws may only work, in practice, to shut down truly hateful people who are not usually dangerous though ugly and abusive. This would in turn leave people who talk on the level shown in the included video alone. That would be the opposite of what radical Islam wants, because what that would do is legitimatise critics of Islam in the public eye, because mature critics are then not defamed by association with skinheads and the like. 

We will just have to wait and see how the hate speech game plays out.