Wednesday, April 22, 2026

Demography Is Destiny — And the Left Isn’t Reproducing


Politics is often framed as a battle of ideas.

Elections. Messaging. Media narratives.

But beneath all that lies something more fundamental — and far less discussed.

Demography.

Because in the long run, it is not the loudest voices who win. It is the next generation.

And increasingly, that generation is not being raised by the political left.

For years, progressives have assumed a built-in advantage. “Demographics is destiny” was supposed to guarantee a permanent electoral majority.

This would explain Democrats’ open borders policies, which, combined with generous welfare benefits, add millions of voters electing to continue the gravy train. 

That assumption is now colliding with reality.

The real divide is not just race or geography.

It is fertility.

And on that front, the left is losing.

As one widely circulated on X by @MoreBirths put it, “The childbearing gap between liberals and conservatives is absolutely exploding and has now reached 2 to 1 among women 25-35. In 1980, there was hardly any difference.”

demography chart

X screenshot

Let’s begin with a basic truth: people who have children tend to think differently from those who do not.

Parenthood encourages long-term thinking, stability, and investment in the future. The world is no longer theoretical or in the moment. It is a mindset your children will inherit.

Data support this. Married parents, particularly those with children at home, are more likely to identify as or vote Republican compared to unmarried, childless adults. The General Social Survey and analyses from institutions like the American Enterprise Institute and Brookings have consistently shown that marriage and parenthood correlate with more conservative political attitudes over time.

The divide is not absolute — but it is real.

Now consider fertility.

The U.S. total fertility rate has fallen to around 1.6 births per woman — well below the replacement level of 2.1. But that decline is not evenly distributed.

Religious Americans have significantly higher fertility rates than secular Americans. According to the Pew Research Center, women who attend religious services weekly have, on average, more children than those who seldom or never attend. Pew has also documented that religious households place greater emphasis on marriage and family formation.

Conversely, the religiously unaffiliated—who lean heavily left politically—have the lowest fertility rates.

This is not ideology.

It is arithmetic.

Why the gap?

Culture plays a central role.

Modern progressive norms often prioritize career, autonomy, and personal fulfillment over family formation. Marriage is delayed. Childbearing is postponed.

Sometimes indefinitely.

Highly educated women—particularly in urban professional environments — are often told they can “have it all.” Echoing the old refrain—Helen Reddy’s “I am woman. Hear me roar”?

Career first. Family later.

Yet biology imposes constraints. Female fertility declines meaningfully beginning in the early 30s and more sharply after the mid-30s. The gap between expectation and reality can be unforgiving.

Other studies confirm these biological realities, even as cultural messaging often downplays them.

Then there is fear.

Climate change has shifted from policy debate to existential anxiety in some circles. A 2021 Lancet study surveying young people globally found that a substantial percentage reported hesitancy about having children due to climate concerns.

In the U.S., similar attitudes have been documented in polling by organizations like Morning Consult and Pew Research.

Think about that.

A worldview so pessimistic about the future that it discourages creating one.

Social structure matters as well.

Marriage rates have declined sharply over the past half-century. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, fewer than half of American adults are now married—a historic low. Religious participation has also fallen, with the rise of the “nones” well documented by Pew.

Yet these same institutions—marriage and religion—are among the strongest predictors of higher fertility and stable family formation.

We are dismantling the very structures that sustain population replacement.

And the results are predictable.

Abortion is also part of the equation.

Precise data comparing abortion rates by political affiliation are limited, as abortion statistics are not collected by party identification. However, surveys consistently show that self-identified liberals and Democrats are far more likely to support legal abortion in all or most cases compared to conservatives and Republicans, as noted by Pew Research and Gallup.

The Guttmacher Institute — which conducts extensive research on abortion—has found that abortion rates are higher among less religious populations and in more secular regions.

Again, this is not primarily a moral argument here.

It is a demographic one.

A culture that normalizes abortion will, all else equal, produce fewer births than one that does not.

What about the next generation?

Children are not politically neutral.

Research on political socialization — spanning decades — shows strong parent-child alignment in political beliefs. One study published in the American Sociological Review indicates that party identification and ideological leanings are significantly transmitted across generations, even allowing for some variation and rebellion.

In simple terms: people tend to raise future voters who think as they do.

Put it all together.

One group marries more, attends church more, and has more children.

The other delays marriage, questions family formation, fears the future, and has fewer children.

Which group shapes the next generation?

None of this guarantees permanent political dominance. Candidates and ideas matter. Culture shifts.

But demographics set the boundaries within which politics operates.

And those boundaries are changing.

For years, the left focused on winning arguments.

It may have overlooked something more basic.

You cannot dominate the future if you are not present in it.

Demography is destiny. And in the end, the side that refuses to have children is not evolving.

You don’t need to defeat an ideology that refuses to reproduce. You just need to wait.


Podcast thread for April 22

 


do what makes you happy. (and as long as it's legal.).

The Anger of the Antebellum Wokies


In about 50 years, experts agree, Wikipedia will have a page called “Antebellum Wokism” discussing the rage and the impotence of late-stage progressivism, and how the progressives defended the indefensible for decades before progressivism’s inevitable debacle. For now, it just has an “Antebellum South” article about how the South defended slavery:

Initially regarded as an awkward and temporary institution, [slavery] gradually evolved into a defended concept, with proponents arguing for its positive merits, while simultaneously vehemently opposing the burgeoning abolitionist movement.

As the Southrons evolved into defending their “concept” more and more, they got angry. Who can forget  the caning of Sen. Sumner (R-MA) on the floor of the Senate in 1856?

Representative Preston Brooks, a pro-slavery Democrat from South Carolina, used a walking cane to beat Senator Charles Sumner, an abolitionist Republican from Massachusetts, nearly to death.

The new Wikipedia article will also include an explainer for those that need a bit of expert analysis to teach them what to think. It will say this about the educated-class slave state that was:

“Intitally regarded as a glorious success and the epitome of ‘progress,’ the woke state gradually devolved into a corrupt slave state, with neo-aristocrats feasting on vast banquet of government grants in their NGO palaces, neo-gangs gobbling an array of fraudulent social services under the averted gaze of the woke aristos. At the bottom was a ghetto of neo-slaves consuming an array of government benefits, from food to money to housing to health care in return for their votes, while they descended into both cultural and economic bankruptcy.”

My point is that our liberal and wokey and Democrat friends are angry, just like the Southrons of old. They regard themselves as our moral and cultural superiors. They can’t believe they are losing to the likes of Trump, and they are willing to do almost anything to hang onto power. And the leaders of the Church of Woke know that to keep the believers filling the pews they have to keep them angry.

Otherwise, what’s the point of disbarring John Eastman, for daring to dispute the 2020 election?

Otherwise, what’s the point of riling Democrat voters up for the “No Kings” peaceful protests?

Otherwise, what’s the point of lawfaring after Jack Phillips of the Masterpiece Cake Shop?

Otherwise, what’s the point of sending the G-men into Mar-a-lago after Donald Trump had been safely defeated for all time in 2020?

Otherwise, why deploy the Intelligence Community to fake up a Russian collusion narrative back in 2015-16?

Bless their hearts.

You see, their God is Dead, and they have killed xer.

Because I am so wise, I feel a certain sympathy for our lefty friends, caught as they are in the chaotic Retreat from Woke. Just as I have, over the years, developed a rather relaxed view of slavery.

The Romans did it, parading the captured slaves in their Triumphs.

The Vikings did it, sailing up the rivers of England to kill the men and take the women and children to the slave market in Dublin, Ireland.

Everyone did it, transporting the Circassian beauties across the Black Sea to the harems of the Ottoman Empire.

The West Africans did it, rounding up slaves and selling them to the European slave ships for transportation to the Americas.

The Anglo-Saxons did it. In the year 1000 when starvation threatened, you could go to your lord in England and ask to become a slave: “head for food.”

The Soviets did it, enslaving the Russian people to create the glories of Communism.

Mao did it, enslaving the Chinese people to implement the Great Leap Forward.

We do it, with welfare and food stamps and free housing and all the rest of the welfare state.

However, experts insist, encouraging helpless migrants to journey to the United States and become wards of the state under the benevolent eye of countless government-funded NGOs is absolutely not slavery.

The main question is whether we can put to bed the failed regime of progressivism and wokism without a repeat of the Civil War. Suppose both sides had cooled their jets in the 1860s: I like to ask whether the South would have continued its slave system after mechanical cotton picking got started. And what about the moral argument about slavery in the 1880s as concerned citizens started to worry about the frightful menace of the Robber Barons?

For instance, I doubt if any current GOP U.S. Senator would stage a fiery two-day speech on the floor of the Senate like Sen. Sumner (R-MA) on “The Crime Against Kansas.” The truth is that we far-right racist-sexist-homophobes affect a more relaxed view of our political adversaries, like Vice President JD Vance and “I don’t really care, Margaret.” We look on the DSA youngsters, from AOC to Mamdani, as spoiled brats pissing away Daddy’s money. And their senior Bernie brethren as comical holdovers, Keystone Kops, from an olden time.


James Carville Gives a Terrifying Glimpse of Democrats’ Future Governing

 James Carville Gives a Terrifying Glimpse of Democrats’ Future Governing Agenda

James Carville attends a New York Times event in New York City, December 3, 2025.(David Dee Delgado/Getty Images for the New York Times)

Perhaps determined to confirm once and for all that there is no longer such a thing as a moderate Democrat, the famed political strategist James Carville recently advised his party that if they obtain a trifecta in Washington, D.C., in 2028, they should try to abolish American politics. “If the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress,” Carville proposed, “I think on day one, they should make Puerto Rico and D.C. a state, and they should expand the Supreme Court to 13. F*** it. Eat our dust.”

These ideas did not occur to Carville ex nihilo. Still, it is rather jarring to hear them from someone who once insisted that “to be a contrarian, you’ve got to be a contrarian against your own people.” At best, Carville is engaging in cheap fan service for his own people. At worst, he has become as unhinged as they are. If indulged, the course of action that he endorses would break our politics and cause dysfunction that would take decades to fix. Does the man have nobody at home who can dig him gently in the ribs?

That Carville has gone down this road is ominous — not least because it suggests that, if the Democrats give in to their worst instincts the next time they enjoy uniform power, all manner of supposedly respectable figures are likely to go along. Undoubtedly, the press will be among them. In theory, our journalists exist to push back against this sort of Jacobinism. In practice, they are sympathetic to the ends and therefore indulgent of the means. If it comes to it, they will mislead, euphemize, downplay, and create false equivalences, such that contextualized debate becomes impossible. The Democrats’ press releases will be echoed in the newspapers verbatim. The party’s activists will be presented as analysts. And, at all junctures, we will hear the infants’ retort: They started it!

That will all be nonsense. There is a reason that James Carville followed up his proposition with the counsel “don’t run on it, don’t talk about it, just do it,” and it is not that the “it” in question represents quotidian American politics. On the contrary: “F*** it” is the motto of the man who has abandoned discipline, while “Eat our dust” is an adage for the presbyopic. Only oncein American history has a president attempted to do what Carville is recommending, and the result was a rebuke from his own supermajority party that has echoed throughout the ages. Court-packing, wrote the chairman of the House Rules Committee, represented “the most terrible threat to constitutional government that has arisen in the entire history of the country.” His equivalent on the Senate Judiciary Committee went one further, submitting that the idea “violates every sacred tradition of American democracy,” corrupts “all precedents in the history of our government,” and “should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.”

Quite so. To achieve their ends, the Democrats would be required to dispense with a trio of fundamental norms. They would have to abolish the filibuster, which has obtained in its true form since 1837. They would have to add seats to the United States Supreme Court, which has had nine members since 1869. And they would have to add states without bipartisan buy-in, which has not been done since 1890. This would change all three branches in one fell swoop. It would change the Court by turning it into an explicitly political body. It would change the Senate by adding four new members and reducing the threshold to a simple majority. And it would change the presidency by remaking the Electoral College.

To justify those moves, the Democrats would presumably insist that the Republicans have committed crimes of an equal nature. But that is absurd. Twice in recent memory, Republicans in the Senate have been pressured to abolish the filibuster by a president of their own party, and twice they have refused to do so. Neither, despite winning a trifecta, have they added states or packed the Supreme Court. Certainly, Republican senators have filled the Court — first by refusing to acquiesce to a nominee whom the majority disliked, and then by approving three nominees whom the majority favored. But they have not packed it, tried to pack it, or approximated packing it in any way. To pretend that the Senate picking judges during a vacancy is the same as Congress adding judges so that its majority party can achieve its preferred political outcomes is to stretch the English language to its breaking point. “F*** it,” indeed.

The lesson of the past two decades ought to have been that cynical, outlandish, and arrogant political gestures have a tendency to repel the public and push it back toward the party that it just rejected. President Biden became extremely unpopular after he allowed himself to be persuaded that he was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. President Trump’s second-term “vibe shift” was peremptorily curtailed by his preposterous experiment with tariffs. In Virginia, Abigail Spanberger has become the most unpopular recently inaugurated governor in the state’s history, after she traded her “security mom” campaign mien for an electoral power grab that would have made Huey Long blush. In 2028, the Democrats have a chance to break the cycle — but to take it, they’ll need a leader who is willing to be a contrarian against his own people.


🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Grand Jury Indicts Southern Poverty Law Center For Secret Fraudulent Payments To Racist Groups



A federal grand jury indicted the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) on Tuesday for allegedly making fraudulent payments to racist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

“The SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement announcing the charges. “Using donor money to allegedly profit off Klansmen cannot go unchecked. This Department of Justice will hold the SPLC and every other fraudulent organization operating with the same deceptive playbook accountable. No entity is above the law.”

According to a Justice Department press release, the SPLC — which has often put targets on the backs of nonviolent conservative organizations by falsely labeling them as “hate groups” — has been charged with 11 counts of “wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.” Per the presser, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Alabama Northern Division “filed two forfeiture actions to recover alleged proceeds of the organization’s fraud scheme.”

The agency noted that the indictment returned by the Alabama grand jury detailed how the SPLC reportedly began a “covert network” in the 1980s comprised of individuals “who were either associated with violent and extremist groups … or who had infiltrated violent extremist groups at the SPLC’s direction.” The SPLC, however, allegedly did not inform its donors that “some of their donated money was being used to fund the leaders and organizers of racist groups at the same time that the SPLC was denouncing the same groups on its website.”

According to the DOJ, between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC allegedly took more than $3 million in donor funds and “secretly funneled” it to people affiliated with “various violent extremist groups.” Among these organizations are the KKK, United Klans of America, National Alliance, and several others.

Referencing the indictment’s findings, the DOJ disclosed that the scheme purportedly sought to “obtain money via donations through materially false representations and omissions about what the donated funds would be used for.” As alleged by the agency, the SPLC “opened bank accounts connected to a series of fictitious entities” as a means of “covertly” paying those involved.

“The covert nature of the accounts allowed the SPLC to disguise the true nature, source, ownership, and control of the fraudulently obtained donated money the SPLC paid the individuals,” the press release reads. “In order to keep the scheme going, the SPLC made a series of false statements related to the operation of the accounts.”

Addressing the indictment, FBI Director Kash Patel — whose agency investigated the case alongside the IRS Criminal Investigation division — classified the SPLC’s alleged actions as “illegal.” He further confirmed that the probe remains “ongoing.”

Patel previously severed the FBI’s ties with the SPLC last year following the assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk. TPUSA is one of several conservative organizations the SPLC has smeared in recent years.


One Moment… Then Disaster. See The Streak Everyone's Talking About

One Moment… Then Disaster. See The Streak Everyone's Talking About

By Hank Berrien for Daily Wire





It might be a coincidence — or it might not.


The New York Mets are on an 11 game skid since New York mayor Zohran Mamdani hugged the team's mascot.

An apology seems to be in order.


Forget the Red Sox’ long-dead “Curse of the Bambino”—New York has a new, much more bureaucratically efficient disaster: The Mamdani Curse. On April 9, Mayor Zohran Mamdani stepped onto the field and wrapped his arms around Mrs. Met. Since that cold-blooded act of political affection, the Mets have gone 0-11. It's as if the Mayor's touch carried the same administrative efficiency he brings to City Hall, successfully grinding a $507 million engine of hope into a stationary pile of expensive scrap metal.


https://x.com/thehoffather/status/2044420722240729143


Statistically, Mamdani is the most effective defensive player in Major League Baseball history. Since he made contact with the mascot, the Mets have scored a pathetic 1.8 runs per game. He has managed to do what no opposing pitcher could: he neutralized Francisco Lindor, turned Bo Bichette's bat into a decorative toothpick, and sent the team's playoff odds off a cliff, plummeting from a confident 89% to an almost certainly too hopefuly 47%.


While the mayor might be used to managing deficits, this 11-game skid is a masterclass in bankruptcy. It takes a special kind of political talent to walk into a stadium and accidentally lobby for a 100% tax on hits, runs, and basic competence. Watching the Mets right now is like watching a city council meeting on a Tuesday morning: long, painful, and ending with everyone wondering where all the money went.


Even when the team tries to fight back, the “Mamdani Curse” lingers like a bad zoning law. Against the Cubs, the Mets managed to go 1-for-9 with runners in scoring position. They aren’t just losing; they are failing with the kind of bureaucratic precision that suggests they've been ordered to stay in last place by the mayor’s office.


At this point, an apology may not be enough. For the sake of the city, the mayor needs to be banned from within 500 feet of Citi Field, and Mrs. Met needs to be dipped in holy water.


If Mamdani decides to hug the Statue of Liberty next, New Yorkers should expect the torch to go out and the harbor to freeze over by sunset.


The Mets have 27 outs to work with every game, and thanks to the mayor, they are treating every single one of them like a campaign promise: discarded, forgotten, and leaving the public in tears.






Amazon Didn’t Ban The Camp Of The Saints Because It’s ‘Offensive’ But Because It Resonates


Jean Raspail’s ‘The Camp of the Saints’ isn’t a racist screed, it’s a story about how civilizations die.



In an act of censorship that liberals would normally decry as fascist and authoritarian, Amazon banned a new edition of The Camp of the Saints by the late French novelist Jean Raspail — and then quietly re-listed the book after online backlash to the company’s attempted censorship. The book, published by a small outfit called Vauban Books, was removed from Amazon’s U.S. site on Monday with almost no explanation. As of this writing, Amazon has not explained why it de-listed the book.

Vauban Books released a statement Monday saying Amazon informed them the novel was in violation of the company’s “offensive content” policy — an odd reason to ban a book on a site that offers some 50 million titles, many of which certainly contain “offensive content,” depending on who you ask. Vauban said it didn’t know why Amazon made this decision, noting that its edition of The Camp of the Saints has been available on Amazon since July 2025 and has sold about 20,000 copies. Vauban did note, however, that “it may be no coincidence that the listing was removed one day after New York Magazine published a critical article on Vice President Vance that referenced the book.”

The Camp of the Saints — for those who don’t follow online meme culture — is a dystopian novel about a massive flotilla of impoverished Indians who decide to invade Europe and colonize it by sheer force of numbers. First published in 1973, the book includes some graphic and rather fantastical descriptions of Indians, earning it an unfair reputation as a straightforwardly racist screed.

It is nothing of the sort. The novel isn’t actually about race at all, but about how civilizations die. Raspail himself wrote that he chose Indians, and not North Africans or Arabs, as his Third World antagonists, because of a “refusal to enter the false debate about racism and anti-racism in French daily life.” The real villains of his story aren’t the Indians who seek to despoil and occupy Europe, but the European elites who encourage and aid them.

In Raspail’s novel, Europe’s political leaders do nothing to stop the Indian invaders, but insist on aiding them along their way, claiming that Europe has a moral duty to welcome the migrants as penance for the continent’s past sins. When the Indian horde finally makes landfall, society quickly breaks down and European civilization is swept away in a violent clash of cultures.

For years now, the book has become something of a touchstone on the right for how jaw-droppingly prescient it is, quoted regularly on social media in response to news about the problems mass Third World immigration has brought to Europe and the U.S. That’s why Amazon banned it — not because it contains “offensive content” but because it’s an extended (and effective) argument for the active defense of western civilization against alien cultures that would destroy it.

I bought The Camp of the Saints on Amazon back in 2015 (before it was offensive) and wrote about the question at the heart of Raspail’s novel: is the West willing to defend itself? His answer then was emphatically no, and in the five decades since, he has been proven right. One need only look out at the Third World slums that now occupy nearly every major European and American city, together with the suicidal mass immigration policies of every left-wing western government.

Raspail’s novel is an indictment not of Indian culture or any other non-western culture, but of his own. He knew that to speak of culture is to speak of something alive, cultivated and nurtured for generations. He knew, too, that without that care and cultivation a culture will die — or be conquered. And he recognized, back in the early 1970s, that European leaders had lost confidence in their civilization and were neglecting it in ways that would lead to its demise at the hands of outsiders.

On the American right, these are now commonplace observations and arguments, and The Camp of the Saints, however edgy it might have been a decade ago, is simply a novelized account of what is happening right before our eyes.

That’s what makes Amazon’s decision to ban, albeit temporarily, The Camp of the Saints so clumsy and reactionary. Unlike performative book-ban outrage on the left, which appears whenever school districts or local governments try to ban pornographic books that propagandize children about sex, there’s a legitimate reason to be outraged at Amazon’s attempted banning of The Camp of the Saints. Sex books aimed at children are pushed by fringe LGBT activists who have no mainstream constituency. By contrast, The Camp of the Saints has become a cult classic precisely because readers have perceived in it something fundamentally true about our current political moment. The book resonates — and in its resonance, it delivers a damning indictment of liberal leaders in Europe and America and the suicidal immigration policies they push.

Because Amazon controls something like 50 percent of the book market in the United States, getting a title delisted is no small thing, especially for a small publisher like Vauban (you can buy The Camp of the Saints directly from the publisher, here). Clearly, Amazon was responding to pressure from a small group of outraged liberals who think any discussion or defense of western civilization is by definition racist and offensive, and demanded that the company remove The Camp of the Saints from its U.S. store.

But censorship isn’t going to work this time. Not because Raspail’s novel is a brilliant, irresistible literary masterpiece (it isn’t), but because every honest person who reads it knows that what he says about how civilizations die is undeniably true. And once you compare the world of his novel to the real world of today, it becomes equally obvious that our own civilization is dying, and that we in the West are letting it die.

Free PDF here:

https://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDFs/Camp_of_the_Saints_2col%20.pdf