Should old ladies be having children outside of divine assistance? Former director of London’s Serpentine Galleries, Dame Julia Peyton-Jones, has become a mother via surrogacy, aged 64, prompting the country to question whether such a thing is ethical or even lawful.
As a strong libertarian, I believe an Englishman’s home is his castle, but at these late stages of life, nature leaves a woman’s womb as nothing but a barren ruin. It makes sense to question how the child will fare when their support network has also come to ruin, if only on behalf of the child’s potential estate, let alone for the effect this will have on society.
The real question is not why older women would want another woman to carry their baby to fruition. Perhaps it is just a valedictory pretence of vitality by those who bought the lie that every woman could and should have it all—postmenstrual howling at the moon, long after the biological clock grew silent. Rather, we must ask why we Europeans have ‘[lost] the will to replace ourselves’, as Prof. William Reville recently put it. How can we end this revolt against nature or voluntary ‘demographic extinction’? Of course, overpowering nature is how we come to not only survive but dominate and flourish on this planet, but ignoring scientific facts and natural laws in the face of expiration is the direct antithesis; it is simply degenerate.
Sadly, Gramsci and Lukacs’ theory that Western culture must be destroyed for communism to emerge has been tested by leftists and neocons since the 1960’s, when cultural Marxism came to dominate the cultural scene. From political policy to popular writing, half of Western populations have bought the idea that white procreation or even any sense of identity is about the worst thing imaginable. Whilst celebrities increasingly promote having children over the age of fifty, every week, another article is published by some young, damaged goods or other, trying to convince the world (by which I mean herself) that she’s just fine without a family. The latest I read, from the ironically named Ms. Chatel, presents the usual platitudes—children will ruin your life—but, apparently of even greater importance, they could increase mankind’s carbon footprint.
Yet, the fact is housewives are the happiest women around and I imagine their husbands are happiest too. Furthermore, traditional families are a great benefit to society as well; they are our most powerful bulwark against high crime rates. For a healthy society, we can only conclude that women at Peyton-Jones’ age should ideally be grandmothers. Grandparents are a valuable pillar of society – the more time they spend with their grandchildren, the better it is for their development and thus, the greater benefit we all receive. Can we really be surprised that this is the case when this is how we have evolved? (N.B. There’s a good reason other familial structures haven’t survived.)
So, the closer we get to the natural order, the more sustainable our society becomes. If this were not the case, men would not have evolved to find youth so attractive and women would not have evolved to age sooner and worse than men, focusing our mating habits towards those stronger, healthier eggs. Of course, women age sooner but live longer because they do not readily outlive their usefulness as grandmothers. The reason we have evolved to find Peyton-Jones’ act so taboo, however, is that she will readily outlive her usefulness as a mother; to display this as acceptable is a direct threat to the society our children must inherit. The threat cultural Marxism poses must, therefore, be stopped.
But, as I said, I’m a libertarian; so, what about individual liberty? Well, of course, if you don’t like the natural order of things, that’s fine. By all means, go and raise a family of twelve in a highly radioactive environment at the age of 80. I will wish you the very best of luck and, what’s more, I will politely disguise the futility I feel in doing so. But don’t ask me to value what you do or to remain silent when you set about proselytizing society to your bizarre ideas. In order for my children and grandchildren (if you’re capable of thinking that far ahead) to enjoy the liberties I desire for myself, we’re going to need a sustainable environment in which they can flourish. And the purposes for which you propose we use our medical advancements don’t cut the mustard.
Instead, I propose we use our great scientific advancements to restore and enhance the natural order, for the benefit of us all. But how can we usher in a Spring, rather than the coming demographic Winter?
In an interview I conducted with Prof. Richard Lynn, he suggested that states should stop imposing degenerating policies, promoting anything other than the traditional. However, he noted that this has only ever had a negligible effect in swaying the opinions of those Europeans who will not replace themselves. What is needed is neo-eugenics, that is, private services provided by the market, e.g. designer babies.
According to Lynn, such services could provide both an attractive and efficient way to improve demographics and even raise the average IQ of our populations by a standard deviation in just one generation. If the state were so inclined, it could promote the use of such services through subsidies, assistance or tax breaks; thus, encouraging those who were breeding to replacement levels and using these services to select preferable genes for their children, in much the same way that IVF screening currently allows us to avoid relatively undesirable qualities.
So, I ask you again, should grannies be having children? If you like civilization, you won’t love this becoming normal, that’s for sure. Whether it is through legislation or frowning upon this as a social taboo, this degeneracy must certainly be countered by the promotion and protection of traditional families and the freeing of the market to make the prospect of having children far more attractive to young Westerners. Let’s explore every avenue to secure the future of Western civilization with the same vigour that was used to bring it to ruins.