A vexing problem pertaining to the rates of change between egalitarian and reactionary forces over a generational time-frame

Hello r/Liberal, and thank you for supporting our shared egalitarian beliefs. I must apologize beforehand, but I have a troubling problem that has burrowed itself into my thought process for the past few days. You see, a male friend of mine who is on the reactionary ideological side of things (listens to E Michael Jones, Richard Spencer, Vox Day, etc) had proposed a certain idea or process to me a few days ago that has troubled me greatly(do not be alarmed, I just mean troubled in an abstract philosophical sense, like somebody going over a hard equation).

He proposed the idea that, in any environment with multiple groups, the group that adheres to egalitarian values(gender, race, religion) will always eventually be outnumbered by a reactionary group that believes in hard gender, racial or religious distinctions. I held back the desire to call him an individual motivated by racial bigotry in order to listen to more of what he had to say (it was hard, but I managed. barely). He presented to me a hypothetical closed system in which there was an American state. In this state, political representation and power would be gained through the "one individual, one vote" system in which the votes would be used to elect certain representatives of the populace's choosing to government office. In this state, there would be two major groups of equal proportion in the first generation. One would be a group with egalitarian values, while one would have reactionary values(sexist, racist, etc). In the first generation, he said, both groups would have relatively equal control over the government, due to the fact that there would be similar numbers of both to vote for their own side/ideology in government, he even said as a concession that the egalitarian liberals could perhaps be wealthier and therefore have more influence in government(an idea which he believes is reflected in the current political environment) and educational institutions. I was curious to see where this was going, and didn't interrupt him as a result.

He went on to say that in the state's second generation after the first one grew old, the reactionary group would occupy a larger percentage of society than the egalitarian/liberal group. This he said, was due to the fact the reactionary group would be more willing to force women into certain subservient gender roles that would make them get pregnant more often. He also said the reactionary group, on account of its presumably christian religion, would view large families as a moral imperative and divine commandment. This would result in them having a relatively high birthrate. On the other hand, he said, the egalitarian/liberal group would have a relatively low birthrate, due to the lack of a religious imperative to have children, and the equal treatment of women preventing them from adopting a "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" kind of role for women. The liberal women would go to college and work, and if they did have children it would be at a later age than the reactionary women, and in smaller quantities. This difference in birth rate caused by ideology, he claimed, would eventually lead to the reactionary forces overpowering the leftist ones at the polls, allowing them to gain permanent power through the voting booth.

Of course, this was a troubling thought, but he made it even worse by introducing other quandaries. According to him, the only way for the leftist ideological group to stop this demographic problem would involve an abrogation of their own liberal principles. For instance, to prevent the reactionaries from using their larger numbers to gain votes, the liberals would somehow have to suspend the democratic process, thereby presenting the reactionary masses from gaining political influence. Of course, this would upend sacred democratic liberal principles. The other quandaries were even more troubling though! He said that the other way would involve making the liberal/egalitarian women have more children, and at an earlier age to raise the liberal birthrate. Being a female myself, this of course upset me; why should I have to give up my freedom just to raise some parasitic kid just in the hopes that the reactionary hicks wouldn't outnumber us as much? The final option he proposed was the most upsetting. In order to solve the demographic balance in favor of the liberal leaning demographic, the liberals could potentially relocate or exterminate the reactionary demographic so they wouldn't have the power of the majority anymore.

To apply this to the real world, he mentioned to me a study that mentioned that the world was growing more religious over time (http://www.livescience.com/50370-worlds-religious-population-will-grow.html) , and the leftist atheists would eventually be severely outnumbered by the religiously devout that viewed childbirth as a mission sent by god. He also mentioned the higher birthrates of muslim immigrants in Europe than the native Europeans, who are apparently more liberal than the muslim immigrants on average.

I have known this fellow for a long time, and I do not want to simply disassociate with him because of his ideas, no matter how toxic they are to any sensible person living in 2016. At the same time, I want to have an actual response to him, but I cannot really think of anyway to solve the demographic problem. Any help would be appreciated :)