Counter-Currents
3,581 words
The white racial predicament, now so extreme—fundamentally, looming extinction or genocide—can be studied from countless angles. The issue is so multifaceted that it is easiest to break the main problem into smaller, discrete components, holding fixed and temporarily ignoring numerous crucial elements that in real life cannot be readily ignored.
One facet of the overriding problem is sub-replacement fertility: the failure of whites worldwide to replace their population by having at least 2.1 children per couple.
The result is a white population declining both in absolute numbers and relative to other races, many of which are growing in size. This is happening at ferocious speed, far more rapidly than most white nationalists grasp.
Note also that the offspring of the many whites who now intermarry, or reproduce interracially outside of marriage, do not augment the white birthrate, but detract from it; such children are non-white. And this is not a marginal problem.
Under present conditions, such hybrids must be uncompromisingly deflected away from the white population and gene pool. Hybrid individuals are unacceptable as group members.
At the most fundamental level, white racialism is a straightforward exercise in conservation biology. Whites, or a remnant of them, must physically survive as a racially-conscious, culturally coherent breeding population or group of genetically similar breeding populations.
The Option of Increasing Family Size
There are many obstacles to having more than two children. The power structure is deeply anti-family and anti-white.
Institutionalized hatred, discrimination, interracial wealth transfers, prevailing ideology, and a monolithic, viciously racist media, educational, and legal system strongly militate against the white family.
Additionally, we suffer from serious ideological and moral malaise. It will do no good to generate large white families that develop into carbon copies of conformist, immoral Romneys, Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, or Rockefellers committed to Jewish supremacy, totalitarianism, and the genocide of the white race.
Indeed, for all intents and purposes it is safe to say that the white family no longer really exists. For thousands of years our race sustained itself, and expanded, thanks to the settled institutions of marriage and the stable family structure. Both have been effectively eradicated within the past few decades.
But we must isolate, forget about, ignore, all of this for purposes of the discussion that follows.
Instead, we will simply assume that white couples can marry (more than once if necessary), or maintain a de facto relationship outside of marriage, and produce and raise offspring.
Such children may not have the opportunity to attend college due to economic constraints, racial discrimination, or other reasons, but responsible, determined white adults can still have more than two children.
In other words, white couples retain the option of having more children despite all of the obstacles thrown in their path. We can isolate this aspect of the racial problem and analyze it.
We shall therefore adopt a mindset that values and encourages abundance rather than scarcity of white children, regardless of the difficulties involved. Having children has always entailed risk and uncertainty, and required faith on the part of couples that things will ultimately work out.
A philosophical and practical guide to such an approach to family and fertility has been developed by a small community of fundamentalist Christians, often loose-knit, such as the Quiverfull Movement (at the link scroll down to that subhead).
Here I will simply provide a general overview of the lifetime fertility window, which is narrower than generally understood.
Despite the Left’s vaunted commitment to “sex education,” there is widespread ignorance about basic aspects of sex, family life, and reproduction. People may be more ignorant today than they ever were.
Male Fertility
Men and women have a lifetime fertility window during which they can reproduce. In general, they cannot reproduce before puberty or too long after middle age, although men have a significantly wider fertility window than do women.
Puberty is the stage of becoming physiologically capable of sexual reproduction, marked by genital maturation, development of secondary sex characteristics, and, in girls, the first occurrence of menstruation.
Puberty begins somewhat later and lasts longer in boys than it does in girls. It is initiated in males around age 10 or 11.
Historically, tribal societies often maintained specific puberty rites for boys, with an arbitrary age chosen for initiation into adulthood. As one text noted, “With the exception of the bar mitzvah among Jews, our society does not have formal puberty rites for boys.” (I recall reading, however, that on the American frontier boys were traditionally presented their first rifle at the age of 13 by their fathers.)
Men do not have a fertility cycle as women do. Sperm are produced throughout their reproductive years, and a healthy man is consistently fertile at all times. In lower animals, there are exceptions to continuous male fertility.
There is no male equivalent of menopause, either, in which the female’s ovaries (organs that produce eggs, as well as the hormones estrogen and progesterone) essentially shut down at a fairly specific point in life.
There are well-documented reports of 90-year-old men having fathered children, and viable sperm have been found in the ejaculations of even older men.
But in recent decades increasing attention has been given to certain negative changes in male fertility or physiological conditions (notably, erectile dysfunction or ED, also known as impotence) closely associated with reproductive capacity.
For example, it now appears that children sired by older men may be at somewhat greater risk for abnormalities.
Also, we are told that ED, which appears to be on the rise, is a common age-related phenomenon.
Less than 1 percent of the male population under 30 years of age is affected by ED, 3 percent under 45 years, 7 percent between 45 and 55, 25 percent at age 65, and up to 75 percent over the age of 80.
Is the seemingly greater prevalence than in the past due primarily to “greater awareness” (public discussion), or are some new cultural or environmental factors at work, analogous to the “obesity epidemic” or, among boys, attention deficit disorder?
Very recent medical reports suggest that ED is often symptomatic of underlying cardiovascular disease.
Female Fertility
Puberty for most girls occurs between the ages of 9 and 12, while menarche (the first menstrual period) usually occurs between the ages of 11 and 14.
For the first few years after the menarche, the girl’s menstrual periods are irregular, and ovulation (the ripening and discharge of an egg from an ovary for possible fertilization) does not occur in every cycle. For some time after the first period, then, a girl is relatively infertile, yet still capable of becoming pregnant.
A number of rare diseases can cause precocious sexual development, and pregnancies in girls with these disorders have occurred as young as 5 or 6.
One of the youngest documented pregnancies occurred in Peru in 1939, when a girl aged 5 years 7 months gave birth by Cesarean section to a 6.5 pound baby boy. The girl had menstruated regularly since the age of 3, and became pregnant when she was 4 years and 10 months old.
In some cultures, menarche is treated as the time when a girl becomes a woman; in such societies, girls often marry after their first menstruation.
In European law, legal puberty was the earliest age at which one could consent and enter into a binding marriage.
At English common law, children became marriageable at the onset of legal puberty—age 12 for girls and 14 for boys.
At French civil law, a marriage could not be contracted before the end of legal puberty—age 15 for girls and 18 for boys.
Demographic historian Ole J. Benedictow maintains that different civilizations and different historical periods within specific civilizations are characterized by their own unique demographic systems. It is a mistake to assume, as many scholars do, that the demographic structures of any given historical period can be projected across the dividing lines of other historical periods, or across the societal dividing lines of different civilizations. (Ole J. Benedictow, The Black Death, 1346-1353: The Complete History, 2004, p. 248)
In European history Benedictow distinguishes between a “medieval demographic system,” for example, and an “Early Modern demographic system.”
Among other things, the medieval system displayed higher mortality and higher fertility—”turnover rates,” “higher rates of inflows and outflows of members of populations”—than did the succeeding period. Fewer medieval women remained unmarried (celibate), and they had a significantly lower age at marriage than did Early Modern women.
Empirical evidence ranging from Italy in the south to England in the west and Iceland and Sweden in the north shows that medieval women generally married at ages 14-20, in contrast to a higher average age at marriage of 25 during the Early Modern period.
As an aside, in 1726 Benjamin Franklin’s younger sister Jane was betrothed in Boston at the age of 14, the marriage to take place some months thereafter.
Under medieval medical conditions, low age at marriage for women combined with higher fertility meant more pregnancies and more female deaths: “Women did not live longer lives than men in pre-modern Europe, but rather somewhat shorter lives,” Benedictow writes.
According to a 1972 textbook, an “unexplained observation” is that the average age of menarche in modern Western countries was at that time gradually declining: in 1860 a girl usually had her first period between ages 16 and 17, while in 1960 it occurred between ages 12 and 13.
Menstruation (periodic uterine bleeding) occurs only in female humans, apes, and some monkeys. An ovarian or estrus cycle occurs in other mammals but is not accompanied by bleeding. The length of the ovarian cycle varies by species: in humans it is approximately 28 days, in chimpanzees 36 days, cows 20 days, sheep 16 and mice 5 days. Cats and dogs ordinarily ovulate just twice a year.
Every month, one ovary releases an egg (a process known as ovulation), which travels through a fallopian tube toward the uterus.
If the egg is fertilized by a sperm, it implants in the lining of the uterus, where it becomes first an embryo (at which point a woman is officially pregnant), and then a fetus. If unfertilized, it will be shed during menstruation.
In light of the vigorous promotion by schools and professional sports of strenuous athletic activities for girls and women, it should be noted that young females who engage in excessive exercise or train or compete intensively are at risk of developing a condition known as the female athlete triad. This is a cluster of three disorders: eating disorders, infrequent or absent menstrual periods due to inadequate production of the female hormone estrogen, and bone thinning (osteoporosis).
According to Mark Perloe, M.D., an Atlanta infertility specialist:
A woman reaches her peak fertility at age 18 or 19, with little change until the mid-20s. As she approaches age 30, her hormone levels start to decline and her fertility also begins a slow decline, with a more rapid decline after age 35. Menopause, which occurs in the late 40s to early 50s in most women, marks the end of a woman’s natural ability to bear children. A man’s fertility decline is not as rapid and has no clear-cut end point, but a man of 50 has lower hormone levels and is likely less fertile than he was at age 25 or 30. (“Infertility,” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2005)
A Mayo Clinic guide states that female fertility rates “remain relatively stable until the early 30s, and then they decrease to very low levels by the early 40s.” Broken down further by the same source (Robert V. Johnson, M.D., Editor-in-Chief, Mayo Clinic Complete Book of Pregnancy & Baby’s First Year, New York: William Morrow, 1994, p. 5):
- Ages 18-24: peak female fertility
- Ages 30-35: fertility is 15%-20% less than maximum
- Ages 35-39: fertility is 25%-50% below maximum
- Ages 40-45: fertility falls to 95% below maximum
“Ultimately, age is still the most important factor when it comes to fertility prediction,” Perloe says. “If you’re in your early 40s, the odds are against getting pregnant without help, no matter what the tests say. The odds are much better in your late 30s or younger.”
Widespread Ignorance About the Biological Clock
Surprisingly, many women have no idea how rapidly fertility declines with age. By the time a woman hits 44, it is almost nonexistent.
According to Dr. Roger Pierson, a Canadian fertility specialist, “Everybody in the reproductive world is shocked at how much ignorance there is. Women get their information from the rather dubious magazines that tend to lurk around the checkout counters of grocery stores.”
In 2009, Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) went so far as to issue a public warning that women should become mothers by the age of 35 or risk infertility, miscarriage, or health problems:
Our statement has been prompted by concern among obstetricians and gynaecologists because we are seeing more and more [older] women who are confronting the heartbreak of infertility and miscarriage. Every week in my clinic I see women who say ‘if only I had known this, I could have planned for this. I wouldn’t have postponed my plans for pregnancy’.” The college fears too many women still do not understand that their fertility declines after 35.
A University of Calgary professor added: “Women have been given the impression that biology doesn’t matter and they can do whatever they like.”
The Window Shuts
Menopause, also known as “change of life,” is the end of menstruation due to physiological processes associated with aging. It usually occurs between ages 45 and 50.
Several years before menopause, menstrual periods become irregular, leading to an interval of alternating fertility and infertility analogous to the stage after menarche.
Periods ultimately cease permanently at the average age of 51. Doctors consider menopause to be complete when a woman has gone one year without a period.
With an average life expectancy of 81, a woman can expect to live more than one third of her life after menopause.
Pregnancy beyond 47 is extremely rare, although it has been medically documented as late as 61.
Fertility treatments may extend the reproductive window slightly, but are extremely expensive and subject to age cut-offs. In Canada, fertility specialists generally will not accept women past their mid-40s.
At age 40, even with in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment, the success rate is only around 40%, whether a woman uses her own eggs or the eggs of a donor.
There are outliers, of course. In 2006 a Spanish woman just shy of her 67th birthday gave birth to twin boys weighing 3.5 pounds each by caesarean section after lying to a California fertility clinic about her age in order to obtain in vitro fertilization treatment. She was forced to sell her apartment in order to pay for the expensive procedure. She died in 2009, leaving her 2-year-old sons orphans.
Don’t Give Up
Despite such difficulties, the UK’s Royal College of Midwives defends women’s right to have children as late as their 40s:
We support women in their choice to have a baby in their late 30s and 40s, although pregnancy complications can be more common in older women. They have higher rates of induction of labour and Caesarean births, which present greater risks to both mother and baby. Despite this, we support a woman’s decision to choose when to embark upon a pregnancy.
Under present conditions, we should not dismiss such liberal attitudes out of hand. Rather than advice to delay pregnancy and childbirth, they should be viewed as a positive determination to keep options open as long as possible. Of course, earlier is better.
The Mayo Clinic guide offers the following advice:
Women in their 30s and 40s sometimes wonder if they’ve waited too long to have a baby or if their chances of having a healthy baby are reduced. Even though achieving pregnancy can be more difficult in an older woman, the overall outcomes are excellent. There are some concerns about higher risks of having a baby with low birth weight, premature labor, or a child with chromosome abnormalities such as Down syndrome. In general, however, women in their 30s who start pregnancy in good health are likely to have a healthy, normal pregnancy. (Mayo Clinic Complete Book of Pregnancy & Baby’s First Year, p. 5)
An online female commenter contributed this useful perspective about relative versus absolute risk:
[Take] a 34-year-old childless woman, who seriously wonders if the risk of Down syndrome makes it immoral to have a baby past 35. Now 1 in 378 [the risk after age 35] is 2-3X bigger than 1 in 952 [the risk at age 30], but still it’s 0.26%! It’s not something to forego motherhood over. If you focus on the relative risk, you fail to notice that the absolute risk is still tiny.
Linking Fertility to Age Structure
Because fertility is crucially age-dependent, it is important to understand the implications of an ominously inverted population age structure. The biological considerations discussed above should be viewed in light of this all-important fact.
A demographic tool useful for this purpose is the population pyramid.
A population pyramid is a statistical representation consisting of two side-by-side bar graphs, one showing the number of males and the other females in five-year age cohorts.
Population is plotted on the X (horizontal) axis and age on the Y (vertical) axis. Males are conventionally shown on the left and females on the right, often in contrasting colors, and may be measured either by raw numbers or as a percentage of the total population.
Population pyramids are one of the most effective ways to graphically depict age and sex distributions because of the clear images they present.
Although population pyramids are almost always used by demographers to analyze racially mixed geographic populations—such as those of nation states or the world at large, they could readily be adapted to racial analysis.
Even in the absence of adequate race data, they are quite useful for conceptualizing what is happening to various races, or what has happened to them in the past (see, for example the contrasting Finnish population pyramids below).
So let us imagine graphs that represent not specific countries, but any race inside or outside the First World.
Thus, within a multiracial country such as the United States, we could, in theory, construct individual graphs for every race within its borders, contemporary or historical.
Alternatively, we could construct a graph representing the global size and age structure of the white (or any other) race. Conceptually, we thus eliminate national boundaries and substitute races for national (state) populations.
Here, for example, is the population pyramid of a contemporary black population:
Representative Age Pyramid for a Hypothetical Expanding Nonwhite Race (Angolan age pyramid, 2005)
Because Angola is overwhelmingly black, this pyramid doubles as both a national and a racial pyramid. Looking at the age distributions on the left, you will see that most of the population is young, while the number of aged is proportionally small.
A substantial proportion of any population so distributed exists either at reproductive age, or has yet to enter it. In terms of raw numbers, it is a racially vibrant population.
Next, look at Finland’s contrasting population pyramids from 1917 (when the country was all-white) and 2006 (representing a mixed white/non-white population). These graphically illustrate the effects of white fertility decline. The radical historical change depicted may be viewed as roughly representative of what has happened to every white country in the world.
Finnish Population Pyramids, 1917 v. 2006
In 1917, white Finns were demographically healthy, just like Angolans today.
But in 2006, the constricted base of the Finnish pyramid signifies greatly diminished numbers of reproductive young in comparison to old.
White fertility everywhere is extremely low—indeed, far lower than depicted due to both higher immigrant reproduction rates (they have higher fertility than the whites they live among) and substantial interracial hybridization between whites and non-whites, which is constantly on the increase.
Finally, here is an example of a hypothetical, inverted pyramid probably characteristic of the age structure of the white race, characterized as it is by below replacement fertility—many old and few young, many deaths and few births signaling demographic collapse.
When you have an inverted population pyramid like this, only a comparatively small proportion of the group’s members are even capable of reproducing. (Match the age cohorts to the fertility windows discussed above; large segments of the population fall outside the range. Such people are no longer capable of reproducing.)
Moreover, total racial numbers, regardless of individual reproductive capacity, keep declining drastically because the most populous age cohorts are constantly dying off—literally vanishing—every decade.
Hypothetical Inverted Age Pyramid of the White Race
Note particularly the declining proportion of whites at or approaching reproductive age, recalling that many of these fertile individuals, in today’s climate, will remain childless, have less than two children, or hybridize with ever-increasing numbers of non-whites continuously being imported by hostile elites.
Finally, the large, unmixed alien populations in our countries have far higher birth rates than do indigenous whites.
As a consequence of all of this, whites have a numbers problem of staggering proportions. With each passing day it becomes worse.
Time is of the essence, and radical steps are necessary to prevent complete demographic collapse worldwide.
The inverted age structure and reproductive profile has grave implications for (a) group survival (b) inter-racial competition for political power, economic resources, and retention of human rights and (c) the potential recruitment pool for nationalist movements, organizations, political parties, or ethnostates.
Collectively, the target audience for white nationalists every year grows markedly older, numerically smaller, and less influential, affluent, healthy, vigorous, and politically assertive.
Darwinian fitness is measured solely in terms of reproductive proficiency. Its guiding principle is “be fruitful and multiply.” It is therefore essential to distinguish Darwinian fitness from “fitness” as excellence determined by some subjective standard. Not only are the two not identical, they may be in direct opposition.
In Darwinian terms, whites currently are not a fit population.
29 comments
I don’t understand the POV of this article in relation to ‘saving’ the white race, given the fact that:
1) We have more white people alive today than at any other time in history.
2) White people live longer than they ever have before (its hard to sell the idea to anyone that we have things so bad, when so many live comfortably to 90).
3) White people have more money, leisure, and self-educational opportunities than ever before.
As I said before, our problems are primarily, secondarily, and tertiarily IDEOLOGICAL, not genetic. Thinking is paramount, if the white race is thinking about the wrong things (for obvious reasons), we will never get out of the rut we are in. Everything would take care of itself genetically if we fixed our religious, moral, and societal presuppositions.
Our enemies are virtuously invincible because they control our minds. Breeding is just a further side-effect, not a cause (although its important, no doubt).
“Everything would take care of itself genetically if we fixed our religious, moral, and societal presuppositions.”
Or you could look it this way: such related institutions and concepts would be revitalized if whites understood the significance of race. I’d much rather build my ideology from biology as opposed to starting with my ideology and trying to impose it on nature to get the results I want. The latter is what the white man has been doing for centuries and it has ultimately lead to where we’re at today.
The way morality is commonly presented and conceived of by the average donut-eater, I think it more often clouds the situation more so than it does illuminate the situation. The average man does not want MORE moral soap-boxing than we already get within this dysfunctional culture. And I think that is a healthy instinct in some ways. In fact, that we obsess about “morality” so much within the discourse is actually a sign of our sickness rather than efforts to regain any sort of health and vigor.
At what point do we stop talking about high and mighty morals and ideals and just simply spell out the rules nature plays by so we can choose our values more clearly and consciously by virtue of knowing what’s actually at stake? When do we ease up on some of the priestly vices for a dose of reality? This is not at all an appeal to the ends justifies the means, it is merely a suggestion that the “we lost our morals” perspective clouds up everyone’s thinking. I notice a staggering contrast between what people ACTUALLY do when left to their instincts (and not guilted) and what people will say out loud what is right and what is wrong when asked to TALK ABOUT morality. The former is often admirable and healthy; the latter is often convoluted, hypocritical, sentimental, and ultimately destructive.
It wasn’t religion that brought me around to the Counter-Currents perspective. It wasn’t sentimental displays of morality and piety that made something click for me. It was people writing these exact kinds of articles. And once I understood such verities via reasoned argument about the cold hard facts of life, a transformation of sorts happened in those other areas you mentioned. Wanting to fix “ideology” without showing why ideology needs to be fixed in real palpable terms amounts to putting the cart before the horse.
And what good is it if we have all these white people if they show themselves to be unfit and incapable of enjoying the fruits of modernity without undermining the foundations of their race?
Foundations that are ultimately biological, not moral.
We need a pagan ideology based on virtue and excellence (which includes morality; not exclusively might is right). The sort of morality people in modern society have is totally fake and synthetic. Its a social construct imposed by the Super Ego, nothing else.
True morality exists, its called conscience (not many zombies walking around have that today).
I never denied that any group needs a morality to survive. I don’t object to virtues. The problem is that talking about “morality” and morals in a detached way triggers something in people that is not good, in my opinion. The less we talk about “morality” itself, the more moral I think we can make people if articles like these continue to be written instead something more pious sounding. It’s a bit paradoxical but I think it’s nonetheless true.
Again, I think cold hard fact brings out the moral people. Finger-wagging, by comparison, has more diminishing returns.
Contemporary morality might be better characterized as a social solvent rather than a social construct.
In Nature, especally when unbalanced, animal populations boom and then crash due to either lack of resources or disease. Deer in the absence of wolves is a typical example. Human Population might well do the same soon. White population will crash along with everyone else – and this might be our best hope for surival if the System is destroyed. Because the other races are having more children and have been for decades. Thus they are younger and more vigorous. We can’t compete, especially if we are being forced to subsidize them at the same time.
You are taking a different starting point than the article – namely assuming that most Whites are going to wake up and everything will change. I don’t think that is likely at all. More likely is for the White Elite to isolate themselves even more as the fruits of their actions became ever more disastrous for other Whites. Thus we are on our own and must assume the worst case scenario as a starting point.
I think that you’re right that it’s likely that the White elite will isolate themselves even more from their own people. Indeed, Guillaume Faye suggests that the real class struggle of today is one waged against the White working class in France and other countries. The White elite can insulate themselves ideologically and socially from the chaos it produces. It lives within a world of ideological fantasies and political and economic privilege. It doesn’t have to live with the practical consequences of its actions.
It follows that White nationalists should form an “out-elite” opposed to the “in-elite.” We can’t expect White parvenus to do much for us, and we can expect them to do much against us. It may be that we need a “fascism” with a prounounced “leftist” character, one which is hostile to traditional elites and institutions, that is populist if not socialist, and that does not shrink from “demagoguery,” “rabble-rousing,” and “class warfare.” Why not?
So many whites may be living “comfortably” [?] to age 90 but they are not doing so on their own steam, not a one. There is invested in them a billion dollars of constantly maintained medical infrastructure. In plain English, these old buggers are held together with wax and string and expensive diagnostic machines/drugs/procedures/surgeries/treatments. Inside they are rot and filth. They are the walking dead. Embalmed while still drawing breath.
Anyone who lived to their 80s, 90s or older in the past (say, up until the 1930s or 40s) did so purely on the basis of their superior physical constitutions. Any inferior specimens of their, and earlier, generations got sick and dropped dead, as nature intends. Is it any wonder that every generation over the past, say, 60 years, is sicker than the one that came before?
Get rid of the sick-making devasation that modern western medicine has inflicted in our race, give us 100 years of right living, and maybe there is hope for us as a group.
Another great article….
You listed many reasons…which frankly did not even skim the surface. There is so much wrong with the world…..
The decreasing desirability of both European men and women, due to their increasing corpulence (which also decreases fertility!) and desire to switch gender roles (nutless, sad sack yes men and shrieking, harpy women) makes it hard for the sexes to even want to form long term relationships, much less bring children into this world.
But science is truly our ally in these times….and once we hopefully get our collective shit together, or even sooner, fertility treatments, including non-invasive prescription medication such as Clomid not only increases fertility, but also the likelihood of multiples. Meaning, all is not loss as we can make up for lost time. Of course, I don’t much like this type of litter-esque breeding, but it does beat the alternative.
Lastly, I don’t want to be down on the WASPS, but their tendency towards hyper-cautiousness is going to be the end of them. Even my husband, so far right he makes me look like Jane Fonda has expressed the desire for no more than two children-So if not us….then who?
Not to mention, if you have 4 kids, you’re likely just paying for 2 university degrees. One will get a scholarship and the other one will get the “Why Plumbing is the Job for you” talk- leaving two.
So we need to relax with these expectations that you need tons of savings per kid. No you don’t. My mom was poor as dirt but had 4 other siblings and the most wonderful memories growing up….memories that single children with all the material possessions in the world will never know.
Thank you Roissy Hater. Using the word “genocide” to describe the problem assures that few serious people will take the problem seriously. One thing you forgot to mention: white people have largely lost the appetite for fighting wars since 1945. This is a wonderful, perhaps unprecedented development. Now, if we could just retain this healthy aversion while rediscovering our appetite for reproduction and our pride in WHO WE ARE.
The rough numbers that I have been able to gather through the citations at Wikipedia are as follows:
US non-Hispanic whites
1980 (first year the catagory existed): 180 million
2010: 200 million
European population
2010: 816 million of which some 30 million are of non-European descent, adding up to 780 million whites or so.
Add Canada and Oceania to USA and Europe and we’re easily over a billion strong, even according to the more rigid definitions of who is “white.” Some “genocide.”
Proportion relative to world population remains in decline of course, but the bottom line question of whether or not a species is surviving is its measurment in absolute, not relative, numbers.
There are also large ethnic white populations of Brits, French, Russians (if they are considered white), Germans, Americans, etc due to former colonial migrants of their former Empires and economic/military migration during the cold war and post cold war period.
Not to mention ethnic white groups in countries like Iran, Lebanon, etc.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q6WzQ2Yif7E/T3Ea7LHvX9I/AAAAAAAABzY/EOCf6tEotRU/s1600/2011_a_separation_004.jpg
There may be more non-whites in the world today but the actually area that white encompass dwarfs that of any other race with most Asians, Arabs and Africans concentrated in their home territory.
China might have the largest population with the highest IQ but most of the Han Chinese population within China is concentrated towards the East and South China Sea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ethnolinguistic_map_of_China_1983.jpg
Even in Tibet the ethnic Tibetan population is about 92%.
Not to mention ethnic white groups in countries like Iran, Lebanon, etc.
There aren’t any ethnic white groups in Iran and Lebanon. Recessive white traits that pop up in some individuals, yes. But no groups that are homogenously “white”.
Yes they are.
There are other Iranians who look like the lead actress of the Oscar winning film A Separation that I posted that look European.
Hezbollah-backed candidate in 2011 for Lebanon’s premiership Najib Mikati.
http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/20110124/shamsara20110124144309950.jpg
There is no group that is 100% homogenously white. Perhaps due to their own internal racial segregation community policies Jews are probably the most white ethnic group.
Someone needs to explain why we need more white people (numerically) on the planet. Don’t we have enough? Is numbers really an issue?
As I said before, if we had our master morality intact we could be 1% of the population of the whole Earth, and still dominate. It’s not about numbers … its about ideology.
We don’t have enough White people. Every White or once White country in the world is now colonized by non White immigrants who now effectively hold the balance of power in our institutions thereby assuring themselves of further immigration and special privileges (affirmative action) while attacking our race and culture with hateful rhetoric (eg White privilege ). In the face of huge non White fertility (eg Hispanics and Muslims within Western countries and Africans without) we will loose the ability to determine our own political and cultural future.
We are in a demographic evolutionary struggle with other races. I am firmly with Professor Kevin MacDonald on this one and see it more as a cultural war on us whose intention is to destroy our fertility.
The explosive population explosion in some regions (eg 300 million expected in Nigeria) will also lead conflict and too huge refugee flows which will effective be used to blend Whites out. Climate change will also be used as an excuse. Hardly a day goes by without a crop failure from a regular weather pattern being used to encourage refugee intakes.
In the face of these demographic assaults increased fertility is one critical defense.
We, like National Socialists, need to understand that the economic and ideological system needs to be there to serve the race (people or volk) not the other way around. We do not worship the market or the Dow Jones index as an arbiter of good.
Roissy Hater has hit upon an issue few wish to discuss.
One, we can not win the quantity argument – simple as that. More children is not necessarily the answer; children, yes, but not more children.
BETTER children – that’s the answer, supported by a better social framework, an explicitly Racial social framework.
I made mention in another post of something that was simply shocking, and no one commented on it. I said a urologist I knew told me the dick doctors were astonished at the number of TWENTY-FIVE YEAR OLD single men – never married, no children – were coming to them requesting vasectomies.
Let me mention one idea for now; imagine what they could do with their lives for the Race if they did not have to deal with having and raising children. I talked with guys in a nursing home, where they gave me advice for young men – the full benefit of their coldly reasoned, painfully gained, experience. I turned the tables on them, and asked them what their lives would have been like if they had not met their wives as young men – in other words, if they had not married and had kids.
One guy wrote out his alternative biography, starting from his true biography – part of the support crew for the radar at the Battle of Midway – forward to, in his alternative autobiography. working on the CDC 7600 mainframes, and more. In real life, he was an electrician – that was what he had to do to support his wife and children, to meet his Duty as he saw it.
SUPPOSE he had never met his wife and suppose, further, that he had the guiding philosophy of Leykis 101, from Father Himself, Tom Leykis, of Blessed Name. He could be successful enough to be the uncle his nieces and nephews needed to support their full educational development.
THAT makes him the Living Foundation of the New Patriarchy.
Carry THAT forward over several generations, as the Jews do, to great effect, and greater success. Tribal Thinking – the extended Family, with checks and balances, rewards and sanctions for members, all in the support of a common goal, the pursuit of Family (Tribal) Greatness in the fulfillment of destiny.
Two,we at the-spearhead.com have been noticing the beginnings of backlash from women who are beginning to realize that the War Between The Sexes has never been fought by men; not intentionally, not Consciously, and not with OUR choices of outcomes for OURselves. We are no going back to the functional equivalent of indentured servitude, where all – I repeat, ALL – including our Children, including our Freedom – can be taken away at a moment’s whim.
So, for the entire “marriage-and-children” thing, sadly, there is nothing in this for us in general; in particular, nothing that can not be taken away at a moment’s whim.
Three, all of this is missing the issue of what happens in the Chinese experiments in
eugenicsgenetics bear fruit. THAT is the game-changer, which just might stand before us as homo sapiens before the neanderthal, a vast cosmos of genetic potential before a dead-end of genetic development.That is beyond our ability to deal with, for now. However, and this is where, once again Harold Covington’s model of a race-based Homeland in a Northwest Republic comes to the fore, we should focus NOW on developing a higher quality of person, as the living foundation of a higher quality of Civilization.
“I made mention in another post of something that was simply shocking, and no one commented on it. I said a urologist I knew told me the dick doctors were astonished at the number of TWENTY-FIVE YEAR OLD single men – never married, no children – were coming to them requesting vasectomies.”
A few years ago, a French Algerian I knew told me of similar things happening in Germany. I presume he read about this in Rivarol.
Some of the comments here reflect a type of short-term “snapshot” analysis – similar to those who think importing millions of Mexicans to pick crops is a good idea. After all, we’re still the majority and can use cheap supermarket produce. What can go wrong?
The point of the article (as I see it) is as follows. Whites have few children and are a rapidly aging population. That in and of itself can be dealt with, but at the same time, white nations are being subjected to large scale immigration of relatively young and fecund colored peoples. It are these migrants and their descendants who will fill the carrying capacity, rather then the sterile, aging whites. This is projected to result in a profound demographic shift, including minority status for whites in the not-too-distant future – not only in America, but in some nations of Europe as well. And then there is the problem of miscegenation…
If whites suffer from political and social problems now when they are a majority – what will it be like as a minority? Within a given territory, relative numbers are absolutely crucial. Relative numbers also impact quality of life. A nation of 50 million, in which 100% are white, is more likely to be a better place for whites to live than another nation with 100 million whites, but in which whites are, say, 40% of the population.
Or do we expect the minority of gray-haired white senior citizens to impose their “master morality” on the majority of youthful coloreds – peoples full of hatred for the alleged injustices of “white racism” and “Western colonialism?”
Certainly quality is important, and certainly we need of revolution of thought. I do not disagree with that component of comments here. I do object however with the idea of “there is a billion whites, so demographics are not a problem.” They are indeed a problem.
Bingo with the snap shot metaphor. That kind of attitude is what go us here to begin with: we’re in control, there is no problem, a few minorities aren’t going to change anything. And then suddenly a few becomes many and Whites are fleeing their neighborhood in despair. They try to tell other Whites and they’re told: we’re in control, there is no problem, a few minorities aren’t going to change anything – and what is your problem? Are you a racist or something?
This attitude comes down from on high and is believed by common Whites for whom it is completely false. And it will ultimately be false even for the Elites – but they have much more time and can leave the Nation itself. Of course since this is happening all over the world soon there will be no place to run.
A problem with this article is that it is rather reductionist. Indeed, it begins with these words:
“The white racial predicament, now so extreme — fundamentally, looming extinction or genocide — can be studied from countless angles. The issue is so multifaceted that it is easiest to break the main problem into smaller, discrete components, holding fixed and temporarily ignoring numerous crucial elements that in real life cannot be readily ignored.”
This approach is understandable when writing articles addressing particular aspects of this predicament. One can only discuss so much within a single article. But discussing these things in isolation can be misleading and generate misunderstandings concerning one’s views.
I think Andrew Hamilton might like to read what Garrett Hardin writes about literacy, numeracy, and ecolacy in Filters Against Folly: How to Survive Despite Economists, Ecologists, and the Merely Eloquent (New York: Viking Penguin, 1986). These things relate to the proper understanding of words, numbers, and relationships over time. (By the way, I should note that the paperback edition of Filters Against Folly currently in print is execrably printed and bound, unlike the out of print hardback edition.)
One crucial element that is effectively ignored is terrritorial integrity. In a sense, the problem is not what the numbers are, it’s where the numbers are. If historically White nation-states possessed territorial integrity — if they were effectively inhabited only by Whites and were determined to maintain their racial integrity — then the overall numbers of our race in relation to other races would not be so much of an issue. (Of course, the age pyramid we have today has implications for such things as the funding of social security programs, but it should be made clear — contra populationists — that basing social security funding upon taxes from an ever-growing population really amounts to a Ponzi scheme.) For example, Blacks are not a threat to Whites outside Africa provided that they are kept within Africa. Without White aid, without White medicine, without an outlet for their burgeoning populations in historically White countries, the Blacks would soon choke on their own filth, and their numbers would drastically decline. Left to their own devices, Blacks cannot maintain themselves above the state of savagery.
Used hardbacks are available in a wide price range (original printing Viking, 1985).
Reviews here:
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/books/rev_filters_bajema.html
http://www.ecobooks.com/books/filfolly.htm
White Republican:
I read Hardin, particularly “Filters,” when I realized the total failure of the extant economic paradigms, and began to study ecological economics. The status quo can not be sustained – period. What will replace it should be a focus of the students of metapolitics. Again, Covington, alone, has the only framework that will work.
Social Security funding was designed a a ponzi scheme, out of political necessity. That will change, as I stated in another thread, as municipal, state, and private pensions are revealed to be accounting frauds, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation takes them over, and Social Security returns to what the Supreme Court said it was, more than sixty years go – income assistance, period. Note that, under PBGC rules, there is a “dollar for dollar offset” for Social Security with your PBGC pension; in other words, if your pension was $1500/mo under PBGC, and you get $1000/mp from Social Security, your PBGC pension drops to $500/m0. Take what I think the new baseline will be twenty years from now- say, $1000/mo, and factor in Supplemental Nutrition – formerly known as Food Stamps. That’s the new Standard of Living.
This is actuarily inevitable.
We should develop school curricula from Hardin’s writings, starting with “Filters.” I have been horrified at the illiteracy, and innumeracy, of today’s children. It is impossible to sustain an advanced society with them.
I have mentioned that automation is finally getting to the point that EIGHTY percent of the people working can be replaced by robots; this, from the heads of Robotics at MIT. That little interview never made the mainstream press, either. Self driving cars? Just write a check. The implications of that should have made everyone stop and think. They didn’t, seeing it as a toy of some kind.
Don’t get me started on what is happening in genetics, particularly in China, where eugenics is State policy.
So, do this as a back of the envelope exercise. Take the population of America, and remove the people who do not work, including the elderly, and people who are on welfare forever. Now, downsize the government, including the military, to deal with the new population.
Now, take EIGHTY percent of the workers who remain, and replace THEM with robotic systems. (Economically, this is inevitable. No one wants to think about that.)
Then, there is the genetic revolution, which is a REAL game changer.
I think the implications of any one of these issues are why so many people seem to have simply resigned themselves to the quiet despair of passivity. If the living foundation of the British Empire perished at the Somme, the living foundation of America As We Knew It perished when equality became the new State religion, staring when Eisenhower sent soldiers to Little Rock, forcibly escorting students to class at bayonet point.
All of these, of course, are arguments why the Northwest Republic is the only solution that is metapolitically stable.
John Attarian’s Social Security: False Consciousness and Crisis (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2002) might be worth reading. Attarian was a contributor to The Occidental Quarterly and his booklet Economism and the National Prospect is definitely one of the best works on economism. According to the publisher’s description of Social Security:
“One of today’s most important national concerns is the projected bankruptcy of Social Security some time in the next few decades and its consequent inability to pay full benefits on time. Yet despite two decades of warnings about this, nothing is being done. The saying that Social Security is the third rail of American politics — touch it and you die — still holds true. In Social Security: False Consciousness and Crisis, John Attarian argues that the major cause of the current impasse is the misleading manner in which the program has been depicted to the public and the beliefs about Social Security which prevail as a result. Most Americans see Social Security as retirement insurance under which taxpayers pay premiums to buy benefits for old age, with their contributions being held in a trust fund which will pay guaranteed benefits which will be theirs as an earned right as America ‘keeps its compact between the generations.’ Attarian demonstrates that this false picture was deliberately fostered by Social Security officials to ensure the program’s constitutionality while downplaying the power of Congress to eliminate, cut, delay, or tax benefits or deny them to certain classes of people. As the core of his argument shows, Social Security was structured and presented in this manner to the public as well so as to make it popular and politically invulnerable. While this strategy succeeded, it was inaccurate in crucial respects, and the inaccuracies have worsened as the program has aged. The resultant false consciousness about Social Security has decisively shaped the responses to the program’s financial crises over the last two decades and helped preclude corrective action. Attarian attacks all of the misconceptions about Social Security point by point so that debate can proceed based on realities, not misunderstandings. He addresses as well issues surrounding Social Security reform, showing how numerous proposals now circulating have lethal faults. Most of these refuse to cut current benefits and are thereby saddled with the huge costs of transition to a new system. Others risk politicizing the stock market. Virtually all ignore the larger economic and political context that threatens to defeat their purpose. Attarian concludes with his own proposal to radically restructure the program from a universal entitlement to a floor of protection.”
The situation described above has parallels with many other things. As the system is fundamentally unsound, and lacks effective corrective mechanisms, it appears destined to fail catastrophically. Repeated warnings have been ignored. Would-be reformers are effectively punished for their efforts. Proposals for reform often have fatal defects that would condemn them to fail even if they were to be implemented. Institutions and policies have been presented to the public so as to make them “popular and politically invulnerable.” The combination of false consciousness and vested interests ensures that real reforms are effectively unthinkable and unworkable. Many people subscribe to the irresponsible sentiment of “après nous, la déluge” (after us, the deluge) or to what Arthur Schopenhauer characterized as “criminal optimism.”
Incidentally, I believe that insurance companies were once called “provident societies”; we might say that we live in “improvident societies” today.
“Without White aid, without White medicine, without an outlet for their burgeoning populations in historically White countries, the Blacks would soon choke on their own filth, and their numbers would drastically decline.”
More likely, the rising mortality rates caused by a cut off in aid would encourage Africans to continue to have children way above replacement levels. Also would lead to Camp of the Saints scenarios in which boats filled with huddled masses cross the Mediterranean or the Strait of Bosporus. Finding a way to reduce African and Arab birth rates and facilitate at least some economic development in those countries is in the interest of Europeans, Asians, all other advanced peoples, the whole damn planet. Allegedly Mexican birthrates in Mexico are sharply down, not sure how much of that is due to all the poverty that moves to USA, but it is worth finding out what else has happened and encourage its replication elsewhere. Whites also ought not be against economic development in non-white world, which would reduce emigration to the West and eventually benefit export industries in white countries.
Markus in blockquote, cites in italics:
“Without White aid, without White medicine, without an outlet for their burgeoning populations in historically White countries, the Blacks would soon choke on their own filth, and their numbers would drastically decline.”
Absent our aid, overpopulation creates its own circuit breaker. The Camp of the Saints scenario is easily resolved with the necessary, defensive, use of force. I suspect Libya might well have acted as this sort of forceful buffer for Italy.
The birth rates tend to drop with female empowerment, and economic growth, in the West. Africa, and the Arab societies, not so much. The Arab social system is based on consaguanity.
I’m not aware of Mexico’s data. I do know that they have dropped in Brazil with – again, Western nation – female empowerment, and economic growth. The great catalyst for this has been the telenovelas featuring women having dramatically smaller families, and more social and economic benefits for themselves. If memory serves, Forbes had a good piece on this.
No, export industries in White countries are dying, with the exceptions of agriculture, military, and software – our media productions are the best in the world, and shape the rest of the world.
To the extent economic development happens in the nonwhite world, it will be, for the most part, at the level of extractive economies. With automation finally kicking in, there will be fewer and fewer people needed. A good example if China’s economic expansion into Africa. There, they are replacing the locals with Chinese nationals, who they have a surplus of, and are living in their own compounds.
So, of what value are the natives in your system?
From a practical perspective, none – and that’s the best that can be said.
Awesome essay, awesome comments. Reading through it all took four cups of joe, but it’s gonna be ok.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment