The Importance of Population Structure & Dynamics

2,532 words

In trying to conceptualize what a current, or indeed ongoing, global head count of whites would look like (no such reliable enumeration exists ^[2]), it is imperative to keep in mind the age structure and reproductive profile of whatever population exists, as well as the dynamics of rapid change along key vectors. Nothing is stationary or mirrors the past. Habitual patterns of thought quickly become outmoded without anyone being aware of it.

Contemporary demographic statistics conceal racial information. Elites are obsessed by race, and particularly with accelerating in any way possible the decline and disappearance of the white race. But meaningful data on ethnicity do not exist. It is the only major variable not regularly measured or recorded by demographers. If such figures were available, they might jeopardize indefensible policies.

Given replacement migration, exceptionally high non-white birth rates, sub-replacement fertility among whites, and widespread culturally-encouraged hybridization with non-whites in all formerly white homelands around the world, the opposite ends of the national age spectrum everywhere now feature a predominantly white elderly population and an increasingly non-white youth population.

As a consequence, former First World nations are composed more and more of non-whites and hybrids. The process is taking place with lightning speed. Thanks to an indispensable assist from dishonest media, academia, and governments, plus draconian and repressive laws, even white racialists, never mind the public, fail to grasp the urgency of the situation.

The aging and death of baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964, currently in progress, will in short order eradicate a numerically large proportion of the remaining white populace. Despite the lack of precise data, we nevertheless know the overall trends, so revolutionary and sweeping are the top-down social changes that have been imposed.

To better understand the crisis, it is helpful to employ a demographic tool known as the population pyramid. A population pyramid is a graphical representation of the distribution of age groups, usually by country or region, shaped like a pyramid when populations are young and growing.

There are three basic shapes.

The classic pyramid: A young, rapidly growing population with a high birth rate. This is characteristic of many non-white races today, and of vibrant subpopulations such as Orthodox Jews.

The box: A stable, replacement-level population characterized by low infant mortality, little or no demographic growth, and long life expectancy.

The inverted, or upside-down, pyramid: Low birth rate, collapsing population, long life expectancy. This is characteristic of the white race.

Pyramid graphs consist of two back-to-back bar graphs, with population plotted on the X-axis and age on the Y-axis, one showing the number of males and the other females in five-year age cohorts. Males are conventionally shown on the left and females on the right, measured either by raw numbers or as a percentage of the total population. Typically there are more women than men in older age categories due to females’ longer life spans. On the other hand, women have shorter reproductive periods than men, a fact useful in interpreting the graphs though not incorporated directly into them.

Although population pyramids by race cannot be constructed due to lack of relevant statistics, the device is nevertheless useful to illustrate general trends that everyone knows are occurring. Broadly speaking, rapidly expanding nonwhite races both outside and inside the First World are characterized by age structures indicative of growing populations: a “population explosion” with many young and few old, many births and few deaths. The shape of the population pyramid for Angola (an African country) may be taken as representative of nonwhite birthrates, inside and outside the “West,” be they Mestizo, Muslim, or anything else. (There are some notable exceptions.)

This is how the white population looked in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But one must go beyond the static snapshot to the underlying dynamics. A race such as this has built-in momentum for future growth because so many young people will reproduce at high rates in the future even if total fertility gradually falls.

Contrast this with the rapidly aging and collapsing white populations of today, characterized by many old and few young, many deaths and few births. A contemporary population pyramid for our people would resemble the following hypothetical construct (not a representation of any actual white population, the data for which is unavailable):

A simple head count (census) of living whites, though indispensable, does not convey an accurate picture of what is really happening. Older cohorts constituting the largest chunk of an upside-down pyramid, though still alive, do not directly contribute children to future generations because they are beyond the close of their reproductive period.

Female fertility peaks between ages 18 and the mid-20s. As a woman approaches 30 her hormone levels start to decline and her fertility also begins to slowly decline. After age 35 the decline accelerates.

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,” Dr. Mark Perloe, an Atlanta fertility specialist 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.”

The risk of miscarriage also increases after age 35, and even more after 40, as do numerous other risk factors, including having a child with chromosome abnormalities such as Down syndrome (mental retardation).

Menopause, which occurs in the late 40s or early 50s in most women, marks the end of the natural ability to bear children. However, as the preceding discussion demonstrates, it is necessary to differentiate between fertility and menopause. It is not as clear-cut as “I can have children until I reach menopause.”

Curiously, in other primate species females continue to reproduce until decrepitude or death overtake them. But among humans a woman loses her capacity to reproduce while still in vigorous middle age.

“‘Certain ethnic groups may have menopause at slightly different ages. Hispanic and African-American women reach menopause a little earlier, and Chinese and Japanese women a little later, than the average Caucasian woman, who reaches menopause at about age 51.5.’ Those are averages; every woman is different.” (Source ^[5].)

Widespread Ignorance About the Biological Clock

Surprisingly, many contemporary women have little idea how rapidly fertility declines with age. By the time a woman hits 44, it is almost nonexistent. 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), the success rate is only about 40%.

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 ^[6] that women should become mothers by the age of 35 or risk infertility, miscarriage, or other 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.”

Male fertility (as distinct from related problems, including erectile dysfunction) likewise declines with age, though far less radically. Some men are biologically capable of having children well into old age. However, as a practical matter this does not happen very often. Therefore, most men by their 50s can probably be considered reproductively irrelevant.

Such information suggests roughly where you should draw an imaginary line through the upside-down pyramid to indicate the age level below which, as a practical matter, the population remains potentially reproductive. Whether it actually reproduces white (non-hybrid) children within stable, nurturing family structures is another matter entirely. Sub-replacement fertility even after large-scale nonwhite and hybrid birthrates are misleadingly factored in strongly suggests that it does not.

In racial terms, selection occurs whenever one ethnic group successfully propagates its genes relative to other groups. “Differential fecundity,” Ukrainian-American geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky observed, “is, in principle, as powerful a selective agent as differential survival or mortality” (Genetics of the Evolutionary Process, 1970, p. 97).

Human races can expand and contract quickly, both in absolute terms and relative to other races. They grow, shrink, collapse, and become extinct. William Pierce, a physicist steeped in mathematical knowledge, noted that “wherever two racial groups occupying the same territory have different growth rates, the faster-growing group will always overwhelm the slower-growing group numerically, given sufficient time, no matter how much larger the latter may be in the beginning.” (“World’s Deadliest Threat: The Race Bomb,” National Vanguard newspaper, Issue No. 82, 1981; reprinted in Kevin Alfred Strom, ed., The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard Tabloid, 1970–1982 [1984], p. 207)

Italian demographer Massimo Livi-Bacci summed up the dynamics of the present crisis:

We are able to recognize the exceptional nature of the current situation if we keep in mind that a population growing at an annual rate of 4 percent will double in about 18 years, while another declining by 1 percent per year will halve in 70. Two populations of equal size [emphasis added] experiencing these different growth rates will find themselves after 28 years (barely a generation) in a numerical ratio of four-to-one! (A Concise History of World Population, 4th ed., Blackwell Publishing, 2007, p. 20)

The widespread obliviousness to race, or even preference for non-whites (including but not limited to blacks), now observable everywhere, has been culturally-inculcated into the minds (and resultant sexual behavior) of a greatly diminished youth population. Some unspecifiable (but easily seen) proportion of reproduction occurring outside or inside marriage (the term “intermarriage” should be jettisoned as obsolete) is between whites and non-whites. The hybrid offspring of such unions should not be counted as white, and must be rigorously excluded from both the social circle and the gene pool.

In former times, when the white population was large and growing, more introgression of non-white genes could be tolerated (though not on a widespread scale) than is the case when the population is swiftly collapsing.

The connection between demographic strength and political power has long been recognized. As the white population contracted, nations became markedly more tyrannical in the Communist sense—characterized by closed, untouchable, uncriticizable elites not unlike an imperial god cult, universal surveillance, and the criminalization and rigid suppression of thought, speech, association, and authentic political activity.

So overwhelming now is alien control of the culture that even the psychological mores and institutional structures essential to biological and cultural survival have been systematically and efficiently expunged. Diminished numbers, lack of political influence, and the rapid growth of totalitarian-racist institutions have occurred hand in hand. It is a vicious, ever-accelerating cycle that becomes harder and harder to break the more time that passes.

Supplemental Section

As noted, government officials and demographers do not conduct reliable racial head counts. The crucial demographic variable of race is concealed (through non-counting) for ideological reasons. Nevertheless, population pyramids could be constructed from racial data rather than heterogeneous geographical or political units. Such graphical representations would be most enlightening—better than the population projections typically available.

Following are a few illustrative examples of unusual local population pyramids. Keep in mind that the US Census Bureau employs overly-broad definitions of “white ^[7],” including in this and related categories Jews, Middle Easterners, North Africans, Lebanese, Arabs, Moroccans, etc.

To add to the confusion, large proportions of America’s massive Mestizo population are evidently also classified as “white.” According to the Population Reference Bureau in Washington, D.C. ^[8], “Since Hispanics or Latinos are considered an ethnic and not a racial group, they are asked on census questionnaires to select a racial category. In the 2000 Census, almost half (48 percent) of Latinos classified themselves racially as ‘white’ while more than two-fifths (43 percent) identified themselves racially as ‘Other.’”

The Census Bureau proceeded to fiddle with the categories:

Changes in the census questionnaire [since then] appear to have changed the way Latinos identify themselves racially. For example, the percentage of Latinos selecting the white racial category increased from 48 percent in the 2000 Census to 63 percent in the 2009 ACS [American Community Survey]. In contrast, the percentage of Latinos preferring the “Other” racial category dropped from 43 percent to 29 percent. This trend is consistent across Latino subgroups.

Clearly, the size of the official “white” population is artificially inflated. It is smaller than census figures indicate.

^[9]

Ann Arbor, Michigan, a small city of 116,000 that is home to the University of Michigan. Even the 2010 census could identify only a 70% “white” population in the small Midwestern city. It is obviously less if illegitimate groups are excluded. The bulge caused by students attending the University of Michigan is easily identifiable.

^[10]

The US Army post at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, named for Confederate General Braxton Bragg and home to the US Army airborne forces and Special Forces, the U.S. Army Forces Command and U.S. Army Reserve Command. It had a population of 39,500 in 2010.  In 2000, it was 58 percent “Caucasian,” the rest non-white. Only 1.2% of the population is over 45, the median age is 22, and males significantly outnumber females.

^[11]

Punta Gorda, a retirement community of 17,000 on Florida’s Gulf coast. In 2000 it was 94% “white,” the rest black, Mestizo, Amerindian, Asian, Pacific Islander, hybrids, and “other.” However, the community has two synagogues, one Chabad ^[12], the other Reconstructionist, and nearby are 10 more, so some unknown part of the 94% is Jewish. Note the lopsided age structure accounted for by the elderly. In exaggerated form its shape is illustrative of the age structure of the white race as a whole worldwide.

^[13]

Buffalo County, South Dakota, home of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe (Crow Creek Indian Reservation). The 2010 population was 1,900. According to the 2000 census, 82% of county residents were Amerindian, 16% “white,” and 3% other, mostly hybrids and Mestizos. Unemployment is 57%; many homes lack kitchens and/or indoor plumbing. Per capita income was $5,213, the lowest in the nation, with more than half of residents living below the poverty line. Note the classically-shaped pyramid, indicative of a youthful if numerically small population.

Sources (supplemental section only): Lina Trullinger, Bryan Station High School teacher (now evidently a Database Analyst at Mississippi State University), “Understanding Population Pyramids” ^[14] (2009); Wikipedia.