The “Population Control” TabooRobert Hampton
We are told that climate change is an existential threat to humanity, and yet unsustainable population growth rarely comes up in the conversation. Fossil fuels, cow farts, and plastic straws all receive more attention than the effects of a ten billion people being on the planet. Whites are regularly told not to have kids to save the planet, yet no one else is. Think about the dozens of articles which feature images of white babies and a headline directed at white yuppies. These articles aren’t directed at blacks, Indians, or the Chinese.
Rapid population growth is not coming from urban white liberals who barely reproduce. The Third World, particularly Africa, is driving the world’s unsustainable population growth. But public figures have to tread lightly on this matter. They don’t want to be accused of racism or “population control.” While we are told we need dramatic action to save the Earth from climate change, population growth must be ignored at all costs. Those who dare to mention it must face opprobrium.
Senator Bernie Sanders is learning this lesson. At a CNN town hall on climate change, the Democratic presidential candidate was asked by an audience member: “Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact. Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?” That same audience member admitted that population growth discussion is “poisonous for politicians, but it’s crucial to face.”
Bernie said he would make it a part of his plan to address climate change. He framed it as a matter of “women’s reproductive rights” to appeal to his audience. “The Mexico City agreement which denies American aid to those organizations around the world that allow women to have abortions or even get involved in birth control to me is totally absurd,” he said. “So I think, especially in poor countries around the world where women do not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies, and where they can have the opportunity through birth control to control the number of kids they have, is something I very, very strongly support.”
Conservatives went ballistic over Sanders’ comments, with cries of eugenics ringing loudly. They were particularly incensed that someone would suggest that Third Worlders should get abortions. It’s not like Americans don’t have that option . . .
Sweet lord. Bernie flirts with population control. https://t.co/ecZznxiu5F pic.twitter.com/tquRgkKji4
— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) September 5, 2019
“Eliminate the children of the poor!”
— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) September 5, 2019
I spent a year teaching kids in the Cambodian countryside. They were all incredible kids and grew into amazing young adults. The world is better for them. This is disturbing, straight up eugenics colonialist shit. https://t.co/tCiJdQLSO1
— Bethany S. Mandel (@bethanyshondark) September 5, 2019
Let’s just state for the record: talking about needing “population control” through ABORTION for the sake of CLIMATE is talking about EUGENICS. The fact that @BernieSanders is willing to entertain this vile idea is not only disgusting, it should be disqualifying.
— S.E. Cupp (@secupp) September 5, 2019
During last night’s town hall, Bernie Sanders advocated taxpayer-funded abortion and contraception in “poor countries.” This is far from the first time progressives have pushed population control on “undesirable” populations. My latest: https://t.co/BhB2qpmyhF
— Alexandra DeSanctis (@xan_desanctis) September 5, 2019
Sanders has not retracted his comments, nor have liberals criticized them. The Washington Post dismissed conservative critics who said Bernie wants poor people to abort their kids.
This was a different reaction than President Emanuel Macron received to his own comments on population control in 2017. Macron was asked by an African reporter about why there was no Marshall Plan for his continent. The strange neoliberal offered a reasonable answer:
The challenge of Africa is completely different, it is much deeper. It is civilizational today. Failing states, complex democratic transitions, the demographic transition. . . . One of the essential challenges of Africa . . . is that in some countries today seven or eight children [are] born to each woman.
Macron’s comments were derided by conservatives, liberals, and Leftists alike. They were racist, colonialist, and eugenic, according to his critics. Leftists, unlike with Sanders, were particularly irate. “It is concerning to see the casual manner in which a head of state can play into racist stereotypes of the African continent and African women,” wrote NPR contributor Viviane Rutabingwa. She claimed several African nations are economic powerhouses with tremendous gender equality.
The difference between Sanders and Macron’s comments is that the French President didn’t make them in the context of climate change; it was specifically about Africa. Sanders didn’t specify who should receive birth control, and emphasized his strong support for women’s empowerment. It was easier to call Macron a condescending racist. He was telling strong, independent, and intelligent Africans how many kids they should have; only a chauvinist would say such a thing!
Sanders and Macron both espouse terrible politics and are no friends to whites. Regardless, they both were right to note the problem of unsustainable population growth. The responses to their sensible comments shows why most Western figures stay silent – nobody wants to be labeled a eugenicist.
However, the Third World’s population bomb will harm us all. The West’s immigration problems will get worse than they already are once Africa’s population doubles. Environmental devastation will increase. War and genocide will become even more common on the Dark Continent. This is all due to a population problem that Western leaders prefer to ignore.
The American Right is partially responsible for this denial. They attack anyone who even brings up this problem, and think the idea of birth control in the Third World is abominable. Mainstream Republicans support laws that prevent America from giving money to groups that provide abortion to the Third World. Conservatives champion books that claim birth control aid is an insidious form of Western colonialism. Alex Jones claims that the globalists want to enact eugenic population control to achieve their diabolical schemes. “Post-liberals” who sympathize with nationalism and immigration restrictions think Africans should be encouraged to have as many children as possible. There is no thought given to where these children may go when they grow up.
You are not allowed to talk about population growth. Only libtards, treehuggers, globalists, and Margaret Sanger fanboys would want to do anything about it. Just think of the millions of new Constitutional fundamentalists that will be born in the Congo!
It’s not an original idea to say that conservatives are no friend to identitarianism, but this criticism is further cemented by their obtuseness on population growth. Conservatives refuse to tackle one of the Earth’s great problems because of the pro-life movement’s influence. They would rather watch the world burn than deviate from their talking points.
To repeat myself, the pro-life cause is not our cause.
Any government that wants to reduce immigration and environmental devastation must aggressively push family planning in the Third World. These problems will come to our countries one way or another. It’s time to act now and dispense with the American Right’s delusional consensus.
Survival of the Fittest: Interview with Alexander Deptolla of Kampf der Nibelungen
CPAC 2023: The Republican Party is Dying Out
Is the Response to the Ohio Train Disaster Anti-White Racism?
On the Importance of Logical Consistency
The American Regime
Religion & Eugenics
Why Crime & Punishment is Garbage
Everything Whites Do Is Bad . . . According to the Mainstream Media
The pro-life cause for White people is our cause, but not for any other races. If the West stopped feeding the Global South their numbers would collapse, though probably not before they flooded the Global North (as they are already trying to do). We must encourage the birth of more White babies and discourage the birth of non-White babies.
This. We must always keep what’s best for whites in mind. It’s why Christian deontological ethics can be a problem for us at times.
The management of the Zoo was top notch as long as the White man was at the helm. But then the new ‘native’ keepers let the beasts ‘govern’ themselves. Subsequently, after insane multiplication, they tore down the walls, ate their managers, and spread to every nook and corner.
Greta Thunberg never mentions population control, neither does the Guardian newspaper like to discuss it. The assumption seems to be that the human carrying capacity of Europe, and of the Earth in general is infinite.
The usual move when awkward facts concerning the population explosion of the developing world, especially Africa, are raised is to retort that we, not they are the polluters. This of course is a non-sequitur, but it invariably draws a round of applause.
The priority for leftists is not at all towards reducing ideologically useful trends such as the demographic pressure of so-called climate apartheid, it is combatting Whiteness, to use the latest rather transparently sinister terminology. And it is a corollary of that oppression narrative that reducing the numbers and influence of whites, and especially white males, shall be an unalloyed good for mankind.
Environmental concerns are only to be broached as a means to that end.
Australians Against Further Immigration (AAFI) was a political group which campaigned to end mass immigration on ecological grounds. It supported a population target that was both socially and environmentally sustainable.
It was constantly attacked by the capitalist right and the liberal, globalist left. The liberal left saw any restriction of immigration as pure fascism. The capitalist right saw any restriction on economic growth as pure communism. The married couple who led the group were highly respected professionals in their respective fields, but their son (an actor in a tawdry soap opera) disowned them for their ‘racist’ (sic) positions.
That’s all anyone remembers today.
If you’re not opting for policies which bring about eugenic effects, then you’re settling for dysgenic effects by default. The attempt to smear someone as a eugenicist is therefore absurd.
The word “eugenicist” should be a compliment and not an insult. To use “eugenicist” as a pejorative is like accusing someone of being anti-dysgenics. Of course everyone should be anti-dysgenics! What morally-upstanding individual would ever want the next generation to be worse off, genetically, than the current one?
There’s never an absence of eugenics or dysgenics. Where the quality of its genetic stock is concerned, a society is either on an upward trajectory or on a downward one . It’s either advancing into more or retreating into less. One therefore cannot be neutral on the subject of eugenics. If you’re not in favour of some form of eugenics, even if it be a mild form, then you’re in favour of dysgenics. It’s as simple as that.
Every heterosexual man or woman who ever attempted to choose a suitable partner with whom to mate was engaged in a form of eugenics. Eugenics should not be perceived as a dirty word.
Leftists position on this subject is clear: they dont want few hundred million of people having some sort of civilization, they want billions living sustenance life.
The most radical ones have been quite vocal about this. I’ve heard things like: “every car driver should be murdered because people are dieing somewhere because of them”. Frankly I think this is going quite well.
I am so vastly happy to see this issue brought before our eyes, bright and clear! I have been shouting the same thing for years and years (I’m 76, and remember the publication of “Silent Spring” and “Population Bomb”, as well as their denunciation and burial over the years. I finally ended up just urging ecologists to at least just feed the birds in their backyards, after being furiously denounced with all the name-calling mentioned in this post! Bravo for saying what needs to be said about ‘population control’ — YES! Overpopulation is the very basis of Climate Change and always has been. In 1943, when I was born, the population was 2.3 Billion (look it up!). It is now 7.7 Billion! That is as a TRIPLING of the world population in just ONE lifetime! Good grief — what else needs to be said!
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.
Edit your comment