You can buy Greg Johnson’s Truth, Justice, & a Nice White Country here
750 words
Author’s Note: In a recent livestream, Jasper offered the following thoughts: “Immigration moratoriums, deportation, pro-natal policies are certainly crucial; but I would suggest an additional approach: reject the premise of population growth itself. Why should we accept the argument that expanding the population is an absolute good?” Hyacinth Bouquet transcribed my answer, and I have cleaned it up and added a few points. I want to thank both Jasper and Hyacinth.
I absolutely agree that population growth, even white population growth, is not an unconditionally good thing. I think it’s very important to question that.
Why do people think that a growing population, as opposed to a steady-state population, is always a good thing?
Of course, white people need to have babies, so that the race is reproduced. But do we need to have a steadily growing population? I don’t think so.
Population growth is important if you have a badly-constructed economy and political system: basically, Ponzi schemes that require new people constantly paying in, so that the people who set the system up can enjoy their rents. But that’s not a good way to do things. It’s not a “sustainable” way to do things, as people like to say.
The primary reason why we worry about white population growth is simply because non-whites are breeding faster than we are.
But that wouldn’t be a problem if they didn’t have access to our countries, if they were not within our borders, if they were not enfranchised to vote, if they were not given access to our roads where they have their drunk-driving accidents, access to our social programs that they don’t pay into, etc., etc.
The problem is not too few of us. It is too many of them within our living spaces.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The Year America Died here.
If those people weren’t here, white population growth wouldn’t be so much of an issue. It’s a foolish idea to think that the solution is just “have more white babies,” as if we want to be in a biological race with Africa to get to a despoiled, standing-room-only dystopian world. That’s not the solution.
Population growth, in and of itself, is not a great thing. I would even go so far as to say that population shrinkage is not a terrible thing, either.
Japan’s population is aging and will start shrinking. I love the Japanese. They are my favorite Asian people. They’re my favorite non-European people, for that matter. I love their culture. I like them as people; they’re interesting, they’re wonderfully strange. I love their differences. But their population is going to start shrinking. Is that a tragedy? Not really.
Japan today is a very crowded society, and Japan was a great civilization when it had half the population it has today. There is no reason to think that Japan would be destroyed if its population shrank some, as long as it eventually regained replacement-level birthrates.
Population shrinkage would not destroy any country if it had control of its borders, if it didn’t have a Ponzi-scheme economy and welfare state that demand new people to pay in, if it didn’t have alien populations already within its borders with higher fertility rates, and if it maintained a high-tech military, including a nuclear deterrent, that outweighs mere numerical disadvantages.
These are heresies to the “just have white babies” people. We will never beat the Third World in a breeding race. We have to beat them in other ways. Basically, we have to exclude them from our living spaces and maintain a technological advantage in military matters.
If our living spaces are really crowded, and if we’ve had negative effects from things like birth control, feminism, hedonism, and selfishness, there is going to be population reduction in a lot of our countries before things level out. We should not regard that as, in itself, a danger. If we control our borders and our culture and have a sensible political and economic system, population shrinkage is not a problem.
Honestly, if we controlled our borders and our culture, a little bit of culling of people who fall for anti-natal ideologies and lifestyles wouldn’t be a bad thing. To the extent that such preferences are heritable, allowing the people who carry them to opt-out of the future would create a better world.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
8 comments
Yes.
Thinking like this is what puts Counter Currents in a class all its own.
Good article, and probably doesn’t get said enough. I’d also add–we used to have a 90% white population in this country. It didn’t stop the onslaught of globohomo . The revolution needs to happen mentally or it’s not going to happen at all. That being said, nothing wrong with a few little white critters wreaking havoc around the house, either. 🙂
no, most whites are leftist liberals, even conservatism is leftist, you would have to be hard right to undo that, even the austrian painter wasnt hard right, have to go to 1500 or previous and undo all the poision of dysgenic philosophers and their influence and totally unnatural beliefs infecting all people; whites and nonwhites and “educated” people on the entire planet. Education is the first thing that should be highly restricted, for wisdom first before intelligence. Automatons dont need education, the majority of the population in all time. Having more white babies means more future enemies, this isnt the first time this case has happened, yes they will harm/kill their own parents.
I think the two are not mutually exclusive. Having a small level of population growth can be a boon to society and be very helpful both economically and culturally. However, the 60s certainly show this has a limit. Ultimately, I think the commenter who said that change has to come mentally before anything material can likely happen is right. With that said, I’m always happy when I see a nice large white family out in public. There are no powerful countries with small populations, at least not for long.
Just to be clear, I certainly believe that encouraging large white families should be one of the pillars of our movement. That goes without saying. But as Greg said, we’re not going to outbreed the third world.
When the globalists, capitalists and leftists all shriek in unison that without immigration we won’t have the necessary population growth for procuring cheap labor or keeping taxes low or funding social programs, we need to have an argument prepared to counter this. Just as these groups speciously claim that we need immigrants to do the jobs that Americans won’t do, they claim that we need immigrants to grow the population because native-born Americans aren’t up to the task. To which we should reply, “So what?”
As Jonathan Bowden would say, step over the argument. Refuse to accept the premise that population growth is necessary for a well functioning society. The issue can’t be won by playing defense, so go on the offense. Force our enemies to justify why constant population growth is an unmitigated good.
Relatedly, there is a new book by Paul Morland called Tomorrow’s People that deals with this issue. John Derbyshire was recently discussing it on his podcast. In it Morland presents a trilemma for modern nations. There are three options, but a nation can only choose two:
Ethnic continuity
A thriving economy
A comfortable lifestyle without the stress of mixing child-raising and a modern economy
He presents examples, such as Japan choosing #1 and #3, Israel choosing #1 and #2, and Britain choosing #2 and #3. I would quibble with the definitions of “thriving economy” or “comfortable lifestyle,” but his trilemma is an interesting topic to explore.
Great comment, but could you elaborate on the third plank of the trilemma? I’m not sure what exactly is being asserted. Thanks. (I totally disagree, btw. I see no impossibility in maintaining {after recovering!} ethnic continuity while having a thriving economy and comfortable lifestyles – but maybe I don’t get what is meant by “comfortable”.)
I have not read the book so I’m relying on Derbyshire’s synopsis. That third option is somewhat vague. I interpret “comfortable” to mean free from the finacial cost and lost leisure time that raising at least 2 to 3 children (replacement level) incurs. That is, if you choose to have a moderately large family, you will have less disposable income, less free time, you may have to adjust your work hours or forgo promotions; with kids you will be less “comfortable” than your childless, dual income peers.
If you have a Subscriber 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.