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.
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
- 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.
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 492 The Writers’ Bloc: Pox Populi & American Krogan on the Italian Election
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 491 Millennial Woes & Morgoth on the Skeptic War
Laibach’s Predictions of Fire
Poland, Ireland, & NATO
The Political Enemy of Europe
Remembering Savitri Devi (September 30, 1905–October 22, 1982)
Readings on American History