Counter-Currents
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.
To read this, get behind our Paywall
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 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.