World Over-Population    
    John Tyndall says that liberals are missing the point    

Sometimes the Guardianistas tell us the truth; sometimes they do not. It all depends on what suits their agenda. But of one thing we can be sure: even when they do tell the truth the deductions they draw from that truth are crazy to the point of being downright dangerous.

An article on August 18th by the paper’s environment editor John Vidal was headed 'World faces population explosion in poor countries'. Thus far The Guardian was only telling us what everybody should know. But with almost mechanical reliability its writer went on to predict, with no hint of disapproval, consequences of such an explosion that would amount to the end of White European Civilisation.

Says Vidal in his opening words:-

'The world is heading for wildly uneven population swings in the next 45 years, with many rich countries "downsizing" during a period in which almost all developing nations will grow at breakneck speed, according to a comprehensive report by leading US demographers released yesterday.

'They predict that at least an extra 1,000 million will be living in the world’s poorest African countries by 2050. There will be an extra 120 million more Americans, and India will leapfrog China to become the world’s most populous country. One in six people in Western Europe will be over the age of 65 by 2050.'

120 million more Americans? That, for a start, is a grossly misleading forecast. The fact is that the core US population, consisting of Anglo-Saxon and related European elements, has a birth-rate that is almost static. White immigration into the United States would swell the country’s numbers to some extent, but at the present level this would occur on nothing like the scale to account for a 43 per-cent population increase. The bottom line is that most of the 120 million new 'Americans' of which the Guardian writer speaks will come from the ethnic minorities, through both immigration and the internal ethnic-minority rate of reproduction. Serious-thinking people in that country will not view such a prospect with anything other than alarm.

Likewise with Britain. Mr. Vidal tells us that we too are headed for a population increase. Britain, he said:-

'– is expected to grow faster than any other major European country. Within 20 years the authors expect it to have four million more people, at which point its growth is expected to tail off, adding only a further 1.5 million in the next 25 years to eventually reach 65 million.'

Of course, we know whence will come most of the four million new 'Britons' we have been briefed to expect. As with the American increase, they will come almost entirely from the 'ethnic' communities, such is the almost zero reproductive rate of the indigenous Anglo-Celtic population. Such things, needless to say, would not bother Guardian writers nor, probably, the boffins from whom the statistics are obtained.

The article goes on:-

'The changes, considered inevitable given present trends, will transform geo-politics and fundamentally affect the world’s economies, people’s lifestyles and global resources, suggest the Washington-based Population Reference Bureau.'

Reproduction trends

Here, it will be noted, the familiar word 'inevitable' makes its appearance. Leftist-liberals love this word because of its utility as a stick to wield against those who do not welcome the liberal one-world agenda: everyone is going to get what is coming to them whether they like it or not, etc., etc., etc. But here 'inevitable' seems to mean a process which is completely out of control, whether by liberals or by others. The changes being referred to are, of course, those consequences – economic, political and social – of the grossly disparate reproduction rates currently being achieved by the world’s different races. That the white races could alter the stated trends by way of their governments encouraging larger families, while at the same declining to subsidise Third World demographic proliferation, does not even merit consideration.

And the same applies to other capable and advanced peoples like the Japanese. Says Vidal:-

'Countries such as Nigeria and Japan, which today have similar sized populations of about 130 million people, could be unrecognisable by 2050, say the authors. By then, Nigeria is expected to have more than doubled its numbers to more than 300 million people. But Japan, which has only 14 per cent of its current population under 15, may have shrunk to roughly 100 million people.'

Europe, says the survey according to Vidal, "is expected to have 60 million fewer people than today and some countries could lose more than a third of their populations." And he continues:-

'Eastern Europe is leading the world’s down-shifters. Bulgaria is expected to return to pre-1914 levels, losing 38 per cent of its people, while Romania could have 27 per cent fewer and Russia 25 million fewer people. Germany and Italy are expected to shrink by about 10 per cent.'


'The projections are based on detailed analyses of infant mortality rates, age structure, population growth, life expectancy, incomes and fertility rates. They also take into account the numbers of women using contraception and AIDS/HIV rates, but do not allow for environmental factors.'

And here’s the punch line:-

'Climate changes and ongoing land degradation are widely expected to encourage further widespread movements of people and pressure for migration away from rural areas towards cities and richer countries.'

This is a very innocent-sounding way of telling us that in terms of Third World immigration into Britain and other white lands "we ain’t seen nothing yet!" There’s going to be a lot, lot more of it. Of course, reference to the 'land degradation' made by the writer is another way of pointing out that in Third World countries, through primitive and irresponsible methods of agriculture, resources are allowed to go to waste.

But in the final analysis the responsibility is not that of the Third World countries; it is ours! Says our Guardian man:-

'The population changes are causing alarm among experts, who believe sustained growth in developing countries can only be managed with economic help from rich countries. "World population is going to grow massively in some of the most vulnerable countries in the world. We have to ask how rich countries are going to help," said Kirstyen Sherk, of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.'

Well, far from asking 'how' rich countries should help the 'developing', i.e. undeveloped, countries’ economies, what we should really be asking is why they should do so. The population explosion in these undeveloped countries has been assisted so far by a constant bailing-out process whereby the developed countries have presented them with huge aid programmes to enable them to feed their growing millions. And what is being suggested, at least by implication, by such people as Miss Sherk is that that there needs to be yet more of this. In other words, more economic subsidy leading to yet more population growth, requiring yet more economic subsidy! In any plain person’s language that is crazy, but in the hothouse world in which dwell progressive liberals it constitutes the highest humanity and wisdom!

Gloabalists worried

But even the globalists are now worried. Vidal reports one of them thus:-

'The former World Bank economist Herman Daly believes globalisation and the uncontrolled migration of cheap labour could put potentially catastrophic pressures on local communities and national economies. "The sheer number of people on Earth is now much larger than ever before in history. Some experts question whether Earth can even carry today’s population at a 'moderately comfortable' standard for the long term, let alone 3 billion more."'

Of course, the local communities referred to here are communities in the white, western world, including Britain. The uncontrolled migration of cheap labour does indeed carry with it the potential for 'catastrophic pressure'. Does Mr. Daly think he is giving us all the benefit of some blinding revelation on his part? This journal and others like it on the hated 'racist' right have been saying much the same thing for several decades, with little thanks from World Bank economists or global-minded folk of any description. But what is the solution? The solution is not to breast-beat and just issue dire warnings. The solution is for those nations affected by the danger to act. That means us, among others. It means that the white, western nations acquire governments possessing the will to defend their frontiers, and place firm barriers against further Third World immigration, while taking all necessary steps to remove those who have crossed the frontiers in the past.

And when I speak here of 'western nations' I do not mean those nations identified by their allegiance to liberal-capitalism; I mean 'western' in a cultural, and above all racial, sense. This includes the nations of the former Soviet Bloc, who belong to that entity. It includes White America, and it includes White British Commonwealth countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It is even possible to envisage a time when it could include a restored White South Africa and Rhodesia.

For the looming catastrophe is not, as the Guardianistas and those like them would claim, a global one; where we are concerned it is a catastrophe facing white people. We may take no pleasure in its effects on others – who with even a modicum of humanity can enjoy the sight of starving and disease-ridden Africans, particularly the young? – but the plain truth of the matter is that that catastrophe is one that we can do absolutely nothing about. It is the way of the big, wide, tough world we inhabit and have inhabited for millennia beyond calculation. The one way we can affect what happens to these non-white peoples is a way that makes things even worse: we compound the problem by clinging onto the strange superstition that we 'rich' countries have a duty to feed them, care for their sick and assist them in economic development. We have no such duty. The duty we do have is to ensure that, in a world in which human fertility outstrips economic resources and therefore ensures that some will not survive, we will be among the survivors. That is what governments elected by nations are supposed to do, and that is what journalists who act as tribunes of public opinion are supposed to advocate. But point this out to Guardian-writers and you may as well be preaching to the birds.

As for "pressure for migration away from rural areas towards cities and richer countries", meaning Third World migration to the West, that is a mirage. The pressure comes not from poverty in the countries of the migrants, nor from paucity of resources failing help from ourselves; the pressure comes from the centres of political power in the developed nations, where it has been decreed that traditionally white, European lands, including those outside Europe but founded and built by Europeans, become 'multi-racial', that their peoples voluntarily relinquish their identities and their nationhood and throw their doors open for the world and his wife to come and settle; that their territories, made fertile and prosperous by the brains and the sweat of untold generations of white men and women, be surrendered to invaders. That, in a nutshell, is where the pressures are coming from!

If white peoples were to find leaders of a different stamp, leaders moved by patriotism and duty who would resolutely preserve their homelands for the peoples to whom they belong, and were they to develop institutions dedicated to their own racial interests, there would be no external pressure of the kind described in this survey which could in a thousand years provide the slightest danger to them. Apart from Japan and China, both nations which, with low birthrates, come entirely outside the categories being discussed here, there are no non-white nations ever remotely likely to have the economic and military capacity to pose a threat to us, our lands and our resources. So I say again, putting it in another way: the 'pressures' and the potential 'catastrophes' are of our own making. They are pressures and catastrophes created in the liberal mind and only made real by liberal paralysis.

Whites must breed

And there is one further thing we must do. While we cannot and should not take on responsibility for the Third World’s problems of over-population, we most certainly can and should reverse what threatens to become our own problems of under-population – that is of low fertility rates among white people which with each generation make our nations progressively older and thus weaker in vitality, energy, productiveness and the capacity for self-defence. In other words, we should challenge another of the liberal mantras: that 'population control, meaning deliberate reduction of families and a relative impoverishment of youth, is a good thing.

If we Whites have lost the instinct to produce children and welcome them as additions to familial and national strength – as did our ancestors without even needing to think about the matter – we will surely die out eventually, even if the final self-extinction is not witnessed by those presently living.

We can start putting this process into reverse by conserving all our own resources to our own nurture and development. But of course Guardian journalists would contemplate such a course with horror. As my American friend Sam Dickson put it so well at the meeting at which I was a guest in New Orleans earlier this year: "What makes us unforgivable in the eyes of liberals is that we actually want to survive."

    Spearhead Online