The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
BBC: Jaw-Dropping Global Crash in Childbirth; Luckily, There Will be Billions of African Immigrants to Go Around!
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the BBC:

Fertility rate: ‘Jaw-dropping’ global crash in children being born

By James Gallagher
Health and science correspondent

… Are there any solutions?

… “We will go from the period where it’s a choice to open borders, or not, to frank competition for migrants, as there won’t be enough,” argues Prof Murray. …

What about Africa?

The population of sub-Saharan Africa is expected to treble in size to more than three billion people by 2100.

… Prof Murray says: “We will have many more people of African descent in many more countries as we go through this.

“Global recognition of the challenges around racism are going to be all the more critical if there are large numbers of people of African descent in many countries.” …

An anonymous commenter adds:

So to be clear, this article is saying that there’s a global fertility crash among non-Africans, while the African population is expected to increase significantly.

Meanwhile, there is a burgeoning black/African supremacist ideology being adopted in the cultural hegemon of the world, the US, and being spread and promoted worldwide. The dominance and spread of such an ideology would impede the non-African world’s ability to deter African migration.

It’s very unlikely that there will be any great reversal in fertility rates forthcoming. Moreover, within the US, it seems unlikely that black privilege and black supremacy will be curbed and lose influence. Thus only a significant decline in the power and prestige of the US, and with it the attendant black supremacist ideology, will prevent African migration from inundating the world over the next century.

 
Hide 133 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Jesse says:

    (1) How is this black supremacy going to be squared with the noticeable, uh, average differences of blacks. No judgment, but only the religious right types (who honestly think SSA will save Christendom) don’t seem cognizant. The elites aren’t stupid, and they’re fairly prolific breeders themselves; so what is the end game here?

    (2) How do conservatives not see this as a result of globalization? I’m so sick of seeing the feminists and lefties getting blamed for this, which is exactly what the elites want (divide and conquer).

    (3) Why *would* African want to “save” us, anyway? They don’t seen lacking in a healthy love for their homelands, and would probably prefer to improve said homelands (good for them). How much of this is psyching them up to leave their beloved homes, and be good little widgets?

    • Troll: JohnPlywood
  2. Anon[490] • Disclaimer says:

    I think I may have the answer to the Fermi Paradox.

    And a prediction: ln every star system in our galaxy that supports an advanced civilization there is a component of that civilization that has lower cognitive ability and hair/feathers/or scales that are considered “bad” in the star system’s culture. This population component has evolved to function as a sort of sleeper agent that waits in place until just before the civilization is about to reach the point of interstellar communication and travel and then goes into action to destroy the civilization.

    • Agree: Felix Keverich
    • Thanks: HammerJack
    • LOL: Jus' Sayin'...
    • Replies: @prime noticer
  3. IHTG says:

    The “black supremacy” of the United States is really a cultural arrangement pertaining specifically to African-Americans and their centuries-long love-hate relationship with mainstream white culture, and would probably fall apart if tens of millions of actual Africans were introduced to the mix.

    It’s very unlikely that there will be any great reversal in fertility rates forthcoming.

    Not sure this is true. I think that in many ways whites are the population best equipped to have a fertility rebound at some point over the century. This is why it’s a good idea to shift towards low fertility immigration, even if you can’t get the overall numbers down.

    • Agree: Lot
  4. black sea says:

    And the study says Nigeria will become the world’s second biggest country, with a population of 791 million.

    This figure assumes that almost all Nigerians will elect to stay in Nigeria, which seems highly unlikely.

    “Global recognition of the challenges around racism are [sic] going to be all the more critical if there are large numbers of people of African descent in many countries.”

    Indeed. If large numbers of Africans emigrate to non-African, or for that matter other African, countries, the “challenges around racism” will become acute. I guess we’re preemptively working on this challenge now.

    Prof Ibrahim Abubakar, University College London (UCL), said: “If these predictions are even half accurate, migration will become a necessity for all nations and not an option.

    Replacing “necessity” with “inevitability” would be closer to the truth.

    • Agree: HammerJack
  5. I’ve already pointed to a possible future for Africa, but nobody seems to be interested….

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/china-documents-uighur-genocidal-sterilization-xinjiang/

    China’s Own Documents Show Potentially Genocidal Sterilization Plans in Xinjiang
    ………………….
    Starting in 2018, a growing number of female former internment camp detainees testified that they were given injections that coincided with changes in or cessation of their menstrual cycles. Others reported that they were forcibly fitted with IUDs prior to internment or subjected to sterilization surgeries.

    That same year, published natural population growth rates (calculated as birth minus deaths, and excluding migration) in Xinjiang plummeted. In Kashgar and Hotan, two of the prefectures that make up the Uighur heartland, combined natural population growth rates fell by 84 percent between 2015 and 2018, from 1.6 percent to 0.26 percent. In some Uighur counties, 2018 saw more deaths than births. In 2019, Xinjiang’s birth rates declined by a further 24 percent, with ethnic minority regions seeing stronger declines between 30 and 56 percent. In contrast, birth rates across the whole country fell by only 4.2 percent between 2018 and 2019.

    Africa will be Xinjiang writ large.

  6. Global recognition of the challenges around racism are going to be all the more critical if there are large numbers of people of African descent in many countries.” …

    No, racism will not be an issue at all for Africans, because at some point they will hit critical mass and go Rwanda on the rest of us.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Wilkey
  7. LondonBob says:

    The anomaly is really the population we have now, nature is just adjusting so we get a more sustainable population.

    African immigration is a problem in of itself, I am skeptical about the population forecasts, things will balance out.

    • Troll: JohnPlywood
    • Replies: @res
  8. @Bardon Kaldian

    Don’t kid yourself junior, these are fake stats from an “anonymous source” at Associated Press. There is no sterilization campaign in Xinjiang and nothing like that will ever happen in America.

    In the meantime, instead of talking about Africans, why not talk about how women of the global north have defective and inferior fertility? Why not criticize your women, who are the source of just about every social problem in your country, instead of the intelligent people running the world?

  9. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:

    OK. We have a pathological avoidance phenomenon here. And it has very little to do with Blacks and Africans and even various “Devil” groups like the Bankers and the Rich and the Globalists and whatever.

    Observation: When something could go seriously wrong and nobody knows a way to avoid or ameliorate the wrong (cancer, old age, loss of job and landing on the street, technological decline, . . .) they tend to avoid thinking about it, and will often think obsessively about something else, just about anything else, that either doesn’t seriously matter (makeup, health foods, astronomical discoveries in distant galaxies) or is wildly counterproductive (“I have marital problems. Where can I get another drink?)

    So: Industrial civilization in all versions, Western, Russian, Chinese, is proving impossible to live in. The impossibility does not outright kill adults, it just makes the females of the species (Homo Sapiens) unable to breed at a replacement level.

    * Groups that can breed at a replacement level are invariably those groups that are disconnected from industrial society, although supported by industrial society. No matter how bad the living conditions, their women can produce children at above fertility level, and their society can raise these children past adolescence.

    * Subsets of groups that can breed at a replacement level have tried to adopt industrial society. These groups invariably drop to below replacement level fertility. Turkey is a fair example of this. It has rejected “Western values” for Islamic beliefs. Those who tried living Western values (industrial civilization values) found themselves without many descendants, not so those with Islamic beliefs.

    * Animal breeders that specialize in wild mammals find it easier to keep adult animals alive than to provide an environment that suits the females well enough to support reproduction. Female mammals (including those of H. Sapiens, called “women”) are not only particular about whom they mate with, they are also highly particular about the environment they need before they can try to reproduce. Industrial society apparently doesn’t supply this environment, not even for the high income set.

    The idea of replacing White labor with Black labor has been tried. About half of the US Black population can’t do anything productive in industrial society (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J2VwFDV4-g) thanks to an IQ less than 83. African immigrants would be about the same. Yes, you can bring in high IQ Africans, but the supply is limited and their children would regress to the mean. They would, as all immigrant groups do, try to reproduce their home society, which is not industrial. The “African” solution is not only not a solution, but clearly the exact opposite, just as immigration as a whole has destabilized the US and has not been a solution to US problems.

    The real problem is not whether to take in Africans. The problem is:
    Industrial society is killing the populations that make industrial society possible.

    Talking about how to replace the declining populations with new populations is ludicrous. Why would the “declining populations” want to replace themselves? What motive have they for joining the conversations? From the other side, why would a “replacement population” want to adapt asocial form that would make it decline? What motive have they for joining the conversations?

    Generally speaking, I believe that the “declining populations” discuss immigration as a distraction from the problem of their decline, which they cannot solve and desperately don’t want to think about. Further, the “replacement populations” do not want to, and will not support, industrial society. As things stand today, they end up as welfare cases, actually reducing income to the “declining populations” and accelerating their decline.

    So, I’ll state the main problem for those with jobs in an industrial economy:
    * Your children are being hurt so much that they can’t function as adults.
    * Your women are being prevented from having children and families.
    * Your men are being prevented from supporting women and families.

    You can _almost_ make it, but not quite. Suicides are up, family formation / maintenance / fertility is down. You have no idea about what to do, in large part because the “artificial peer group / primary group / friends” that the media / entertainment activity presents to you treat the problem as if it were as important as whether it will rain today. Problems presented are “how to attract enough Africans” and “How to avoid offending your new masters” and “You can’t go outdoors because we said so”. So you don’t see the main problem, but you actually realize it is there, and it hurts.

    Start thinking about the main problem: You and all your friends and relatives are being pushed to extinction by industrial society.

    Whatever you may think of the Left and BLM, they at least realize the problem. “White privilege” is “ability to function within industrial society”, and they do not want to join industrial society, they want industrial society to end (as it did, briefly but to thunderous applause, in CHAZ). If the Left and BLM can see the problem, so can you. We are entering into a singularity, when new social forms become possible (as they did after WW II). Try to come up with a better solution.

  10. Wilkey says:
    @The Alarmist

    No, racism will not be an issue at all for Africans, because at some point they will hit critical mass and go Rwanda on the rest of us.

    More likely they will go Rwanda on what remains of whites in South Africa, and “the rest of us” will wake up and get a clue.

    Extremist ideologies – in this case the near deification of blacks – tend to get a swift and equally extreme backlash. The world will right itself, somehow. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

    • Replies: @Anon
  11. it seems the only hope lies in Islam.

  12. @JohnPlywood

    Why would anyone criticize superior breed, which is the future of mankind if it is to survive. Future is artificial wombs & cyborgization.

    Lower types, various humanoids- fertile & dumb- are destined to oblivion.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
  13. Anon7 says:

    If only there was some way to prepare the United States and its people for the inevitable influx of black Africans. Perhaps by making them objects of veneration. You’d want some of these indicators of prestige in your neighborhood, wouldn’t you?

  14. The Bantus have conquered most of sub-Saharan Africa (no idle prefix there) and will continue to try to take over anywhere and everywhere they are allowed to go. It seems to be in their DNA. Look what they did to the poor Capoid race in southern Africa. Whether by brute force or whining, they take over. And no one is willing to point out their genocide on those around them. They always play the victim. Sad.

  15. I know on thing
    White girls will be happy about this

  16. Anonymous[458] • Disclaimer says:

    I’m old enough to remember when the self-styled ‘experts’ – most particularly at the BBC – were endlessly yapping, lecturing and fingers pointing about the ‘Population Explosion’. It really was relentless and overbearing, it had the same moral force and impact as all the hectoring about ‘Global Warming’ has today.
    The finger wagging was unabashedly aimed at the white westerners watching BBC programming.
    Now, after the westerners have faithfully and obediently complied with the BBC and its posturing, the BBC starts to turn on them, lambasting them for not doing enough to accommodate Africa’s population surplus.

    • Replies: @lavoisier
  17. Anonymous[458] • Disclaimer says:

    Anyway, whatever happens, by 2100, Europe will be a non entity irrelevance to the planet, whether it’s black, brown or white in complexion, the USA will be a horrid dysfunctional Mad Max, Brazilloid mess, and China will, undoubtedly, be running the world.

    And, believe you me, the Chinese – unlike gullible, weak and foolish whites – won’t fall for this massive African immigration crap.

    Thus is assured the permanence of future Chinese global hegemony.

    • Troll: Corvinus
  18. Jesse says:
    @JohnPlywood

    Why are WN men so protective of China? Is it because the women are literally the only ones who will fuxk you?

    You’ve had your asses handed to you for at least several decades, in no small part because other white people loathe you with a burning passion. At some point you have to acknowledge this and at least *try* to not be so deeply unpleasant. And stop licking the asses of Anyone But The Same White People Who Have Rejected You Your Whole Lives (for good reason).

    I mean, really. First, Russia was going to save you. Now it’s the Orientals. Why would they even bother trying to do so? And how will that help, given that what you’re offering other whites, especially white women, somehow manages to be worse than several continent wide Balkan wars?

    • Replies: @JohnPlywood
  19. Escher says:

    Meanwhile, there is a burgeoning black/African supremacist ideology being adopted in the cultural hegemon of the world, the US, and being spread and promoted worldwide. The dominance and spread of such an ideology would impede the non-African world’s ability to deter African migration.

    How long will the US stay the world’s hegemon at the rate it is rapidly tearing itself apart.

  20. ““We will go from the period where it’s a choice to open borders, or not, to frank competition for migrants, as there won’t be enough,” argues Prof Murray”

    Itz all about the economy stupid. There needs to be constant growth and expansion otherwise our financial structure will crash. Itz almost as if there is a built in mechanizm for the destruction of our civilization based on usury.

  21. @IHTG

    “tens of millions of actual Africans”

    Please, no.

    As Steve has pointed out many times, the children of actual Africans (and W. Indians) eventually assimilate to black American norms, and not white norms. I realize you were speaking theoretically, but introducing 10s of millions of actual Africans to the US would be a disaster.

    The only answer to this is what this man suggested:

    Thus only a significant decline in the power and prestige of the US, and with it the attendant black supremacist ideology, will prevent African migration from inundating the world over the next century.

    That will happen. Russia and the former Eastern bloc will resist this. And of course, China and Japan.

    • Replies: @Jane Plain
  22. anon[406] • Disclaimer says:

    I think someone like Steve Hsu is going to figure out a surrogacy scheme that implants postgrad embryos in oompa loompa wet nurses.

  23. guest007 says:
    @IHTG

    If one goggles about the experiences of African-Americans (or American descendants of slaves) experiences in selective universities, they all eventually complain about the large number of immigrants or children of immigrants who were admitted due to affirmative action. Those American descendants of slaves see themselves as the keepers of the true African-American and want to exclude immigrants.

    Look at Nikole Hanna-Jones proposal for race-based reparations. Eligibility would be limited to individuals who have at least one relative who was a black slave in the U.S. and who have been filling out forms for at least a decade that they are black.

  24. Man, I’m old enough to remember when “overpopulation” was thought to be a serious and pressing problem by all the great and good. World population has doubled since then but now we have an underpopulation problem. WTF? And underpopulation is so serious and pressing that the only solution is to hand everything over wholesale to the least functional, most aggressive, least grateful people available. Double WTF?

    I would ascribe these delusions to the cult of GDP or Pay-Our-Pensions, but can anyone (much less any “Professor”) seriously believe that the people who brought you Zimbabwe are going to be jacking up your GDP or paying anything, much less paying the pensions of despised, infirm and geriatric outgroups?

    Prof Murray adds: “It will create enormous social change. It makes me worried because I have an eight-year-old daughter and I wonder what the world will be like.”

    Who pays tax in a massively aged world? Who pays for healthcare for the elderly? Who looks after the elderly? Will people still be able to retire from work?

    It’s hard to know what to say to this level of self-deception. To pay for their unearned retirements, the old want to rob the young, but the old are discovering that there aren’t enough young to pay for the retirement they believe they are due, certainly not enough employed, productive young. So their solution is to compound the young’s miseries by importing a hostile successor population and preemptively surrendering to it.

    What will the world be like, Professor Murray? For you it will be the Day Of The Pillow, but whether the Pillow will be wielded by your justly aggrieved daughter or wielded by casually genocidal immigrants, one cannot foresee now.

    By the way, is it just me or are all these learned Professors who the BBC quotes about one half step away from straight up channeling Barbara Lerner Spectre?

    • Replies: @allahu akbar
    , @Alden
  25. Jesse says:
    @Anonymous

    If Turkey’s Islamists are doing so well, why does Erdogan feel the need to import ever more Syrians? According to Wikipedia, their birthrate is 1.99. It’s higher than ours, but…not wonderful.

    Erdogan briefly announced ferocious financial incentives for women to have at least 3 kids. Which, in and of itself, is a worrying trend. Any culture which regards 3 children as something to boast about is in trouble because, contra Trucons like Mark Steyn and Jonah Goldberg (or even those like Jayman), it’s *not* a lot.

    It didn’t work because he literally waited a few weeks before ranting about the evils of feminism and the need for yet more Islamism. Astonishingly, there was no uptick. (Guess the financial supports needed for family formation are a lot more expensive than berating women for ever leaving the house.)

    So, you’re wrong. Look at what people do, not what they say. If Islamism works at countering industrialization, or was as popular as you think, then they wouldn’t be Inviting The World and working their diaspora like they are

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Anonymous
  26. The reason populations are “declining” is that huge numbers of people aren’t “needed” economically speaking…humans, like most animals, in the long run establish equilibrium, both with their physical environment (natural resources, etc) but also their social environment. This is not a “bug,” but is actually a feature.

    Promoting endless growth is actually an UNNATURAL phenomenon; that is to say, it is INCOMPATIBLE with the physical and social environment of animals. In terms of humans, too much growth is, strangely enough, in the long run associated with suffering and death; war, disease, civil strife, poverty, ignorance. The “solution” to these problems is usually mass die offs, either due to natural or man made causes (WW1, the black death, the cultural revolution, the holodomor, pol pot, etc).

    Considering how a overall wealthy country like the U.S. is BARELY holding together at its current size and population composition, stabilizing the number of people should be seen as a priority, not a problem to be overcome.

  27. ken says:

    Stupid white people contracepted themselves into this position.

    • Agree: Kronos
  28. @Almost Missouri

    Professor Murray has the mentality of a slave owner. Import people into the tax system, so he can benefit from their labor.

    That’s what so funny about liberals. For all their “right side of history” talk, their “model” for the U.S. is identical to a early 19th century south carolina plantation owner.

    Problem is, its very unlikely their will be any labor these new, 21st century slaves can do.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Kronos
  29. @Jesse

    The elites aren’t stupid, and they’re fairly prolific breeders themselves; so what is the end game here?

    Come again?

    • Replies: @Jesse
  30. Alfa158 says:

    I thought these people are environmentalists. Don’t they want a decline in the population of developed countries in order to reduce the load on the environment? So why would those smaller populations be a problem? And how many people do we really need anyway? Those projected populations are still far larger than they were during the great flowerings of civilization:
    https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-population-in-Ancient-Egypt-What-did-the-population-depend-on
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography
    https://www.thoughtco.com/demographics-of-ancient-china-117655
    Do you think maybe, these folks don’t really care how large or how small populations are, they only care about accelerating the replacement of populations who built things with populations who have never built anything?

    • Agree: Ben tillman
    • Replies: @res
  31. Alden says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    You can feel the little IUD plastic string. Drs just pull it out. I think anyone could easily do it.

    Chinese are really different from Christian European heritage people. They see a problem and solve it.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  32. Whiskey says: • Website

    The elites are stupid. Just look at them. And worship of black will never stop. There will be no backlash. White peoples always cuck. Every time. Inside every White woman is a Kardashian. Screaming to get out and make a sex tape with a rapper.

  33. Alden says:
    @Almost Missouri

    It wasn’t that long ago that my daughter’s public school friends were being propagandized to not have children as early as fifth grade. I’ll never forget an 11 year old talking about having a tubal ligation at 13 so she wouldn’t pollute the earth with children.

  34. Alden says:
    @JohnPlywood

    Most of the MEN OF UNZ are not repressed gay pervert nerd creep misogynist women hating childless ugly weirdos like you and Whiskey.

    They realize that the only women encouraged to, and rewarded for, having children in today’s Europe and America are life long welfare beneficiaries. They know that children born to non welfare parents today will not be financial burdens till 18, or 22 but probably till the parents die.

    • Agree: West reanimator
    • Replies: @JohnPlywood
    , @Daniel Chieh
  35. anon[281] • Disclaimer says:

    The only way Blacks can be venerated in the US is by keeping their population low enough that race realism can be avoided. 6% black Seattle, Madison and Minnesota can have their largely white Antifa intermurals acting out, but actual presence of real, in the flesh black people spoil the narrative. Chicago having gone through 30 years of black replacement by Mexicans to tamp down that reality.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
  36. I don’t know. I remain unconvinced that a world populated almost entirely by Africans will be a particularly pleasant place to live. It certainly doesn’t seem very diverse.

  37. Jesse says:
    @kaganovitch

    If you go high enough, the same people keening about overpopulation to the plebs are making it a matter of class pride to have at least 3 themselves. And actually have them. None of the creepy adoption or surrogacy for them.

    It’s the old “talk sixties, live fifties” thing. The hilarious sight of the pronatalists of yore haranguing people for not breeding, while having 1-2 kids themselves, is largely gone outside the media. Yes, there are the mentally ill abolish the family types who walk the walk. Yes, a lot of the fundies have realized that having the biblically mandated huge families is actually really hard and have resorted to theft.

    But in the real world, with the real elites, they’re breeding, and they’re breeding good. They have to know that even the worst white trash families are a better bet than what they’re bringing in, but they’re still doing everything in their power to hammer down the white birthrate. And I have no idea why.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
  38. Why are these researchers so surprised?

    Why do they think anyone with a modicum of future time preference or long-term planning ability would be eager to bring children into this increasingly wonderful world?

    Why do they think we should be eager to import numinoids into countries that have fertility crashes?

    They really think all those vibrant doctors and engineers are going to work 70 hour weeks to pay Social Security taxes for some shriveled up wypipo.

    Kek.

  39. @JohnPlywood

    “Tiny Duck” and “John Ply Wood”…. why do you stupid trolls always have dick obsession? Losers.

    • Troll: JohnPlywood
    • Replies: @JohnPlywood
  40. @Anonymous

    I agree: like it has been pointed out several times, most recently by the doxxed Tucker Carlson (who I don’t watch) Tonight writer, industrial modern man (he said “Western peoples” but I disagree it’s unique to them — see Japanese and Koreans) is propense in such a way to civilizational suicide one suspects it’s in his nature. Maybe that’s the Great Filter right there.

    What you bring up is related to other things many of us have noticed lately but are not talked about much: for example, how technological progress often does not bring the best in man, but rather makes him lazy, apathetic, alienated, in addition to unwilling to further his own existence.

    If whites, as in Europeans, even specifically northwestern Anglo-Germanic Europeans are to survive, I see them doing away with what made them unique in the world in order to do so. There might still be Germans more than a century from now (ethnic white European Germans, so there’s no confusion as to what I mean) but they will not be like the Germans who made their nation into what it is today. Same with the English, the French, and of course white Americans. It might be more like the Dark Ages than Karlin’s Age of Malthusian Industrialism.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Corvinus
  41. Mr. Anon says:
    @IHTG

    This is why it’s a good idea to shift towards low fertility immigration, even if you can’t get the overall numbers down.

    The lowest fertility immigration is no immigration. The Economy (Praised be its Name) won’t need as many people in the future. The last thing any developed country needs is to bring in waves of low-skilled people into an economy that will be eliminating low-skilled jobs by the millions.

    The way to stop immigration is to stop immigration. No “buts”, no “howevers”, no “on the other hands”. Just like the way to stop foreign military involvement is to just stop it. The problems of the World are not really that complicated. But the solutions are made out to be complicated by elites that use it as an excuse for not solving those problems because they don’t want them solved.

    • Agree: Rob McX, lavoisier
    • Replies: @IHTG
    , @AnotherDad
  42. @Anonymous

    Industrial society apparently doesn’t supply this environment, not even for the high income set.

    I’d like to see better data on this. In my personal life I observe the high income set having 3-4 children per couple, all of whom survive to adulthood. High income Jewish couples are particularly prolific. I may be discounting the many high income women who don’t breed at all, but high status men seem to be doing just fine. In pre-industrial society, people had far more children but most didn’t survive. The number of high status men currently alive who will have living descendants 500 years from now is probably, percentage wise, not that different from 500 years ago.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  43. Thus only a significant decline in the power and prestige of the US, and with it the attendant black supremacist ideology, will prevent African migration from inundating the world over the next century.

    Great. Now Steve is publishing ChiComm apologias.

    First it was “yeah, the NYT fell to Maoists, but at least they kicked a Jew.” Now, it’s “yeah, the world will fall to Maoists, but at least they will kick an African.”

  44. res says:
    @LondonBob

    JohnPlywood troll flagging people is pretty funny. It would be interesting to see if the troll flag is primarily used by trolls themselves. Perhaps leaving aside the flags applied to obvious trolls like TD.

    • Troll: JohnPlywood
  45. res says:
    @Alfa158

    I think that is the best argument to make here. Perhaps better applied in the other direction though. So rather than:

    We should reduce immigration from developing countries because of the impact on the environment.
    (starting out with immigration induces a reflexive NO which will prevent hearing the rest)

    Something like:

    To prevent excessive CO2 increase we should be concerned about people moving from low fossil fuel usage regions to high usage regions.
    (start out with something likely to create agreement and avoid the I word to prevent the associated reflex)

    I tend to overthink things so no doubt there is a better short and pithy version. Anyone?

  46. Anon[112] • Disclaimer says:

    Is there a reason why people can’t just accept the population declining by 50%? It seems like in a lot of ways it would be very nice. Lots of space, easy access to infrastructure, cheap housing.

    It seems like the political reality (competition for power) forces every group to keep pushing to have more and more people. Yet if there were no political factors, to me it seems like it would be nicer if the world had a smaller population. I think this will be especially true when automation reduces the need for low-skill labour.

    • Replies: @TG
    , @Kronos
  47. Anon[271] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wilkey

    More likely they will go Rwanda on what remains of whites in South Africa, and “the rest of us” will wake up and get a clue.

    That’s a naive level of optimism. Nothing that the press does, currently, indicates that anyone will be allowed to “wake up” before the full power of the state is brought down on their heads. And the press controls all of this.

  48. BB753 says:

    Yeah, it’s lucky there’s an inexhaustible supply of vibrant black bodies to make up for the lack of Whites, a melanin – deficient race with hardly any contributions to civilization. Thank God! LOL!

  49. @Anon

    “I think I may have the answer to the Fermi Paradox.”

    i suggested this years ago, though i’m sure i’m not the only one.

    what if there ARE humanoid aliens on another planet ‘close by’, within a few thousand light years, but they’re all just running around throwing spears at slorgbeasts, and that’s all they’ve been doing for 100 million years.

    there is no compelling counter evidence that if africa was the only continent, and just kinda bobbled there for hundreds of millions of years on tectonic plates, that circa 200,000 year ago humans would have gotten any smarter, if we’re to subscribe to the cold makes you smarter hypothesis. australia pretty much suggests this – divergent evolution into stasis, nothing changing for 99 million years, the humans that got there 60,000 years ago invented nothing, and never changed biologically either.

    it is the western europeans that are the weirdos, that invent things and leave the planet. the other humans are normal – they do nothing for thousands of years. like every other animal.

  50. Kronos says:
    @Jesse

    The elites aren’t stupid, and they’re fairly prolific breeders themselves; so what is the end game here?

    Most “elites” I’m aware of had 2 children max (if at all!) I’d imagine they’re super tight legged with birth control and fear of divorce/child custody battles.

  51. syonredux says:
    @IHTG

    The “black supremacy” of the United States is really a cultural arrangement pertaining specifically to African-Americans and their centuries-long love-hate relationship with mainstream white culture, and would probably fall apart if tens of millions of actual Africans were introduced to the mix.

    Perhaps, but that still means that you’ve got “tens of millions” of additional Blacks to deal with…..

  52. syonredux says:

    The population of sub-Saharan Africa is expected to treble in size to more than three billion people by 2100.

    … Prof Murray says: “We will have many more people of African descent in many more countries as we go through this.

    “Global recognition of the challenges around racism are going to be all the more critical if there are large numbers of people of African descent in many countries.” …

    The Black African tsunami……And how will our elites respond? Blake Neff has some thoughts…

    In December 2019, he said that “once Democrats have the majorities to go full F**K WHITEY, things are going to get really wacky really quickly.” He argued at the time that there is a “large minority of whites who are fully supportive of a F**k Whitey agenda” and that “there’s a suicidal impulse to Western peoples that honestly feels almost biological in origin.”

  53. Any non-African country “needs” African immigrants-migrants-refugees like it needs the Bubonic plague. I can’t see the Asian countries going for this.

  54. anon[406] • Disclaimer says:

    As for the Africans, I’ll add that the most constructive response would be Paul Romer’s charter city proposal to create opportunity zones that can absorb the migrants. I’m skeptical it’s going to work out in Africa, but it could be done on the periphery of Europe fairly easily. Portugal has 2 such zones that I know of, the UK is considering it — there are a number of organizations working on these buffers between Africa and Europe….

    https://femoza.org/
    https://www.chartercitiesinstitute.org/

  55. @Bardon Kaldian

    Bill and Melinda Gates are called racist for seeking to lower the African birthrate, their critics ignoring the reality that Africans can’t feed themselves now.

    • Replies: @lavoisier
  56. @anon

    Liberals have been saying for I don’t know how long that “prejudice is ignorance.” That’s sometimes true, but, IMO, “familiarity breeds contempt.” In this case, people living with or near Blacks will out of necessity have no illusions about them. If they do, it could be fatal.

    One of the reasons why anti-discrimination laws are wrong is because the law assumes that discrimination is irrational along with being immoral.

  57. IHTG says:
    @Mr. Anon

    They’re made complicated by some 60-70 out of 100 US Senators opposing them.

  58. TG says:

    I’m sorry, I have great respect for Steve Sailer, but this is dangerous nonsense.

    Contrary to popular cheap-labor-uber-alles propaganda, Malthus was right. If a people tries to double their population every 25 years or so, generation after generation, without respite, then (unless they have an open frontier) they will fail. And as they fail, as food limits population growth, the result will NOT generally be famine – Malthus was explicit on this point – but brutal crushing poverty and chronic malnutrition. This is not a prophecy but established historical fact.

    The power of exponential growth is so high, that over historical periods most people simply will not be able to have more than about two kids each. The issue is whether we do this the easy way, being careful not to have more children than we can REASONABLY support, or whether we do this the hard way, and let a lack of food do it for us.

    In large parts of the world – India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Yemen, etc.etc. – chronic malnutrition is widespread, increasingly more and more children are growing up stunted. If someone has two or three kids that are malnourished to the point of stunting, it is physically impossible for them to have seven. The limit is kept through malnourished women not being able to conceive or bring a pregnancy to term, or the increased susceptibility of malnourished children to disease.

    A recent survey in India found that the poorest provinces had the lowest fertility rates, and the authors were surprised at this. Think about it for a moment. There should be no surprise, should there?

    If fertility rates fall because people are being careful to not have more children than they can reasonably support (there is no perfect number, but for most people and most of history this number will be a lot less than eight), that’s a good thing. It will keep the society from pushing up against the limits, give us an investable surplus, and allow for widespread prosperity. That’s why the iron law of development is that FIRST fertility rates fall (and not due to lack of food), and THEN progress is made.

    But if fertility rates are falling because people are just so poor that they physically can’t have more children, then that is a very bad thing indeed. For most of us. But for the rich, nothing increases profits more than cheap labor, and nothing produces cheap labor more reliably than 100 desperate people competing for every job. Hence the overwhelming propaganda on this note.

    Anyone talking about a global decline in fertility rates, without addressing this issue, is at best a useful idiot.

    • Agree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @JohnPlywood
  59. TG says:
    @Anon

    Agreed! Well said.

    I’ve been to Japan, and it’s doing pretty well. Prosperous, stable, peaceful, safe. Sure, they have problems. And most people in the rest of the world would kill to have their problems.

    Competition for power amongst groups? I’m sure that part of it. But mostly I think it’s the insatiable desire of the rich for cheap labor. Nothing boosts the rich more than cheap labor, and nothing makes cheap labor more reliably than 100 desperate people competing for every job…

    Also there is a divide: the average person wants an economy that will provide abundance for them and their family – how large it is in total, and how fast it is growing, is not directly relevant. The rich want an economy that grows in total, and where their share of it is increasing. These two things are not the same.

    In India, the overall economy has grown enormously, but as population pressure continues the average person remains stuck with a physical standard of living below that of late medieval Europe (yes really). But the Indians at the top are making billions. The rich find the status quo in India to be just wonderful, and the status quo in Japan to be a threat to their profits. Figure it out.

  60. syonredux says:

    A sculpture of a black woman who took part in a Black Lives Matter protest in Bristol has been erected on the plinth where a statue of slave trader Edward Colston used to stand

  61. @Jane Plain

    In fact, I just learned that one of the founders of the BLM movement is the daughter of Nigerian immigrants.

  62. anon[167] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jesse

    If Turkey’s Islamists are doing so well, why does Erdogan feel the need to import ever more Syrians? According to Wikipedia, their birthrate is 1.99. It’s higher than ours, but…not wonderful.

    This TFR map of Turkey answers your question.

  63. Marko says:

    I don’t see many European governments in the near future considering importing more people from Africa. Social media makes it way too easy to see that where there are large populations of non whites there is chaos.

    • Replies: @lavoisier
  64. @Alden

    Chinese are really different from Christian European heritage people. They see a problem and solve it.

    Amorality helps here. Trouble is, when it backfires…

  65. @Jesse

    Battered white woman cope.

    Men of all races are protective of Asian women because they are the most beautiful, agreeable, and desired.

    All races of men disproportionately prefer Asian women, and all races of women want white men:


    White men + Asian women = winners of the game called life.

  66. @Jesse

    If you go high enough, the same people keening about overpopulation to the plebs are making it a matter of class pride to have at least 3 themselves. And actually have them.

    Who are these “super elites” you are referring to, and what is your source for their high fertility rate?

  67. @Alden

    Let your husband manage your finances and stop blaming your poor children for your bad decisions in life, Karen.

    Oh, wait… You divorced your husband after wrecking his finances.

    P.S. those “MEN OF UNZ” are physically unfit low-androgen cucks like your ex-husband.

  68. @Mr. Anon

    The way to stop immigration is to stop immigration. No “buts”, no “howevers”, no “on the other hands”. Just like the way to stop foreign military involvement is to just stop it. The problems of the World are not really that complicated. But the solutions are made out to be complicated by elites that use it as an excuse for not solving those problems because they don’t want them solved.

    Words of wisdom, Mr. Anon. Well said.

    Boat loads of establishment piffle–blabbing, on and on and on, full of “what the experts say”–is just that, piffle.

    Individuals may have all these complicated emotions, thoughts, behaviors. Straightening out someone’s life may be difficult or impossible. (They have to want to do it.) But the reality that people are difficult, doesn’t mean that “the problems of the world” are difficult.

    In fact, political problems have rather straightforward solutions.

    Stopping immigration–which is a wholly un-natural, entirely political construct–is incredibly straightforward, natural and provides the greatest benefit of any imaginable policy change. It’s basically “don’t let other people loot our ‘commons’”. (“The tragedy of the commons” thing is such well hoed ground, this shouldn’t–and wouldn’t but for minoritarian propaganda–be the slightest bit controversial.)

    Pro-natalist policy for replacement fertility, eugenic fertility, balance of trade, energy independence, fiscal sanity, avoiding foreign entanglements–are all pretty straightforward.

    The political problem is entirely that there are people who for either their own short term benefit or their ethnic animosities/rivalries do not want to have policies in the long term interests of the nation’s people.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  69. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jesse

    Hi, Jesse

    The account I gave was of the failure of Westernization and secular government in Turkey. Essentially, an Islamic countryside population that increased eventually swamped a secular and Westernized urban population.

    It’s true that fertility rates in the Middle Eastern Islamic countries are generally decreasing (https://www.prb.org/demographics-muslims/), although fertility rates in sub-Saharan Islamic areas are apparently not decreasing.

    It is interesting, at least to me, that the Kurdish population in Turkey is increasing, despite the woes of the Kurds (https://www.ibtimes.com/turkey-high-kurdish-birth-rate-raises-questions-about-future-705488). Turkey is not by any means an industrial giant, but it does have some manufacturing capability and some urban areas that dwarf Kurdish analogs. Again, the part of society furthest from an industrial society has the higher birth rate.

    Something is happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear, but whatever it is, it’s important.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  70. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @gabriel alberton

    I see them doing away with what made them (the West) unique in the world in order to do so.

    To my mind, you’re predicting a past (good practice for any futurist) that may extend into the future; the 1964 Civil Rights Act as since interpreted has made it effectively illegal for Westerners to survive and prevail against POCs. The Western people always had a strong will to survive and prevail. That seems to be gone now.

    I would guess that whatever comes out of this next go-round, when the US stops policing the world, is going to be regional wars, some of them resource wars (Ethiopia vs. Egypt, China vs. Africa/Australia, Texas vs. Mexico, etc. ), and that whatever emerges will have a strong will to survive — even it the survivor is the West.

    • Agree: gabriel alberton
  71. Anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:
    @IHTG

    It’s not specific to the US when the US is the global political and cultural hegemon. Moreover, millions of African migrants have been introduced into Europe, but this ideology has only become more prominent there.

    “A fertility rebound at some point over the century” would not have much effect in the context of decades of a non-African fertility crash, an African population boom, and an ideology promoting black migration and power worldwide.

    I think you and Lot tend to be blinkered a bit by ethnocentricism. Because Israel is unique in being one of the few advanced countries with high fertility rates, and because certain religious Jewish subgroups outside of Israel have very high fertility rates, I think you tend to feel that there’s less of a problem.

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @IHTG
  72. If Neanderthals had blogs, their comments section would sound like you whiny lot. Yet, it didn’t stop them by replaced by African immigrants. Population replacement of the West by Africans is inevitable. No way to stop it…

    • Replies: @Marko
    , @AnotherDad
  73. @Jesse

    It’s not the “elites”, Karen. It’s you. Karen is hammering the white and American birthrate. Stop blaming the invisible elite and blame yourself, already.

  74. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Ris_Eruwaedhiel

    Bill and Melinda Gates are called racist for seeking to lower the African birthrate, their critics ignoring the reality that Africans can’t feed themselves now.

    They should have been working more aggressively towards lowering the African birthrate than working towards alleviating poverty and disease. While noble in principle, their efforts have contributed to sky high and non-sustainable African fertility rates.

    African overpopulation is a real problem for the developed world so long as the Africans are allowed to migrate to the developed world. Only a deluded liberal fool sincerely believes that massive migration of Africans to the West advances civilization.

    I do think China will be able to handle Africa much better than the West.

    Not too much sentimentality in the Chinese nor the desire to have millions of Africans settle on their shores.

  75. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    The liberal white fool celebrates lowered fertility among white Europeans and the sky high fertility rates of our darker brothers.

    No cognitive dissonance for the liberal white fool.

    They are predictably stupid and masochistic and will be the death of all of us.

  76. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Marko

    You are sadly mistaken. Do not underestimate the stupidity of the typical white European cucked up liberal.

    Logic and reason do not register with these fools.

    They could not save their own selves if doing so would require giving up the egalitarian fantasy they cling to like a life preserver.

    They will take the rest of us to our destruction.

    • Troll: Corvinus
  77. Marko says:
    @S. Africanus

    When our early common ancestors started to migrate out of Africa between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago, they were barely even humans. In fact, almost as soon as Homo sapiens evolved from Homo erectus, they began to decamp the continent, becoming, in your parlance, Asians and Europeans. Since their original land mass was not yet called Africa—the word has origins in ancient Rome—it’s a safe bet that these early ancestors did not identify one another as Africans.

    • Replies: @S. Africanus
  78. @TG

    Agricultural output per hectare has been increasing at a rate of about 1% per year for the last 70 years in Europe and North America. And in the latter continent, a shit ton of arable land is unused.

    Your entire feminist diatribe demolished in one simple, effortless sentence. It’s a bad to day to be a pagan.

    • Replies: @Psed
  79. Corvinus says:
    @gabriel alberton

    On one hand, the activities of the industrial modern man have accelerated the human race’s potential demise due to avarice and greed in the name of “progress”. On the other hand, it has been those in the levers of power–political and business–who have rather than industrialization itself. Technology does not make us “lazy” or “apathetic”; rather, it is our personal decisions as to how we utilize those innovations. The fact of the matter is that we as a species have the tools and solutions to address those issues, it is just a matter of removing the barriers to solve the problems.

    Moreover, whites will survive like they have in the past. We certainly are not going to “do away with what made us unique”. Instead, we will continue to take what we have built through honest or dishonest means and push forward. Yes, the “Anglo-Germanic Europeans” of today are not like their ancestors, but that is other than surprising. It could be argued that this modern brand is more enlightened and thus capable of thriving despite the chaos of the world.

    I am always fascinated by these sort of threads that basically chide normies–the engine of America–for their failure to “properly breed” for the sake of our continuing civilization, that their repeated poor decisions will lead to the destruction of the white race.

  80. Kronos says:
    @allahu akbar

    Don’t forget all those credit card accounts you can make for every illegal who walks over the boarder.

  81. Kronos says:
    @Anon

    Lots of space, easy access to infrastructure, cheap housing.

    That’s the problem. The old demand higher housing prices to inflate the value of their existing homes. The young need cheaper/affordable housing to get into the housing market. So you have these two groups that are utterly opposed to one another and compromise is nearly impossible. To increase (or even maintain) housing prices you need to initiate full open boarders and all them to flood the housing market. Even if they’re cheap slums, that’ll raise the value of nice houses near by.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    , @dfordoom
  82. Poirot says:

    Just what the world needs: an endless supply of Obsolete Farm Equipment

  83. @Chrisnonymous

    John Plywood is my actual name in real life. It is an Anglicisation the Plwyd dynasty surname of Northern Wales, which I am a direct descendant of (via Lord Robert Plwyd, Jr. of Clwyd West).

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
  84. @Corvinus

    Moreover, whites will survive like they have in the past.

    Asserting that as if it’s a given is unwise. Picture yourself as a Roman somewhere in the (Western) Roman Empire in 400 AD assuring us that Romans will survive like they had in the past. Or as a Mohawk in 1600, certain that your tribe would prevail. They still exist, you’ll reply. But just look at them. Not the mention the peoples who have really vanished, although Northwestern European whites and their descendants might be too numerous for that to be likely to happen — for now.

    It could be argued that this modern brand is more enlightened and thus capable of thriving despite the chaos of the world.

    I argue there might be some wishful thinking in there. I don’t know. The future will tell for sure, but looking back into the past is not encouraging.

    I am always fascinated by these sort of threads that basically chide normies–the engine of America–for their failure to “properly breed” for the sake of our continuing civilization, that their repeated poor decisions will lead to the destruction of the white race.

    Do you have any examples of peoples with sub-replacement fertility (the “normies” in this case, and I’d focus on the white “normies” in particular) who survived after having other peoples with above-replacement fertility come into their nation? Or even of a people who survived despite having sub-replacement fertility for several generations? If you reply that “normies won’t have sub-replacement fertility forever” I want to know what makes you think so? I don’t see anything that makes me believe most of the white American “normies” will ever even reach replacement fertility again, let alone significantly above-replacement fertility.

    Again, I don’t know what’s to come. Unpredictable future events might make birth/fertility rates irrelevant, they might, just like artificial general intelligence might make humans themselves — European whites included — redundant at some point, and we’ll have transcended humanity, but have the scenarios I mentioned in the previous paragraph ever happened? What past experiences suggest will happen to white Americans?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  85. Malcolm Y says:

    The Han people of china won’t abide this. They are the most racist people; they want to be number one and believe they deserve to be number one. To defeat the melaninly gifted “people”, they will use genetically tailored bio weapons, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons and actually occupy africa and populate it with chinese – they own most of it now anyways. Recolonization.

  86. martin_2 says:

    Someone – it might have been on this website – once made the interesting point that the black American population has always been around 12%. A parasite “knows” not to increase too much in numbers or else it will kill its host and then also die. Could it be that 12% is the “carrying capacity”?If there are more than 12% blacks then white society will be overwhelmed and break down.

  87. Well, we know what the next superpower will be:

    The nation that engineers a baby boom like the US and other Western nations did from 1946 to 1973 and restricts African/black migration into their territory. Quantity + quality.

    As an aside, I always find it interesting these people will never advocate the policies that brought about the Baby Boom. I wonder why?

  88. @Anonymous

    So: Industrial civilization in all versions, Western, Russian, Chinese, is proving impossible to live in. The impossibility does not outright kill adults, it just makes the females of the species (Homo Sapiens) unable to breed at a replacement level.

    Anon, you’re overbaking the pudding here.

    Simple put:

    Industrialization is a huge change to the selective environment that reduces fertility. (It’s actually several changes–change out of ag life, household conveniences, medical care, birth control, female paid labor, entertainment, now social media and cell phones.)

    But if nations are left alone, it’s just like any other selective shock. They’ll be combinations of genes that allow people to thrive and reproduce … and those that don’t. Over several generations selection handles the shock and the humans (phenotype and genotype) that prosper and reproduce in the new environment win out.

    There’s nothing about industrialization that is “fatal”, or that is “impossible to live with”. (My kids grew up on this block with five contiguous families–3 (us), 4, 3, 2, 4, block TFR 3.2.) It’s simply a matter of time until the genes that can hack it in this new environment win out.

    What’s killing the West is that we have powerful elite forces who for various reasons–power, money, ethnic animosity, ideology–have pushed an agenda–minoritarianism, mass immigration, feminism, female careerism–that pushes down fertility while simultaneously importing a foreign population. For various reasons rooted in Christianity–traits which are actually quite positive within a nation–Western people are particularly susceptible to this attack.

    In East Asia the same fertility suppression from industrialization is in play. But mass immigration isn’t happening. So–assuming their elites don’t sell their people out–those nations will have population decline … but then stabilization or even renewed growth, as some of the negative population pressures (ex. housing costs) subside and the “breeder” genes and phenotypes increase in the population. That’s how this is “supposed” to work.

    In short: there is no existential crisis … from industrialization. There’s been a huge change to the selective environment and selection for the genotypes that “win” in that environment is ongoing.

    The crisis is a political-cultural-ideological one: the imposition of minoritarianism and mass immigration upon the West.

  89. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Akuleyev

    I’d like to see better data on this.

    Me, too. Failing that, take a look at:
    * G. Clark, _A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World_, The Princeton Economic History of the Western World_, 2009-01-18,
    * E. Dutton, _At Our Wits’ End: Why We’re Becoming Less Intelligent and What it Means for the Future _ and _How to Judge People by What They Look Like _, both on Amazon.com

    Clark describes in some detail what progenic selection was like in the UK back in the 1700s. It’s the sort of thing that makes you realize just what “having half the number of male ancestors as female ancestors” really meant way back when — half the men had no kids. A ” high income set having 3-4 children per couple, all of whom survive to adulthood” is nothing compared to the 12 or so kids produced by the rich back then, or the zero kids produced by the paupers. I should, of course, also point out that the standard score for reproductive success is number of grandchildren, since

    Dutton points out that Clark’s progenic selection stopped and went into reverse about when the Industrial Revolution starting raising standard of living. Dutton attributes that to increased genetic load. He cites the number of generations it takes pure bred domesticated mammals to accumulate disfiguring mutational load to show just how quickly mammalian strains can deteriorate with no culling or natural selection.

    Contrast Clark’s description with Duttons, and with the idea of a “career woman” who delays her life until, say, 32 before she says “To Hell with all this!” and starts considering babies. You can see that we get fewer offspring and of higher mutational load. Hyperbolically, descendents are few and crazy as bedbugs. Grandkids — fewer and crazier.

  90. Gabe Ruth says:
    @Anonymous

    A gold box comment of ever there was one.

    The other day one of my young daughters asked me what I wanted to be, and after a moment’s thought I told her I want to be a post-American warlord.

  91. @Kronos

    So you have these two groups that are utterly opposed to one another and compromise is nearly impossible.

    Oh please. Old people demanding that their house price goes up and up and up are not that drivers of *any* of this.

    Old people want their kids to be able to afford housing and start families so they get grandchildren.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  92. @JohnPlywood

    So what you’re saying is that your whole family going back to the guy who Anglicized your family name is obsessed with dick? And why did your family name you “john”? Named after your biological father, were you?

  93. Gabe Ruth says:
    @Corvinus

    Getting scared now, Corvinus white-pilling on behalf of the white man. Has the Twitter hack spread to Unz.com?

  94. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    But if nations are left alone, it’s just like any other selective shock. They’ll be combinations of genes that allow people to thrive and reproduce … and those that don’t. Over several generations selection handles the shock and the humans (phenotype and genotype) that prosper and reproduce in the new environment win out.

    Yes, that’s clear under Darwinian theory. You must remember, though, that evolution seeks local optima. There is no more reason to believe that industrialization selects for people that can preserve industrial society than there is that the candidate who is best at campaigning is best at running the country. That’s sort of Idiocracy’s theme.

    There are several examples in human history of societies that abandoned part or all of their tool set. The ancestors of the Australian Aborigines had boats and could fish; the present Aborigines cannot. However, the present Aborigines can sleep uncovered in the Outback and survive where the ancestors could not. Tool making, and the brain to support it, were traded for better physical adaptation. (Thre are several drivers I’m not mentioning for the sake of brevity.) The present Arctic population in N. America replaced an archaic population that apparently died out from genetic drift, and the present Arctic population is gradually losing its tool set, according to the anthropologists. The point is that human societies don’t need foreign invaders to perish.

    They don’t even need overwhelming natural challenges such as the Arctic. For an ancient example, consider Sparta after the Peloponnesian war (which Sparta’s alliance won). Within two genrations its had too few citizens to be viable — internal disputes about Sparta’s new wealth destroyed its ruling class, leaving it with an army too small to win. Over the next few generations, all of Greece suffered a depopulation as the rich pushed out the poor. If you want a modern example of societal failure without immigration, consider the USSR c.a. 1990.

    It is not proven that human societies are intrinsically stable, even in the absence of immigration and climate challenges.

    Note that I’m not saying we’re doomed (although I do think we’re going to reorganize very soon). I do, however, say that the question of exactly who is going to replace our society and us should be of much less interest than the question of how we can avoid getting replaced.

    I’ll end with a quote:

    God is not willing to do everything, and thus take away our free will and that share of glory which belongs to us.

    http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Prince2.html

  95. dfordoom says: • Website
    @AnotherDad

    Pro-natalist policy for replacement fertility

    The problem with pro-natalist policies for replacement fertility is that they don’t work. They might increase your TFR from 1.4 to 1.5. There is unfortunately almost certainly no way that an advanced modern civilisation is going to have replacement fertility. In an advanced modern civilisation the advantages of having really small families will always win out.

    Immigration won’t fix this in the long term and brings huge problems of its own.

    The wiser course is probably to accept that low fertility is here to stay for the foreseeable future and that population decline is inevitable. We need to find ways to adapt to population decline. Technology should make this possible.

    Plans to boost fertility rates are mostly wishful thinking. We are never going to be able to go back to the days when big families were the norm.

  96. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Kronos

    The old demand higher housing prices to inflate the value of their existing homes.

    Why? If you’re actually living in the house the only result of rising house prices is that you’ll pay higher property taxes. And higher insurance rates. Your point makes no sense.

    • Replies: @Kronos
  97. dfordoom says: • Website
    @AnotherDad

    and the “breeder” genes and phenotypes increase in the population.

    “Breeder” genes – more wishful thinking. Magic works.

  98. @AnotherDad

    Sorry, but you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Population shrinkage doesn’t magically equal cheaper housing costs. That’s not what’s happening in Japan, where real estate prices are overvalued as lenders get more deeply entrenched in real estate due to the shrinking number of debtors. Note also, banks, the cornerstone of advanced economies, are having to seek riskier investments in third world countries just to stay afloat. Meaning even if Japan doesn’t accept mass immigration (it already has and will), its banks are increasingly globalizing, putting native borrowers at risk.

    https://blogs.imf.org/2017/08/10/aging-japan-puts-a-strain-on-the-financial-system/

    A declining and aging population weighs on growth and interest rates. This puts pressure on profits of banks and insurance companies. Judging how these shifts affect financial firms was part of the IMF’s Financial Sector Assessment Program for Japan, the world’s third-largest economy. The program is a comprehensive and in-depth assessment of a country’s financial sector. It analyzes the resilience of the financial sector, the quality of the regulatory and supervisory framework, and the capacity to manage and resolve financial crises.

    Smaller banks that rely on lending to local markets are particularly vulnerable, since they face less demand from households and firms. Older households still need banking services for transaction purposes, which means that lending will likely fall much faster than deposits. As a result, over the next two decades some regional banks could see their loan-to-deposit ratios fall by 40 percentage points.

    In response to profitability problems, banks are also engaging in riskier forms of lending and investment as they search for yield. They have been making more real estate loans, helping to drive up housing prices in some areas despite overall population shrinkage. Condominium prices appear to be moderately overvalued in Tokyo, Osaka, and several outer regions. Banks have also been investing more in securities in countries where economic growth is faster than Japan’s.

    Life insurance companies are also facing increasing pressure. They have been putting more money into riskier overseas markets to get the yield needed to meet interest guarantees.

    The problem is that many banks and insurers still need to develop the capacity to manage the risks associated with these new types of investments.

    Consequently, stress tests suggest that market risks are increasing and that there are some vulnerabilities among regional and shinkin (cooperative) banks and life insurers. Although bank liquidity is generally ample, some of the regional banks are exposed to risks in foreign-currency funding.

    The population shrinkage will be an absolute disaster for everyone involved, okay? I mean that in the sense that you and your children are going to suffer immensely in the near future. Meaning, so bad you will contemplate suicide. No shrinking ethnicity will escape the civilizational entropy that is going to unfold. There’s no way at all you can invert this in to a win and there’s not going to be any rebound; it’s a black hole you can never escape from once pulled in far enough

  99. Anonymous[289] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Chlamydia is a prime cause of sterility, and very often is symptomless, or its symptoms are mild or can be confused with some other problem. IIRC, abut 10 percent of such infections presently result in sterility. It’s not beyond the possible that a race-specific super Chlamydia could be developed.

    Association of Chlamydia trachomatis Serovar Ia Infection With Black Race in a Sexually Transmitted Diseases Clinic
    https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=16614590

    Association of Genital Infection with Specific Chlamydia trachomatis Serovars and Race
    https://academic.oup.com/jid/article-abstract/166/6/1445/963860
    “Black race is an important risk marker for Chlamydia trachomatis genital infection…specific serovars may be associated with particular racial groups.”

  100. @Alden

    JP is just a random troll tbf

  101. Lot says:
    @Anonymous

    “ I think you and Lot tend to be blinkered a bit by ethnocentricism.”

    I am a white American. The decline of my coethnics is my central political issue.

    We do have much to learn and copy from my wackado cousins in Israel with their impressive fertility, but whatever the impressive per capita achievements of AJs, that’s still only a fraction of Western Civ.

    ““ A fertility rebound at some point over the century” would not have much effect in the context of decades of a non-African fertility crash, an African population boom, and an ideology promoting black migration and power worldwide.”

    2060+ could see a genetically engineered race popping out of artificial wombs with a stronger reproductive drive than we all have. Maybe not that long. Elon Musk’s last wife had IVF quintuplet boys. If they sex selected, I bet they embryo selected too.

  102. @Anonymous

    I read a book, “The Arabs,” by the L.A. Times’ correspondent in Cairo. He said that the old bourgeois told him Cairo used to be a more urbane place, but it got swamped by peasants from the countryside.

    In the upscale resort town of Bodrum, Turkey in 2009, women dressed like Jackie Kennedy in 1962, but in Istanbul there were a lot more face coverings and the like.

  103. I can never get over these projections that there are going to be three billion Africans.

    The continent can’t even feed itself now — and I doubt it can synthesize vaccines, anti-biotics, etc.

    Moreover, as the population leaps upwards, the environment of the continent is just going to degrade. Africa will become less able to feed itself, not more. After you’ve used all the bush for firewood, there won’t be any more bush meat, etc.

    So increasingly, the population are going to become welfare wards. There can only be three billion of them if somebody provides them with the necessaries.

    Why is it assumed the rest of us are going to devote ourselves to feeding them and caring for them? The population can only rise to three billion if we do just that.

  104. Cutler says:

    This African swamping of the world is not going to happen for a number of reasons, Firstly the longer the projection the more inaccurate it is also no one in the MSM seems to factor in food scarcity and security and it’s effects on fertility.
    With regards to Europe the growth of Nationalist politics is only just starting and will
    remake the discourse particularly on immigration for example in Germany once Afd get into a state govt people will see they have an effective approach to governing then that’s goodbye to the msm Nazi propaganda and the same applies everywhere Nationalist Populists are.
    Also automation will increase massively reducing the need for cheap labour mass immigration.
    And the US may no longer be united in years to come and could quite possibly break up which will impact it’s soft power.
    There are enormous political changes underway which are only just beginning to make themselves felt.

  105. IHTG says:
    @Anonymous

    “A fertility rebound at some point over the century” would not have much effect in the context of decades of a non-African fertility crash, an African population boom, and an ideology promoting black migration and power worldwide.

    If tens of millions of poor Africans actually cross the ocean and come to the United States then sure, all bets are off. I’m not sure this will happen, though. The immigration politics of the new multi-racial America might not be the same as they are today.

    I think you and Lot tend to be blinkered a bit by ethnocentricism. Because Israel is unique in being one of the few advanced countries with high fertility rates, and because certain religious Jewish subgroups outside of Israel have very high fertility rates, I think you tend to feel that there’s less of a problem.

    Well, perhaps it makes it easier for me to imagine a viable existence for white Americans as a minority population. Certainly a lot of dissidents in these parts say “We want to be like Israel”. By which they basically mean “We want the GOP to be the American Likud Party”. But perhaps what they should really be looking for is the American Shas Party.

  106. Kronos says:
    @dfordoom

    Think of those who purchased their homes/properties during the rock bottom prices in the 1970s and 1980s.

    The dramatic rise in real estate prices made any rise in property taxes and insurance acceptable. (If you resided in a low-tax State even more so.) US homes have been considered investment eggs for decades now. Certainly older home owners wouldn’t want their home values to collapse by $100,000 right? They have every economic incentive to peruse Government policies that raise their home value.

    https://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2018/05/american-real-estate-are-rents-or.html

    • Thanks: Mr Mox
    • Replies: @Jesse
  107. Jesse says:
    @Kronos

    That’s a great point. Remember, Dubya (may he rot in hell) promoted home ownership as an alternative to taking on landlords and actually promoting the welfare of renters.

    The promotion of home ownership by the middle and upper middle classes, is an alternative to actually providing a way of promoting the welfare of older people. No need to consider pensions and ask hard questions about how we’re keeping people existing for ever increasing spans of time. Nope, just trust in the All Hallowed Market, and assume that the equity will provide (this is the rights equivalent of a secular religion).

    And it also means you can quietly direct all efforts into protecting, say, the bottom third into promoting home ownership. The FIRE industries get de facto state support, and no one takes in the landlords.

    • Replies: @Kronos
  108. @Marko

    Whether or not they are called “Africans” is not the point. What is the direction of migration?

  109. Corvinus says:
    @gabriel alberton

    “Asserting that as if it’s a given is unwise. Picture yourself as a Roman somewhere in the (Western) Roman Empire in 400 AD assuring us that Romans will survive like they had in the past. Or as a Mohawk in 1600, certain that your tribe would prevail.”

    Romans and Mohawks were specific groups. I am referring to an entire race–whites.

    “Not the mention the peoples who have really vanished…”

    At the hands of Northwestern European whites 🙁

    “although Northwestern European whites and their descendants might be too numerous for that to be likely to happen — for now.”

    You changed the goalposts. I said whites will survive. Northwestern European whites, well, how many people in this particular group generally refer to themselves in that exact term?

    “Do you have any examples of peoples with sub-replacement fertility…”

    Normies are generally not concerned about “sub-replacement fertility”* or “above-replacement fertility”*. It’s not as if men or women are asking themselves these questions on a first date. Rather, white people date and mate with whom they believe is the best match for them individually in several categories. There are other more pressing issues in our lives. That is why it is fascinating to me when posters here appear to the obsessed with these concepts*.

    • Replies: @gabriel alberton
  110. @Corvinus

    Romans and Mohawks were specific groups. I am referring to an entire race–whites.

    So, because whites are more numerous, you think they’re immune to dissappearing? Like I said, they’re less likely to completely vanish, but that’s very much possible. Is there some fundamental difference because they’re a race?

    At the hands of Northwestern European whites

    Races wiping others off the Earth was a thing long before Northwestern Europe was inhabited by modern Homo sapiens. One instance was the modern African Homo sapiens expanding out of Africa and in the process making another race of Homo sapiens, known as Neanderthals, extinct, first in the Levant, then in in all of Asia and Europe. That Neanderthals were a race did not save them from complete extinction, unless you count the single digit percentage points that live on in Europeans, Asians, as well as the fraction of a percentage point that live on in black Africans.

    You changed the goalposts. I said whites will survive. Northwestern European whites, well, how many people in this particular group generally refer to themselves in that exact term?

    No whites might survive at all. That’s a possibility. Northwestern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Southern Europeans, Southeastern Europeans and their descendants. They might virtually dissappear in a few centuries. It’s not likely, but it can absolutely happen, and at least an order of magnitude more likely to happen than, for example, a Chicxulub-like impactor wiping all races of Homo sapiens off the Earth — as, like I said, you don’t need to go 65 million years back in time to find human races being completely annhilated by other races.

    Normies are generally not concerned about “sub-replacement fertility”* or “above-replacement fertility”*. It’s not as if men or women are asking themselves these questions on a first date.

    Too bad for them. Reality comes at you hard.

    Rather, white people date and mate with whom they believe is the best match for them individually in several categories. There are other more pressing issues in our lives. That is why it is fascinating to me when posters here appear to the obsessed with these concepts*.

    New position: spokesmanperson for white people
    One thing I foresee, and not just among whites but specially among them, is fertility rates falling quickly in 2021, in good part due to the pandemic and everything that it brought us besides the yellow flu itself. I could be wrong and that might not happen, but I believe it will, and then no positive thinking will save a people with an average of one child per woman or below (that might already be the case in Seoul). The only way will be rising that rate or coming up with some revolutionary transhuman technology. And I don’t see that happening. We shall see.

    I noticed you did not address whether you have any evidence that fertility rates will ever rise above replacement levels for whites, let alone for “normie” whites. So I’ll assume you don’t have any. You also didn’t address what history tells us that happens with people, or really any living organism that’s not potentially immortal like the hydra or the tardigrades, who do not reproduce at above replacement rate. You know what happens, it’s simple extinction, but you don’t mention it for whatever reason.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  111. @Icy Blast

    What is “SSA”?

    An acronym for the portion of land South of the Sahara known as Sub-Saharan Africa, in this context being a metonymy for the inhabitants that part of the world, as well as their descendants (“honestly think SSA will save Christendom”).

  112. Anonymous[296] • Disclaimer says:

  113. Psed says:
    @JohnPlywood

    The cultists of Neo-Malthusianism will never, ever admit that they might be wrong.

  114. @Bardon Kaldian

    Africa will be Xinjiang writ large.

    BK–i agree with you that Africans are not going to “take over the world” via babies.

    As the West declines via minoritarian insanity, China rises. Sub-saharan Africans have basically zero economic value in the modern world, but Africa itself is useful real estate. Post-West there really is no restraint on China in dealing with the African mess however they like.

    However, it may not just be that Africa that will be Xinjiang writ large.

    With a declined, joke West what exactly is to stop the China from engineering a virus that wipes out say everyone without EDAR?

    If whites/Caucasians want to survive, we’re going to need strong, intact nations.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
  115. @S. Africanus

    If Neanderthals had blogs, their comments section would sound like you whiny lot. Yet, it didn’t stop them by replaced by African immigrants. Population replacement of the West by Africans is inevitable. No way to stop it…

    LOL.

    Never has there been a greater mismatch in capability between those to be invaded and the would be invaders, than there is between the West and Africans. (In normal circumstances no people–not even Africans–would be so stupid as to even try invasion, with such capability gap.)

    Far from “no way to stop it”, the West could stop it by lifting its pinky–0.1% of its GDP would absolutely crush it.

    All that’s required is will.

    • Agree: Rob McX
  116. Corvinus says:
    @gabriel alberton

    “So, because whites are more numerous, you think they’re immune to dissappearing?”

    What I think is that this notion that the white race will eventually become extinct, i.e. completely vanish or disappear, is nonsense.

    “Races wiping others off the Earth was a thing long before Northwestern Europe was inhabited by modern Homo sapiens.”

    Competing races AND ethnic groups.

    “That Neanderthals were a race…”

    Species, not race.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/10/genetics-history-race-neanderthal-rutherford/

    “No whites might survive at all. That’s a possibility. Northwestern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Southern Europeans, Southeastern Europeans and their descendants. They might virtually dissappear in a few centuries.”

    Again, normies have bigger fish to fry.

    “I noticed you did not address whether you have any evidence that fertility rates will ever rise above replacement levels for whites, let alone for “normie” whites.”

    Assuming that this evidence is important and that this trend is something that normies ought to pay close attention to.

    “You know what happens, it’s simple extinction, but you don’t mention it for whatever reason.”

    I don’t mention it because the white race itself is not going extinct or is on the path of extinction. The human race, which includes all races? That may be a different question…

    • Replies: @gabriel alberton
  117. Corvinus says:
    @AnotherDad

    “What’s killing the West is that we have powerful elite forces who for various reasons–power, money, ethnic animosity, ideology–have pushed an agenda–minoritarianism, mass immigration, feminism, female careerism–that pushes down fertility while simultaneously importing a foreign population.”

    Once again, you overstate and overgeneralize this group of people dedicated to “killing the West”. But I do find it fascinating that some posters still cling on to this antiquated notions.

    • Replies: @gabriel alberton
  118. @Corvinus

    Whether white “normies” should care that they might be heading towards the path of extinction is something else altogether. You can argue they should not care, and I can agree. Maybe it’s in their nature annihilating themselves, it’s a done deal, nothing to do about it, enjoy it while it lasts. That’s acceptable and makes sense (though it could be rather depressing if one’s a white “normie”, but that’s my view). However, you clearly said they cannot possibly be heading towards extinction through their actions:

    What I think is that this notion that the white race will eventually become extinct, i.e. completely vanish or disappear, is nonsense.

    It is not nonsense, as we know entire races in the past have disappeared, as well as entire species. Speaking of:

    “That Neanderthals were a race…”

    Species, not race.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/10/genetics-history-race-neanderthal-rutherford/

    You linked a National Geographic piece that argues there is no such thing as race right in the title. Regardless whether that’s true or not — it’s another whole can of worms — if you agree with what’s written there, it’s nonsense for you to talk about a “white race”. Do note you were the one that first called whites a race in this discussion, not me:

    “Asserting that as if it’s a given is unwise. Picture yourself as a Roman somewhere in the (Western) Roman Empire in 400 AD assuring us that Romans will survive like they had in the past. Or as a Mohawk in 1600, certain that your tribe would prevail.”

    Romans and Mohawks were specific groups. I am referring to an entire race–whites.

    So at best you’re being inconsistent.

    As to Neanderthals being another species, they were also Homo sapiens like us and are often classified taxonomically as such (I should properly italicize the species’ name). That’s not an unanimous view, but it’s known they bred with humans and positively had many fertile offspring, something that’s not commonly seen happening between different species in the wild, but rather between subspecies.

    Ultimately, one can say there’s no such thing as a species, and they might be right. You want to go down that rabbit hole? I will gladly (not being sarcastic) put forward arguments that a lot of concepts we take to be real really aren’t, such as race and species in biology, down to forces and time in physics. I have time. Whoops…

    In your last paragraph you imply the human race might be going towards extinction (something that’s entirely plausible and I think might be true) yet whites, or the white race as you call them, are not. Whites are a subset of the human race, as you pointed out. If the set that includes that subset is going towards extinction, so is the subset. That’s logical and obvious, yet you imply that’s not the case. It’s you who are stating nonsense, not me.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  119. Kronos says:
    @Jesse

    Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were politically locked in a tiny box to maneuver on real estate. The solution to just intentionally retard credit ratings and down-payments was the path of least resistance.

    One of the biggest real estate issues of the early 1990s was affordable housing for minorities (especially in urban areas.) Real estate prices were getting supercharged and those that didn’t purchase homes before were being left behind.

    Now, the Australian government will provide cheap easy-to-pay loans to new homeowners to decrease risk of default and preserve the system. The US cannot engage in such an activity due to one very troublesome demographic: blacks.



    In terms of crime statistics, unemployment statistics, and out-of-wedlock childbirths, blacks will scare off any middle class neighbors and destroy your community and home equity in a short period of time. It sounds messed up, but the US Congress is afraid of giving out generous Covid-19 stimulus relief to citizens in dire economic straights. Because that relief means everyone gets a piece as required by civil rights law. An unexpected $5000 Treasury check with no strings attached will likely lead to multiple inner-city crime sprees that hasn’t been seen since the 1980s with drugs, guns, and a lot of death.

    Traditionally, high real estate prices are an effective means of keeping the riff-raff out of nice places. Low-IQ blacks don’t often have high paying jobs to afford the nice housing. Yet, this method is legal. Long story short, Black political pressure allowed banks to remove down-payments and credit history from the home loan application process. This is what allowed these two “dude-bro” mortgage brokers to allow broke people to obtain bad loans on homes.

    This was economically stupid but politically ingenious to get blacks and everyone else on board. Rich whites didn’t need to be taxed to stabilize black home ownership so blacks could move into white neighborhoods and destroy those preexisting home values. Blacks would default before they established a good foothold. The larger consequences were never truly thought out or discussed because race (genetics of IQ) is such a thorny US issue.

  120. @Corvinus

    The commenter who goes by the alias “Corvinus” peddles nonsense: he attemps to employ arguments made by those who reject the very concept of race to support his unsupported belief that whites will not go extinct because, as he (Corvinus) clearly states, whites are a race, not a species like the extinct Neanderthals. Nevermind that the article he links does not, at all, side with the view species or subspecies or races cannot go extinct.

    He does not offer any evidence to support his views that the white race is not heading towards extinction, he just states that it isn’t and it seems we’re supposed to agree with him. He states unambigously that whites are not going to be extinct, even though there’s evidence of human, proto-human, non-human and liberal species, subspecies, races, and ethnic groups completely vanishing from the Earth in the past. It’s possible he thinks they went to the Moon, or to a warped version of Deimos floating above Hell, or to Gliese 581g, and still survive there, but I have little hope that, if he believes so, he’ll present any convincing argument.

    In the absence of any foundation for his beliefs, he just states that, even if “normies” (his term) are going full-speed towards their doom (which they aren’t — after all, he said they aren’t, and we apparently should trust him on that, because), it’s not something the “normies” should be concerned with. Therefore evidently utterly destroying mine and others’ view that whites might not last the way things are going.

    He implies that the human race, to which whites belong (according to himself) might go extinct; taking the human race as a set, the white race (again, that’s the term he uses) is a subset of it, and if the “human race” set is heading towards extinction, so must the “white race” subset, yet he rejects that conclusion and suggests that only the “human race” set might become extinct. Logic does not appear to be his forte, or maybe he foresees whites still existing in Robin Hanson’s “em” form even as humans as we know them are no more, or perhaps he fundamentally disagrees with Cantor’s set theory and sides with Kronecker and Poincaré in their criticism of it, but I think that’s somewhat unlikely.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  121. Corvinus says:
    @gabriel alberton

    “Maybe it’s in their nature annihilating themselves, it’s a done deal, nothing to do about it, enjoy it while it lasts”.

    Merely for a collective lack of concern for replacement level birth rates? No. White normies are dating and mating, just not at your preferred level. There is no death wish on our part.

    “You linked a National Geographic piece that argues there is no such thing as race right in the title…”

    Regardless, Neanderthals are a species, not a race.

    “Do note you were the one that first called whites a race in this discussion, not me”

    Indeed. Race is linked to biology; ethnicity is linked to culture. Race is a biological and social construct. Ethnicity is a social construct. Ethnicity is the term for the culture of people in a given geographic region, including their language, heritage, religion and customs. To be a member of an ethnic group is to conform to some or all of those practices. In a nutshell, race refers to a group of people who possess similar and distinct physical characteristics, while ethnicity refers to a category of people who regard themselves to be different from other groups based on common ancestral, cultural, national, and social experience.

    Furthermore, natural science consists of mental constructs, created with the objective of explaining sensory experience of our world. Human beings affix labels to make sense of our environment. For example, the California spotted owl is an animal, i.e. biological construct. The scientific name of the creature is a human designation—strix occidentalis. That is, binomial nomenclature refers to a formal system, developed by people, to name species. The California owl was not a “California owl” until someone actually and specifically labeled it.

    Men and women had sought, and continue to seek, to explain sensory experience of our world. Thus, we affix labels to make sense of our environment. Race, biology, ethnicity–all are concepts created by human beings as an organizational tool to offer a consistency about the natural world in which they observe. “Canis” refers to a real thing, but human beings designated that term—canis, which means “dog” in Latin, and also refers to their prominent teeth used for killing their prey. Dogs (like cats) did not magically appear as those animals automatically to human beings. People described the characteristics in a manner that made sense to them by developing criteria to differentiate the species in their natural habitats.

    Breeds are manufactured through selective breeding (artificial selection). A Boston terrier is an explicitly defined animal: the AKC ultimately decides which dog meets the criteria. I am probably stating the obvious here, but geographic isolation, and natural or sexual selection, have resulted in some alleles in human beings being more frequent in some groups compared to human beings, and ancestry determines the distribution of some genes. As far as I know, the major genetic clusters consisted of Europeans/West Asians (whites), sub-Saharan Africans, East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans with a discrepancy rate of only 0.14%. It also seems to me that this debate over race as a biological construct–I happen to believe that race is both a biological and social construct–originated in the desire to establish the genetic inferiority of some races compared to others.

    “In your last paragraph you imply the human race might be going towards extinction (something that’s entirely plausible and I think might be true) yet whites, or the white race as you call them, are not. Whites are a subset of the human race, as you pointed out. If the set that includes that subset is going towards extinction, so is the subset.”

    Indeed, whites are part of that subset. And the collective actions by all the subsets involved (e.g. pollution, habitat destruction, greed, overconsumption) are the factors that may lead to the potential extinction of the human race. As far as sub-replacement levels for white births, no, that is not a cause from my perspective within their subset.

    • Replies: @gabriel alberton
  122. Corvinus says:
    @gabriel alberton

    “Whites are a race, not a species like the extinct Neanderthals”.

    Yes, I stated whites are a race and that Neanderthals are a species. What YOU chose to do is create a statement that I did not make.

    “Nevermind that the article he links does not, at all, side with the view species or subspecies or races cannot go extinct.”

    I never made that claim. I said whites are not on this path of extinction merely because they are at sub-replacement levels, that this notion is the end all and be all to ensure their vitality.

    “He does not offer any evidence to support his views that the white race is not heading towards extinction”.

    There are approximately 1 billion people who are able to trace their ancestry to Europe. The number is derived from Europe and North America, although Latin America has a large white population. Now, do you include people of North African and Middle Eastern descent? How about people who are 7/8 white? How about 5/8 white? If you only count Northern Europeans that are at least 7/8 white you get about 450 million people. If you count any Europeans, North Africans, or Middle Easterners, you get close to 1.7 billion. Just Europeans and you get 1 billion. It becomes complicated rather quickly. Suffice to say, whites are doing well overall.

    “He states unambigously that whites are not going to be extinct, even though there’s evidence of human, proto-human, non-human and liberal species, subspecies, races, and ethnic groups completely vanishing from the Earth in the past”.

    As a collective, our species is potentially on this path. But as far as the white race in and of itself, no, I am not of that mentality.

    “In the absence of any foundation for his beliefs, he just states that, even if “normies” (his term) are going full-speed towards their doom…”

    An assumption on your part.

    “Therefore evidently utterly destroying mine and others’ view that whites might not last the way things are going”.

    “He implies that the human race, to which whites belong (according to himself) might go extinct; taking the human race as a set, the white race (again, that’s the term he uses) is a subset of it, and if **the “human race” set is heading towards extinction, so must the “white race” subset, yet he rejects that conclusion…”**

    No, I did NOT reject that conclusion.**

    • Replies: @gabriel alberton
  123. @Corvinus

    Merely for a collective lack of concern for replacement level birth rates? No. White normies are dating and mating, just not at your preferred level. There is no death wish on our part.

    It’s not my preferred level: over two children per woman is the minimum necessary to maintain a population, because old people eventually die, and there are more boys born than girls, and both boys and girls might die before reaching reproductive age, or simply not sire any offspring themselves despite living to adulthood for various reasons. That’s called the replacement fertility rate: it’s not something I made up. You know that it’s not simply my preferred level, it’s simple mathematic.

    If on average a female (regardless if it’s a human, chimpanzee, rhinoceros, bullfrog — if the species has the female have the offspring and it’s not a potentially immortal organism, it works all the same), the population will decline, as the next generation will have less individuals than the one preceding it. If the species, subspecies, race or ethnic group doesn’t eventually go back to the replacement rate of over two offspring per female — offspring that must at least survive to adulthood — it will eventually become extinct, unless they reach immortality.

    No explicit death wish on the part of whites is required. If they do not eventually reach replacement level, their numbers will decline until they vanish. Nature doesn’t care why that might come to be. It’ll simply happen.

    Therefore, in order to avoid extinction, you must argue that whites will eventually reproduce at replacement levels once again. And there you must provide evidence. In the United States, in particular, the fertility rate of whites in particular has been falling year after year. “Every year I look at data and expect it will be the year that birthrates start to tick up, and every year we hit another all-time low”. Once again: that’s not simply my opinion, or my preferred number of children whites should be having. Whites are not having enough children to replace themselves, and they’re being consistent on that — more consistent than you’ve been throughout this discussion.

    “You linked a National Geographic piece that argues there is no such thing as race right in the title…”

    There’s no definite consensus Neanderthals are a separate species right now. Ernst Mayr included in his definition of species reproductive isolation, yet there is strong evidence that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred and had fertile offspring. It wasn’t known until recently just how much different modern human groups are descended from them. Now that’s being quantified, and as more is known, the less definite any statement like yours is. As Svante Paabo — who led research on the subject — said, that might be impossible to settle for the time being.

    Indeed. Race is linked to biology; ethnicity is linked to culture. Race is a biological and social construct.

    In a nutshell, race refers to a group of people who possess similar and distinct physical characteristics

    It also seems to me that this debate over race as a biological construct–I happen to believe that race is both a biological and social construct–originated in the desire to establish the genetic inferiority of some races compared to others.

    If you’re going by scientific consensus, race doesn’t exist biologically. That one’s settled, more settled than Neanderthals being a different species from us. Ask most geneticists, most biologists, and possibly any anthropologist. They’ll instantly agree that race is completely — not partially, not mostly, but completely — a social construct, and is not linked to biology or to distinct physical characteristics like you claim. They’re wrong, of course, and it’s easy to show how and why they’re wrong, but that’s the consensus.

    Indeed, whites are part of that subset. And the collective actions by all the subsets involved (e.g. pollution, habitat destruction, greed, overconsumption) are the factors that may lead to the potential extinction of the human race. As far as sub-replacement levels for white births, no, that is not a cause from my perspective within their subset.

    What do all of those factors have in common? In other words, how do those collective actions would lead to the extinction of humans? Unless that extinction is brought about by something quick, something that takes less than a few years to happen and resolve (and thus much less than a human generation), like full-scale nuclear war or a Chicxulub-like impact (which you didn’t mention), the road to oblivion is through sub-replacement fertility rates.
    Pollution, habitat destruction, “greed” (a capital sin, but not a thing that has wiped out that many species or ethnic groups), overconsumption — those happen slowly, over many years or even decades, enough to span more than a human generation, and indeed they might eventually make humans consistently no longer capable of having enough offspring to replace themselves. That’s the killer: sub-replacement fertility rates that cannot be reversed, resulting in an extinction vortex.

    Yes, I stated whites are a race and that Neanderthals are a species. What YOU chose to do is create a statement that I did not make.

    You stated more than once there is no possibility whites are not headed towards extinction. You did not provide any evidence. I said Neanderthals, who you and others consider to be a separate species distinct from modern humans, went extinct, so to show entire human groups can go extinct. You replied they’re a different species. That doesn’t support your argument at all. If an entire human species can go extinct, so can a subspecies, so can a race, so can an ethnic group. And it happened many times throughout human history, something you did not dispute.

    I said whites are not on this path of extinction merely because they are at sub-replacement levels, that this notion is the end all and be all to ensure their vitality.

    Like I said before: an species, a subspecies, a race, an ethnic group almost always goes extinct through consistently maintaining sub-replacement fertility rates. It’s how it happens. That’s not my opinion: it’s an F extinction vortex potentially starts. “Demographic factors that are involved in extinction vortices include reduced fecundity, changes in dispersal patterns, and decreased population density.”

    There are approximately 1 billion people who are able to trace their ancestry to Europe. The number is derived from Europe and North America, although Latin America has a large white population. Now, do you include people of North African and Middle Eastern descent? How about people who are 7/8 white? How about 5/8 white? If you only count Northern Europeans that are at least 7/8 white you get about 450 million people. If you count any Europeans, North Africans, or Middle Easterners, you get close to 1.7 billion. Just Europeans and you get 1 billion. It becomes complicated rather quickly. Suffice to say, whites are doing well overall.

    Whites could be of any population size. If their fertility rate not only is below replacement but consistently falls year after year in the US, they’ll be no more.
    As to whites doing well overall:

    Do you dispute the information in this picture?

    As a collective, our species is potentially on this path. But as far as the white race in and of itself, no, I am not of that mentality.

    So you believe a population of 8 billion can go under because of pollution, habitat destruction, and other means that slowly make a group die off due to sub-replacement level fertility rates that do not rebound, but a population of 1 billion cannot. I’m repeating myself: whites are at sub-replacement rates for no clear reason, yet they are, consistently so, and if there they stay, they will be gone. You need to provide evidence there will be a rebound, that’s all you need to counter my argument. And after so many words, you haven’t done so. My evidence they’ll go extinct is based on mathematics. You haven’t provided evidence of any kind for your belief, mathematical or otherwise.

    “In the absence of any foundation for his beliefs, he just states that, even if “normies” (his term) are going full-speed towards their doom…”

    Not an assumption. In a previous post, I said that

    “No whites might survive at all. That’s a possibility. Northwestern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Southern Europeans, Southeastern Europeans and their descendants. They might virtually dissappear in a few centuries.”

    You didn’t challenge that. Instead, you simply replied that

    Again, normies have bigger fish to fry.

    I further pointed out that

    “I noticed you did not address whether you have any evidence that fertility rates will ever rise above replacement levels for whites, let alone for “normie” whites.”

    And you replied that

    Assuming that this evidence is important and that this trend is something that normies ought to pay close attention to.

    You provided no counter evidence. Rather, you claimed that a population consistently having sub-replacement fertility (as US whites have for many years now, according to publicly available demographic data) is unimportant. Having more deaths than births now, and without any evidence things will soon change in the opposite direction: small fish to fry for white “normies”.

    “He implies that the human race, to which whites belong (according to himself) might go extinct; taking the human race as a set, the white race (again, that’s the term he uses) is a subset of it, and if **the “human race” set is heading towards extinction, so must the “white race” subset, yet he rejects that conclusion…”**

    No, I did NOT reject that conclusion.**

    Yes, you did, and in the same post you said you did not. Once again, your words:

    As a collective, [you believe] our species is potentially on this path. But as far as the white race in and of itself, no, I am not of that mentality.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  124. @Corvinus

    Merely for a collective lack of concern for replacement level birth rates? No. White normies are dating and mating, just not at your preferred level. There is no death wish on our part.

    It’s not “[my] preferred level”: over two children per woman is the minimum necessary to maintain a population, because old people eventually die, and there are more boys born than girls, and both boys and girls might die before reaching reproductive age, or simply not sire any offspring themselves despite living to adulthood for various reasons. That’s called the replacement fertility rate: it’s not something I made up. You know that it’s not simply my preferred level, it’s simple mathematics.

    [MORE]
    [MORE]

    If on average a female (regardless if it’s a human, chimpanzee, rhinoceros, bullfrog — if the species has the female have the offspring and it’s not a potentially immortal organism, it works all the same), the population will decline, as the next generation will have less individuals than the one preceding it. If the species, subspecies, race or ethnic group doesn’t eventually go back to the replacement rate of over two offspring per female — offspring that must at least survive to adulthood — it will eventually become extinct, unless they reach immortality.

    No explicit death wish on the part of whites is required. If they do not eventually reach replacement level, their numbers will decline until they vanish. Nature doesn’t care why that might come to be. It’ll simply happen.

    Therefore, in order to avoid extinction, you must argue that whites will eventually reproduce at replacement levels once again. And there you must provide evidence. In the United States, in particular, the fertility rate of whites in particular has been falling year after year. “Every year I look at data and expect it will be the year that birthrates start to tick up, and every year we hit another all-time low”. Once again: that’s not simply my opinion, or my preferred number of children whites should be having. Whites are not having enough children to replace themselves, and they’re being consistent on that — more consistent than you’ve been throughout this discussion.

    “You linked a National Geographic piece that argues there is no such thing as race right in the title…”

    Regardless, Neanderthals are a species, not a race.

    There’s no definite consensus Neanderthals are a separate species right now. Ernst Mayr included in his definition of species reproductive isolation, yet there is strong evidence that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred and had fertile offspring. It wasn’t known until recently just how much different modern human groups are descended from them. Now that’s being quantified, and as more is known, the less definite any statement like yours is. As Svante Paabo — who led research on the subject — said, that might be impossible to settle for the time being.

    Indeed. Race is linked to biology; ethnicity is linked to culture. Race is a biological and social construct.

    In a nutshell, race refers to a group of people who possess similar and distinct physical characteristics

    It also seems to me that this debate over race as a biological construct–I happen to believe that race is both a biological and social construct–originated in the desire to establish the genetic inferiority of some races compared to others.

    If you’re going by scientific consensus, race doesn’t exist biologically. That one’s settled, more settled than Neanderthals being a different species from us. Ask most geneticists, most biologists, and possibly any anthropologist. They’ll instantly agree that race is completely — not partially, not mostly, but completely — a social construct, and is not linked to biology or to distinct physical characteristics like you claim. They’re wrong, of course, and it’s easy to show how and why they’re wrong, but that’s the consensus.

    Indeed, whites are part of that subset. And the collective actions by all the subsets involved (e.g. pollution, habitat destruction, greed, overconsumption) are the factors that may lead to the potential extinction of the human race. As far as sub-replacement levels for white births, no, that is not a cause from my perspective within their subset.

    What do all of those factors have in common? In other words, how do those collective actions would lead to the extinction of humans? Unless that extinction is brought about by something quick, something that takes less than a few years to happen and resolve (and thus much less than a human generation), like full-scale nuclear war or a Chicxulub-like impact (which you didn’t mention), the road to oblivion is through sub-replacement fertility rates.
    Pollution, habitat destruction, “greed” (a capital sin, but not a thing that has wiped out that many species or ethnic groups), overconsumption — those happen slowly, over many years or even decades, enough to span more than a human generation, and indeed they might eventually make humans consistently no longer capable of having enough offspring to replace themselves. That’s the killer: sub-replacement fertility rates that cannot be reversed, resulting in an extinction vortex.

    Yes, I stated whites are a race and that Neanderthals are a species. What YOU chose to do is create a statement that I did not make.

    You stated more than once there is no possibility whites are not headed towards extinction. You did not provide any evidence. I said Neanderthals, who you and others consider to be a separate species distinct from modern humans, went extinct, so to show entire human groups can go extinct. You replied they’re a different species. That doesn’t support your argument at all. If an entire human species can go extinct, so can a subspecies, so can a race, so can an ethnic group. And it happened many times throughout human history, something you did not dispute.

    I said whites are not on this path of extinction merely because they are at sub-replacement levels, that this notion is the end all and be all to ensure their vitality.

    Like I said before: an species, a subspecies, a race, an ethnic group almost always goes extinct through consistently maintaining sub-replacement fertility rates. It’s how it happens. That’s not my opinion: it’s an F extinction vortex potentially starts. ”Demographic factors that are involved in extinction vortices include reduced fecundity, changes in dispersal patterns, and decreased population density.”

    There are approximately 1 billion people who are able to trace their ancestry to Europe. The number is derived from Europe and North America, although Latin America has a large white population. Now, do you include people of North African and Middle Eastern descent? How about people who are 7/8 white? How about 5/8 white? If you only count Northern Europeans that are at least 7/8 white you get about 450 million people. If you count any Europeans, North Africans, or Middle Easterners, you get close to 1.7 billion. Just Europeans and you get 1 billion. It becomes complicated rather quickly. Suffice to say, whites are doing well overall.

    Whites could be of any population size. If their fertility rate not only is below replacement but consistently falls year after year in the US, they’ll be no more.
    As to whites doing well overall:

    Do you dispute the information in this picture?

    As a collective, our species is potentially on this path. But as far as the white race in and of itself, no, I am not of that mentality.

    So you believe a population of 8 billion can go under because of pollution, habitat destruction, and other means that slowly make a group die off due to sub-replacement level fertility rates that do not rebound, but a population of 1 billion cannot. I’m repeating myself: whites are at sub-replacement rates for no clear reason, yet they are, consistently so, and if there they stay, they will be gone. You need to provide evidence there will be a rebound, that’s all you need to counter my argument. And after so many words, you haven’t done so. My evidence they’ll go extinct is based on mathematics. You haven’t provided evidence of any kind for your belief, mathematical or otherwise.

    “In the absence of any foundation for his beliefs, he just states that, even if “normies” (his term) are going full-speed towards their doom…”

    Not an assumption. In a previous post, I said that

    “No whites might survive at all. That’s a possibility. Northwestern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Southern Europeans, Southeastern Europeans and their descendants. They might virtually dissappear in a few centuries.”

    You didn’t challenge that. Instead, you simply replied that

    Again, normies have bigger fish to fry.

    I further pointed out that

    “I noticed you did not address whether you have any evidence that fertility rates will ever rise above replacement levels for whites, let alone for “normie” whites.”

    And you replied that

    Assuming that this evidence is important and that this trend is something that normies ought to pay close attention to.

    You provided no counter evidence. Rather, you claimed that a population consistently having sub-replacement fertility (as US whites have for many years now, according to publicly available demographic data) is unimportant. Having more deaths than births now, and without any evidence things will soon change in the opposite direction: small fish to fry for white “normies”.

    “He implies that the human race, to which whites belong (according to himself) might go extinct; taking the human race as a set, the white race (again, that’s the term he uses) is a subset of it, and if **the “human race” set is heading towards extinction, so must the “white race” subset, yet he rejects that conclusion…”**

    No, I did NOT reject that conclusion.**

    Yes, you did, and in the same post you said you did not. Once again, your words:

    As a collective, [you believe] our species is potentially on this path. But as far as the white race in and of itself, no, I am not of that mentality.

  125. Corvinus says:
    @gabriel alberton

    “It’s not my preferred level: over two children per woman is the minimum necessary to maintain a population…”

    It is your preferred level for WHITES, a subset of our species referred to as humans.

    “If the species, subspecies, race or ethnic group doesn’t eventually go back to the replacement rate of over two offspring per female — offspring that must at least survive to adulthood — it will eventually become extinct…”

    The human race overall has met that replacement rate. Whites, in their already large numbers as I stated, are not becoming extinct nor are they in immediate danger of becoming extinct. Given changing global economic patterns and the fact that communities with access to adequate health care, reproductive freedom, and high standards of living tend to have fewer children and higher life expectancy, the demography of certain geographic areas is bound to change. The projected size of this shift is a subject of great debate among demographers. Suffice it to say that the groups currently considered to be white will not cease to exist and are certainly not victims of impending genocide.

    “There’s no definite consensus Neanderthals are a separate species right now.”

    OK, but they are not a race of people.

    “I said Neanderthals, who you and others consider to be a separate species distinct from modern humans…”

    That is NOT what I stated. The evidence is that they ARE a species.

    https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/are-neanderthals-same-species-as-us.html

    https://www.nbcnews.com/science/weird-science/were-neanderthals-separate-species-scientists-say-yes-nose-n252031

    “Therefore, in order to avoid extinction, you must argue that whites will eventually reproduce at replacement levels once again”.

    IF being white is a major part of your personal identity, and you fear “your people” are facing an existential threat, indeed, it is entirely possible that no defensive measure would sound too extreme. But white normies have other issues which they believe are more important than something that is not looming on the immediate horizon.

    Exposing whites to the idea of impending doom, i.e. a dramatic white population decline in the not so distant future, leads to a higher level of collective existential threat, which leads to more racial bias, and thus policy preferences to ensure that whites remain “on top” due to the “loss of status” in the future. Now, if you believe in this “threat”, then do your part to have more children and convince other whites to do likewise. Furthermore, if you believe “racial mixing” weakens the fabric of our society and poses an imminent threat to the stability of white, Western nations and the world as a whole, then also feel free to tout this philosophy. White normies will make their own decisions about race and culture and are not going to fall victim to fear mongering. There is more to our current life than “the mathematical models say whites will become extinct”.

    “If you’re going by scientific consensus, race doesn’t exist biologically.”

    I would argue that race exists “biologically” as the races are prone to different diseases. We know that certain diseases are more prevalent in some populations identified as races due to their common ancestry. So from this standpoint, race is helpful for understanding differences in disease and response to drugs. But biological differences between “races” might be less important determinants of disease than variations in economic and social conditions.

    “the road to oblivion is through sub-replacement fertility rates.”

    That is one way to look at it. But the collective actions as I indicated are a surefire way to destroy the human race in its entirety. So long as we as a species have replacement fertility rates, we will chug along.

    “So you believe a population of 8 billion can go under because of pollution, habitat destruction, and other means that slowly make a group die off due to sub-replacement level fertility rates that do not rebound, but a population of 1 billion cannot.”

    I believe a population of 8 billion could go under because of those factors that SLOWLY degenerates or QUICKLY accelerates our demise as a species.

  126. The human race overall has met that replacement rate. Whites, in their already large numbers as I stated, are not becoming extinct nor are they in immediate danger of becoming extinct.

    You’re right: it’s not something that will happen immediately. Obvious fact is obvious. It will likely take centuries to fully go through (that’s less time than it seems). If white “normies” take that to be a problem (and that’s up to them, their actions deciding their future), it’s best to start doing something about it right now. Then again, like I hypothetized, gravitating towards extinction might be inherent to whites. I believe it might be, sure seems to, but I might be mistaken. Maybe it’s something in the water that only affects whites, for all I know.

    IF being white is a major part of your personal identity, and you fear “your people” are facing an existential threat, indeed, it is entirely possible that no defensive measure would sound too extreme. But white normies have other issues which they believe are more important than something that is not looming on the immediate horizon.

    Exposing whites to the idea of impending doom, i.e. a dramatic white population decline in the not so distant future, leads to a higher level of collective existential threat, which leads to more racial bias, and thus policy preferences to ensure that whites remain “on top” due to the “loss of status” in the future. Now, if you believe in this “threat”, then do your part to have more children and convince other whites to do likewise. Furthermore, if you believe “racial mixing” weakens the fabric of our society and poses an imminent threat to the stability of white, Western nations and the world as a whole, then also feel free to tout this philosophy.

    Indeed, that’s a matter of opinion. Whether white “normies” deserve to prevail, whether they should make it a part of their personal identity to try to reproduce above replacement level, whether they are even capable of taking such extreme measures if they wanted to, given their nature — I don’t know. We disagree whether or not their course of action will lead to their extinction, but we agree that it’s up to them to decide to do something about it.

    In time: I’m not a white American or even Western “normie”, (despite being likely of mostly Southern European descent), and although I’m very interested in white Europeans and their descendants (particularly the Northwestern ones) for what they have accomplished and will lament their passing (which is likely inevitable, in my view), I won’t attempt to save them from their fate against their will. I’ll state what is factual or not about the matter, like how having virtually at most two children per family, if that, is going to be very bad for their long term future as a people, but if they have bigger fish to fry, like you said, so be it. They’ll face the consequences of such way of thinking, and I can only hope the rest of us can learn a thing or two from what’s to come.

    I would argue that race exists “biologically” as the races are prone to different diseases. We know that certain diseases are more prevalent in some populations identified as races due to their common ancestry. So from this standpoint, race is helpful for understanding differences in disease and response to drugs. But biological differences between “races” might be less important determinants of disease than variations in economic and social conditions.

    Well, I believe I understand at least one of the reasons you (like most others in this site) comment under a pseudonym: again like most commenters here you believe race is not only a thing but might be even be a helpful thing in some contexts, and for some purposes, and is at least partially related to biological, physical, palpable traits that differ between people of distinct races, as all of this is already unspeakable in good company the United States of July 2020, and possibly even in no company. But I could be wrong. (In that you might have other reasons; not inquiring about them)

  127. anon729 says:

    The number of Africans with genotypic IQs above the European average is at about 100 million today. Taking account of the Flynn effect and population growth, the number of Africans with IQs at or above the European average will be around 250 million people, or 10% of Africans, by 2060. People here seem to easily dismiss the theory that Europe will need to import labor from Africa, I would not dismiss it so cavalierly. As Africa’s population grows larger, so does the number of Africans at or above the 100 IQ mark. It would not surprise me to find that by 2100 there will be more Africans with IQs at or above above 100 than there are Europeans with similar scores.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings