At first glance our demographic future doesn’t look good. Here’s a hopeful trend:
The reasons for this must be manifold. Perhaps it’s because liberal women are ugly. Maybe it’s because population density has a negative association with fertility. Maybe it’s because liberal women are ugly. It could be because liberals are less likely to get married. Or it possibly just boils down to the fact that liberal women are ugly. Who can say?
Jokes and explanations aside, this effect is pretty profound, and it gives us a much better outlook than if we only take the racial data into account.
Besides the obvious- that our electorate may stop its general leftward shift thanks to higher conservative birthrates- we see a more hopeful picture for the future of Whites in America. Importantly, there may be White American populations which breed above replacement rate.
Conservative women have 2.08 children on average, and unless there are some populations of highly conservative and fecund Blacks or Hispanics, this must mean that conservative Whites in particular are having a lot of kids. Using party ID as an estimate for the proportion of conservatives who are Black or Hispanic, and assuming that conservative Blacks and Hispanics have around the same birthrates as their respective racial averages, the number of kids per conservative White woman doesn’t really change; this estimate pegs it at 2.09.
This means that White liberals should have abysmally low fertility rates. This helps us. Even Blacks, well known within the US for their fecundity, are below replacement rate, and the Hispanic fertility rate is also falling to below replacement.
Ultimately, much of it should come down to where people live. Cities have been population sinks, everywhere you find them, for a long time- perhaps even since the first cities were built in Mesopotamia. The urban populations are below fertility rate and are gradually replaced by rural people who move to these cities. (One lesson to learn from this is don’t move to a big city.) Juxtapose this trend with the fact that, in the US, 80% of Whites live outside of inner cities, but around 70% of minorities do live in or near the inner cities.
Another fortunate detail is that these fertile White conservatives are also less likely to race-mix, which of course keeps their trait values high for things like IQ.
I’m imagining White rural populations boiling over into the cities, where the blood of Blacks, Hispanics, White liberals, and so on is mixed and then progressively cut with more White blood over time. Three ingredients are needed for this to take place:
- We must pursue policies that increase the already-higher fertility of people living in suburbs and farms and so forth. I actually think that Trump’s childcare plan is a step in the right direction because it cuts taxes for parents instead of sending them money; this means that it disproportionately benefits tax payers.
- We must pursue policies that increase population density in cities. Doing so under the guise of combating urban sprawl makes sense.
- We must pursue policies that keep nonwhites in these cities.
2 and 3 can overlap substantially; “two birds, one stone” is more elegant than it sounds. My solution is to engage in aggressive urban planning. Create decent quality, low rent, high density apartments in these cities. They’ll be where lower IQ people can afford to live, particularly if we can strip affirmative action and college entrance biases.
Of course, other measures must be taken. We would want to build the Wall, deport all illegals, retain Roe v Wade, and reduce welfare benefits (worth a shot). If we get our jobs back we can build low-fertility communities next to where we put the jobs; with reduced welfare benefits and possibly a smaller black market economy (thanks to the Wall and perhaps racial profiling) there could be even more financial incentive to go where the jobs are than there is now.
It could be possible to Make America White Again- to what degree of success I don’t know, but we can take steps. I wonder if similar things may have happened in the past.
I believe that if we line up our geographical and economic stars just so, we can improve our situation going forward. The next thing to do is to create a list of policies that are likely to achieve these specific effects, campaign for them independent of one another and, when possible, do so without rousing accusations of racism. If you campaign for low cost, high density housing for example, you can say that you’re combating urban sprawl, and nobody will know that you’re actually doing a demography scheme.
I don’t know if White genocide was a deliberate plan in the beginning, although I can say with a high degree of confidence that genocide is what motivates Barbara Spectre and others like her. What they didn’t do was to simply kill everyone they didn’t like; far from it, they attempted to slip their scheme under the radar, lying about the demographic implications of the Hart-Celler act for example. It worked. The same can be done in reverse, and I consider this solution more likely to happen, more humane, less expensive, and less messy than deporting, sterilizing, or killing millions of people. At a minimum, these soft-segregation policies will reduce the negative impacts of having these people around. A further advantage to this plan is that we can get started on it today.
That’s just America, though. I believe that Europe has a different path, likely a race war and subsequent mass deportations.
For more unorthodox discussion on philosophy, politics, biology, anthropology, and general tomfoolery from an unapologetic White American perspective, check out our YouTube channel, and if you want to know what we’re like when we’re cranky, check out our Twitter feed.