Well said by Mr. Auster. Each of his points is entirely consistent with our history and our Constitution. The burden of proving otherwise is on those who would continue our present suicidal course. I challenge ANYONE to explain why any of Mr. Auster’s points are unreasonable, unnecessary, or unrealistic.

And if anyone believes that the Mohammedan presence here is so important that it is worth the risk of terrorism, let him say so plainly and explain himself clearly.

Hear, hear. I only wish there was one, just one stinking politician somewhere in North America with the guts to advocate such a policy.

Larry Auster is correct in everything he says. However, there is one element which he — and others — always leave out of the immigration debate. Immigration into the US probably IS necessary. Virtually all white countries have a negative (or zero) population growth. The US is an exception ONLY because of immigration. Is SOME immigration necessary? I’m not an expert, but it probably is. Even if, without immigration, the US would have a stable population, it would clearly be an AGEING population, with the working-age proportion constantly shrinking, with too few to support any kind of ‘welfare’ for the growning eldery population. If it is true that we therefore DO need ‘new blood’, where is it to come from? It is true that the US could no doubt attract many white immigrants from Europe, and would be doing so were it not for the change in immigration laws in the 60s. But this is a zero-sum game: our gain would be Europe’s loss, since there are only so many whites to go around.

And that leads to what I think is the core of the issue — and rarely discussed (except, quite openly and with derisive contempt, by La Raza and the like): whites are simply not reproducing in sufficient numbers to replenish their populations. There are no two ways about this: if whites WERE reproducing sufficiently, there would be no NEED for immigration, and most likely, we would be both willing and able to control it. That this is not strictly a ‘white’ problem, but perhaps a problem of affluence, is shown by the fact that Japan faces the same difficulties (not of immigration — which of course they do not allow — but of an ageing and shrinking population), and I do not think that ‘robotization’ can be a long-term solution. Population control (‘family planning’) seems to have the inherent feature of being very hard to control: either there’s none (and you get too many people) or people go overboard (and there’s too few people).

Of course all of this has a great deal to do with Feminism and The Pill, giving women complete control over their reproduction, but putting the genie back in the bottle is probably impossible.

Eugene Valberg

Mr. Valberg’s post is completely wrong. The birth control pill doesn’t force the limitation of the size of families to “below the population’s replacement level.” It allows couples to plan their pregnancies. The number they plan on depends on factors other than the pill, obviously.

What’s driving down birth rates across the white world is an array anti-natalist government policies both deliberate and inadvertant — mainly it’s high taxes, but there are many others — which could be undone in about five minutes.

Women’s lib, for one, doesn’t want them undone because the lesbians who run it want women all for themselves with men out of the picture, a hope that gets dashed when the notion of women having husbands who make babies for them enters. Big Business and Industry don’t want them undone because they make way more money from the importation of non-white scab-labor than from employing (relatively high-wage) white people — so, why wish for more white people? Marxists don’t want them undone because they loathe the white race which keeps getting in the way of their worldwide take-over — the LAST thing they want is more whites. Country-Club Republicans don’t want them undone because with one eye they’re watching their ballooning stock-market profits generated by the replacement of white workers and professionals with Mexicans and Hindus and with the other preening in front of the mirror at how unracist they are to wish so ardently for the day when their own race will no longer exist — I mean, just THINK of how many “Unracism” points they get with the local Mainstream Protestant minister for wishing the disappearance of THEIR OWN RACE — it BOGGLES THE MIND, how unracist they’re being!!! It’s a virtual GUARANTEE of entry into heaven later!!!

This post is too long — I’ll stop. Suffice it to say, tax policy and other government policies can be very easily adjusted so as to permit the white birth rate to rise in every country in which it is now being forcibly held down.

(Paul Cella has posted a log entry touching on a portion of this subject:

http://www.cellasreview.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_cellasreview_archive.html#107160447965223809
)
P.S.: Let’s PUH-LEEZE do away with calling low birth rates “low fertility.” There’s nothing medically wrong with white women’s fertility. (And there’s nothing wrong with their birth-rates that a population of white men devoted to marriage, morality, common sense, and resisting left-liberal government mischief couldn’t fix in about five minutes — or, couldn’t fix in about nine months.)

Welcome to Mr. Valberg, an American who resides in and is very knowledgeable about Africa.

I would say that the low birth rate that arguably makes a high rate of immigration necessary is a symptom of the same civilizational crisis that has made us lose our normal defenses against alien cultures and peoples; and that is, the loss of transcendence, the loss of belief in God, resulting in the devolution of society into a collection of desiring, right-bearing individuals whose only belief is the equal freedom of all human persons. Such a society will lose traditional morality, and will start marrying less and having less children, just as it will lose a sense of the higher truth of its _own culture_, and so give up its normal defenses against _other_ cultures.

Therefore, the spiritual reformation that is needed to restore a sense of our cultural identity vis a vis other cultures, is the same spiritual reformation that is needed restore tradtional morality, traditional family values, and a sustainable birth rate.

Remember also that immigration itself is a major factor in reducing native birthrate. All kinds of job niches that once would have seemed acceptable to natives become unacceptable when they are taken over by immigrant groups, and thus produces a downward pressure on native fertility. A historical example is the drop of America’s then exceptionally high native birth birth around the time that immigration first increased to significant levels in the 1840s. See pp. 17-18 of my pamphlet Huddled Clichés.

To Unadorned, I don’t think “fertility” is only a medical term. In discussions of population growth, it is a synonym for birth rate, that is, for the average number of children produced by each woman in a population.

I agree with the points Mr. Auster made, which I feel dovetail with a portion of what I was trying to say, above. In regard to low native birth rates, excessive incompatible immigration is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Mr. Valberg should see that in this and other respects the whole thing is circular. Birth rates are being held down by policies which can be changed, some of them quite easily. In other words, they’re being held down because certain interests want them held down.

That’s exactly right. The government is passing laws to discourage whites from having kids. First, you know if you have a kid he or she will probably end up in a school where the celebrate gayness and do not let white kids recognize God or Christianity or even call Christmas “Christmas” anymore. But you better believe that you can celebrate Kwaanze or Hannuka or any other Islamic or foriegn religion. And then when your kid want’s to go to college well he had better have better grades than everyone because affirmative action in education lets “minorites” with lower grades in first. And then when the kid manages to get through college well they will have a hell of a time finding employment anywhere due to affirmative action in employment. There are government “set asides” everywhere. And if your kid isn’t a genius and just wants to get a normal job somewhere well he had better turn gay and learn spanish and start celebrating Kwaanze or the Southern Poverty Center will say he or she is full of hate and hit him with a lawsuit.

It would be a mistake to minimize Mr. Valberg’s point about the pill, in my view. Artificial contraception and the habits and attitudes that underly it are significant drivers of the problem. Mr. Auster is right of course that these habits and attitudes derive from the loss of transcendence. If a woman’s body is just an immanent piece of property that she can do with as she will for her own purposes, rather than a divinely ordained tabernacle of new life - a tabernacle of which she is merely a steward - then the game is already over.

The choice for the West in general and the white race in particular is between complete, unequivocal repentance or death. Nothing less will do.

Well! I didn’t look at this thread the last time I was at the computer, but it’s a question I have a special interest in. In fact, the related phenomena of below replacement fertility (a word which is indeed, as Mr. Auster pointed out, used differently in demography than in medicine) and differential dygenic fertility are the primare crises of modern civilization. Certainly the pill can be used responsibly by individual couples, and contraceptive technology may (let’s pray) save the world from the grand-daddy of all Malthusian episodes which have occurred off and on on a regional basis throughout agrarian history, but it’s effect on advanced civilizations appears disastrous. This is true in proud, ethnocentric populations like the Japanese, Greeks, and secular Jews as much as in deracinated west European populations. Those who think this trend can be easily reversed are indulging in wishful thinking. Japan and several European countries have actively tried to raise birthrates above replacement level without success. Fascist Spain tried very hard, but, like Nazi Germany, only succeeded in speeding up the rate at which women completed their childbearing, not at having the average woman increase her TFR (Total Fertility Rate, measured in average births per woman). Romania under Ceauceau is the only country that, temporarily at least, raised their TFR above replacement, but he did it by banning contraception and abortion, a decision which would not survive in any developed country today (nor did it continue for long in Communist Rumania).

Above replacement fertility appears to be the norm only in strict religious sects, such as the Amish, Hutterites, observant (“Orthodox”) Jews, and Mormons. The State cannot simply pass a law or sign an executive order and successfully turn us into a theocracy. Oh, yes, one other group has well above replacement fertility, in spite of spending much of their adult lives out of the reproductive race—criminals. Perhaps this partly explains the 20th century’s rising crime rates.

Look at the problem this way: if the average woman want’s to have a little over 2 children (I have read it is between 2 and 3, and replacement level fertility is 2.1 to 2.2), modern birth control enables almost all the women who want 1 or no children to achieve their goal, which a significant percentage of the women who desire 2, 3, or 4 children (very few women want more than 4 anymore) will fail to achieve their reproductive goals for reasons beyond their control. One time I looked up the offspring of US presidents, and while those born in the 18th children often had large families, a few of them had none—presumably their wives (or perhaps themselves) simply had fertility problems. So modern science allows women to avoid reproduction more effectively than it improves their opportunity and ability to reproduce. This is not a problem with a simple solution. Due to the combination of below replacement fertility and differential and dysgenic fertility, it may yet spell the extinction of European man and eventually an across the board decline in civilization around the world. I fully expect Europe, for which waged 2 world wars and a cold war, to be an Islamic state or group of states (depending on whether the EU holds together) in a couple of centuries, while Census Bureau forecasts indicate the US will have a Christian but Mestizo Hispanic majority by the end of this century. Yes, I believe that demography is destiny. We may still be beating our rivals in economic and military competition, but we’re losing what Teddy Roosevelt called the “warfare of the cradle.” The greatest crisis of all, yet it’s not even a public issue.

Hope I haven’t gone on too long. I wish someone would invent a word counter.

Ceauceau should be spelled Ceauseceau. Sorry I didn’t proofread before posting.

Birth rates can be, and are, not only controlled, but fine-tuned, by government policy — exactly as inflation is. Just as low and high inflation rates are the result of nothing other than government policy, so are low and high birth rates. (Being of the opinion that the original introduction of the word “fertility” into these discussions by demographers was a mistake on their part, I don’t use it, preferring “birth rate.” Calling low birth rates “low fertility” leads to confusion among lay people [and, who knows, perhaps subconsciously among some demographers as well?] and risks giving the impression of a medical problem that cannot be helped.) The Japanese government isn’t trying to increase the birth rate: with a population equal to something like half that of the U.S. crammed into a space the size of California, they feel the numbers need to come down more before it’ll be time to intervene with pro-natality policies. When the power élites here are raking in tons of $$$ from the repacement of white workers and employees with non-whites, small wonder if they aren’t exactly leaning on the federal government (if you can call what we have a “government” — and that’s a very big IF) to intervene so as to stabilize the white population. Rest assured that only a little tinkering would be needed with federal policy in a small handful of domains to see the white birth rate take off like a rocket. The white birth rate is not dwindling spontaneously so much as it is being suppressed.

So what is the solution? Most likely a revolution with enormous non-lethal sacrifice by the usual small number of dedicated dissidents. A leader is the missing ingredient at present.

Maybe that leader is my soft-spoken, energetic graduate Rhodes scholar congressman, David Vitter, who just announced he is running for the U.S. Senate after the surprise resignation of Democrat John Breaux. David is a member of the House Immigration Reform Caucus; not many of those in the Senate, if any. I just sent him the contribution he requested. I walked for and contributed to him when every single politician in the state endorsed the former Republican governor. I can recall election night when a reporter announced David’s surprising victory in a district I walked in extensively during some of the hottest weather that occurs in America. There really is no other way. Don’t listen to the “nattering nabobs of negativism.”

Mr. Skinner writes:
“Certainly the pill can be used responsibly by individual couples, and contraceptive technology may (let’s pray) save the world from the grand-daddy of all Malthusian episodes which have occurred off and on on a regional basis throughout agrarian history,…”

I disagree, and certainly this has never actually occurred. Malthusian consequences occur whenever human beings violate the simple adage “if you can’t have children for some reason, then don’t have sex”. That adage derives directly from the notion that our bodies are not our property to do with as we will. The idea that our bodies are our property comes from the loss of transcendence.

There is no halfway compromise that allows you to keep some of your supposed sexual liberties and your civilization at the same time. They are mutually exclusive in the long run, and the long run has arrived. Chastity (not to be confused with abstinence) is not optional. Even married people who can’t have children at a certain time in their life ought to respond to that need by abstaining from sex. No exceptions.

I think Matt is right is his analysis, or, if I may put it this way, in his dialectical assay of the problem.

But what we need is a rhetorical component. We need to develop a language and an idiom capable in some way of challenging men, of calling them home to the faith and morals of their fathers. We need to begin the instruction of Americans in the traditions of their nation. We must become again the Virtuous People.

This rhetorical component was illustrated in a blog entry by Jeff Culbreath* some months ago, which I quote in full here:

Here’s something you can tell your sons.

The girl you plan to marry is drop-dead gorgeous. She’s also a virtuous girl who is sweet, kind, and thoughtful of others. Her intelligence is apparent to all, and her many talents will be of great benefit to your household. While she is neither frivolous nor flighty, she enjoys life and has a wonderful sense of humor. Most importantly, she loves children, and she promises to be a loving and devoted mother. She obviously loves you very much, and I hope and pray that she fills your life with happiness.

But consider what marriage really is. You are promising to love and cherish one woman, not only for the present, but for the indefinite future until you are parted by death. You don’t know what the future holds. Your wife’s natural beauty may one day be robbed by accident or fire, leaving you to adore a horribly scarred face for forty more years. Her ability to be sexually intimate with you could be ruined by illness or disease: thus, your marriage vows might well include a lifelong vow of celibacy. She may go blind or deaf at an early age. She may have her breasts removed to save her from cancer. Her personality may be devastated by drugs or alcoholism, and she may end up hating you. She may experience depression or mental illness. She may be unfaithful. She may walk out on you, and she may never come back. She may — heaven forbid — abuse or neglect your children.

And your job? Your job is to love, pray, and suffer for her. Your job is to forgive her seventy-times-seven. Your job is to avoid any thought of being free and finding another. Your job is to keep your vows unflinchingly. Your job is to be there for her when she needs you, when she hates you, when she ignores you, when she doesn’t know you are there, when she loves you again — at any cost except that of your own soul and those souls in your charge (an important caveat). Your job is to love her as Christ loved the Church. Your job is to be a man. There are no exceptions._

Now that, friends, is a challenge.

* (I am aware the Mr. Culbreath and Mr. Auster have had some sharp disputes, but that is neither here nor there with respect to my point)

According to a front page article in USAToday this past summer, college educated American women are moving to a 3 child family as a norm. Workfare, combined with illegitimacy (86%), and an economically “hollow” black middle class, has reduced the middle class black birth rate to 1.34 children per mother, tied with the Jews for lowest birth rate among all U.S. ethnicities, and approximately 1/3 below replacement rate. Let me define my usage of the word “hollow”. A factoid that made the rounds in the media a few years ago concerned the fact that a majority of college educated blacks worked for government. A look at U.S.News and World Report’s annual college ranking issue shows a startling number of all black schools with an average entering freshman S.A.T. in the 600’s, so that’s hardly a suprise. My many middle class black neighbors here in a racially mixed suburban New England town almost always have nice houses with well kept lawns, and something like a Volvo wagon and a T-bird in the driveway. They’re out manicuring the lawn and washing the Volvo all summer long, while their white neighbors are going off on vacation, sailing, trap shooting, or going down to New York for a weekend of shopping and Broadway shows. Why? Because the mortgage and car payments take their combined salaries at D.O.T. or State Welfare, and they can’t afford anything else. If either is disabled or they divorce, they lose everything. Two child families are rare, one child the norm. Conversely, local whites, usually employed in manufacturing, rarely have less than two children, with three and four increasingly common. Why not do one simple thing to encourage the trend? Give every family an annual tax free wage rebate, per child, equal to 5% of their gross income above $20,000 per year. It would not be an incentive to the poor and slow witted, as their income above $20,000 per year is minimal. A $110,000 per year accountant and his wife would recieve $22,500 tax free for a family of five, equal to approximately $35,000 in pretax total wages and benefits, enough to justify the wife’s staying home and being a full time mother. Imagine, kids being raised with full time human input, rather than T.V. and computers as baby sitters. What a concept!