5,856 words

The 2023 nationalist activist MVP of the year, Keith Woods, recently wrote an article on society and its ideal size and scale. It’s a very good article. Drawing from thinkers such as Aristotle, Rousseau, and Leopold Kohr, Woods — in a studious and methodical manner — showcases the argument in favor of societies and systems of government which maintain a small population. He is primarily, almost exclusively, concerned with the governance of society. I would have liked it if Woods had expounded on how the size of a society affects the health of the populace, the natural environment, jobs, and housing, as well as the relationships amongst citizens. This is not a criticism of Woods. He wrote the article he wanted to write. I’ve never approved of those who criticize something because it wasn’t done exactly the way they would have done it.

As Keith shows in his article, population size has been a subject of much attention and debate for centuries. In recent times, we have seen the matter become the centerpiece of immigration policy, economics, and conspiracy theory. While some advise that we in the West must continue to import hundreds of thousands of foreign peoples into our countries because our birth rates are too low, others encourage us to have fewer or even no children at all in order to save the planet. While some accuse “the elites” of carrying out a covert depopulation scheme, others point with a trembling figure at the projections of exploding populations across the Third World. While many public figures celebrate the “childfree life,” others practically shout that we need to be making more babies. It’s all become rather messy and tiresome, to be frank.

So before proceeding any further, let us first dismantle some of these claims as much as possible.

The Satanic Cabal Wants to Wipe Out Humanity!

I don’t mean to insult conspiracy researchers. My use of the term “conspiracy researchers” rather than “conspiracy theorists” is a sign of deference made intentionally. I am well aware of the stigma associated with the latter term. Nevertheless, I cannot do much more than dismiss completely the idea that “the elites” want to depopulate the planet. There is evidence of a persistent drive to reduce the number of European people and replace them with non-European people, but evidence of a sinister plan to reduce the numbers of all people on Earth is lacking. If “the elites” do have a depopulation agenda, they’ve been going about implementing it very badly.

The majority of “mainstream” anti-globalist personalities who clamor about the “Satanic cabal” and its misanthropy lack either the courage or the intelligence to see and speak about the observable fact that the number of white people is decreasing, especially relative to the numbers of non-white people. In Asia and Africa in particular, the population goes ever up and up, largely thanks to the efforts of the very same “Satanic cabal” that Alex Jones and company tell us are trying to exterminate all human life.

Alex Jones and those equally too cowardly or too dumb to see that the real depopulation is of European stock will proclaim that the dodgy COVID-19 vaccines are proof that “the elites” are devising new ways to reduce the population. However, we can observe that this doesn’t seem to be the case. The vast majority of Africans did not get vaccinated against COVID. In fact, the COVID vaccines were essentially withheld from Africa, and the Western countries whence came the vaccines were accused of hoarding them. So if the COVID-19 vaccines were a depopulation tool, once again we see that the “Satanic Cabal” failed to utilize their tool where controlling rising populations is actually necessary. That’s not to say that these vaccines have not caused adverse reactions and the deaths of many people, nor am I ruling out the possibility that the vaccines might be part of the planned depopulation of white people, but the way the administration of the vaccines played out indicates that they were not intended to depopulate the entire planet.

“Ah!” says Alex Jones’ number one fan. “What about all the vaccine trials and medical experiments conducted in the Third World on human guinea pigs?” Yes, indeed, what about them? Those experiments display two perhaps concurrent possibilities. One is that “the elites” are not much different from their colonial ancestors, despite all their blustering against racism and colonialism, and are happy to exploit “lesser people” for their own gain. The second is that “the elites” don’t conduct medical experiments in the Third World because they want to kill Third Worlders. Like many a liberal, “the elites” of the liberal world order are in fact latent white supremacists who believe that it is their duty to elevate the lower races to higher planes of existence. What are the experiments intended for? Presumably, the eradication of deadly illnesses. Deadly illnesses are rather prominent in the Third World, making it the ideal location to try to treat and eliminate them. For every Third World child who was harmed or even killed by a test-run medical treatment, there are countless more whose lives have been saved.

I am therefore demoting those who claim there is a global depopulation agenda from honorable “conspiracy researchers” to counterproductive and embarrassing “conspiracy theorists.”

Line On Graph, Go Up!

So if there isn’t a secret scheme to bring down the number of all humans living on the planet, what is really going on? Far from drawing up plans to bring down populations, “the elite” seem rather keen on increasing populations, or at least non-white populations.

All over the world, and particularly in the West, the refrain sung by almost every politician, pundit, Ivy League professor, and economist (the real elite, not Hollywood wine-aunts) is that we need to find ways to boost populations. The preferred method for accomplishing this? Importing more people into your country, of course.

The examples are countless. Let us start with the co-founder of the liberal website Vox, Matthew Yglesias. His magnum opus is a book entitled One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger. Yglesias’ solution to reigniting the American engine and ensuring that the United States maintains the top spot on the podium is to throw open the country’s front door, back door, and doggy door and let in hundreds of millions of people, presumably people with names like Yglesias. He is the kind of person who sees the immense landscapes in states like Wyoming and Montana and thinks, “This place needs a couple million Hondurans. For the economy!” His idea of a United States filled with one billion people was not met with derision. In fact, it seems to be a vision shared by the West’s entire political class. From Europe, to Canada, to Australia, to the US, the trends show anything but a depopulation agenda. The Western political class is relentlessly stuffing our countries with as many people as possible.

Why? There are several reasons, but for people such as Yglesias the main thing that matters is THE ECONOMY. Apparently, at a time when more and more jobs risk being automated and performed by machines or artificial intelligence, the key to having a robust and productive modern country is to cram as many brown people inside of it as possible. Because Western folk aren’t having enough babies, and the ones they do have take too long to grow up and become “productive members of society,” Western nation-states need to make up the numbers by importing mainly non-Western people by the hundreds of thousands, in some cases even millions. Take for example the worst “far Right fascist” ever to exist, Giorgia Meloni. In a total betrayal of her promises not only to reduce immigration into Italy but also to establish naval blockades in order to stop the non-governmental organizations’ (NGOs) migrant boats, Meloni has signed off on a plan to bring in 425,000 non-European Union migrants to “fill gaps in the labor market.” This measure has been taken time and time again, therefore we know from experience that these 425,000 workers will bring their family members — and they will almost definitely stay permanently. In effect, Meloni, the “anti-immigration,” “far Right” “nationalist” is going to open Italy’s gates to around a million non-Europeans.

This constant influx of people, we are so often told, provides us with the doctors who will do our surgeries, the engineers who will build and maintain our infrastructure, the bright minds who will come up with the next great invention, the caretakers who will nurse our aging population, the young adults who will pay our pensions, as well as their family members, who will become part of the consumer economy. It’s worth asking: If these immigrants are so brilliant and industrious, why can’t they make their own countries prosperous and innovative? I remember the days when one of the talking points of the liberal Left was that “you can’t run a country like a company.” That idea appears to have died. Now, both the Right and the Left see countries as nothing more than a gross domestic product line graph, and that line must always be rising.

I don’t want to spend too much time providing more examples of this mentality and policy. If you are reading this, you are probably well-aware that both the “Left” and the “Right” frequently use the same economic arguments for justifying immigration into our lands. What I will say is that, just like the notion that the “elites” are trying to wipe out billions of people, the notion that importing countless Somalis and Afghans and Haitians is an economic boon is utter nonsense. Only recently, a new study in The Netherlands revealed that immigration has cost that country 17 billion euros annually, and could cost 600 billion over the next 20 years. Similar data can be found in studies from Denmark.

It turns out, the kind of “immigrant” makes a lot of difference. Non-Western immigrants are a net drain. Western immigrants are the ones who actually make a positive contribution to the society they’ve moved into, whether temporarily or long-term.

But it is not just in the West where we see the political class and their bootlickers in the media pushing the lie that mass immigration keeps our economies humming along. It seems the lands of the rising sun are likewise keen to follow the West’s lead and commit seppuku by demographic destruction. Japan is allowing in more and more immigrants, and all across the world the chattering classes are applauding this supposedly necessary action because it’s the only solution to Japan’s low total fertility rate. South Korea is taking the same action for the same reason. It’s not only liberals and neoconservatives who welcome this. “Christian nationalist” and popular figure on the “dissident Right,” E. Michael Jones, embraces the idea that the best way to make up for low birth rates is to replace the population with a different one, one that is ready to buy stuff and do pointless jobs such as Deliveroo bike-rider.

Elon Musk has become perhaps the loudest mainstream champion for big families and pushing up fertility rates. He often cites Japan and Korea as countries which are “experiencing population collapse,” which will “cease to exist” and which therefore need immigrants to stave off demographic doom. Far be it from me to disagree with a rich, influential, and obviously smart man, but . . . is that actually true?

The Birth Rates are Falling! The Birth Rates are Falling!

Whenever I see people talking about population collapse, I am always quick to check the numbers. Let us stick with Japan. Again, Elon Musk has stated that Japan will “cease to exist,” and its low fertility rate will be to blame.

And yet, there have never been more Japanese people alive now than at any time in history. The same can also be said of Europeans. The population of Europe has been on a steady incline since the 1600s. Now, in the twenty-first century, the population of Europe is starting to plateau.

That the population of Japan has fallen by a few hundred thousand is concerning, sure. That the birth rates of so many Western European countries are below replacement level — that is, couples are having fewer than 2.1 children — is concerning. These things are concerning for reasons which we will assess momentarily. However, two things must be said. Firstly, just as the term “genocide” gets thrown about willy nilly, “population collapse” is another melodramatic term that is good for making eye-catching headlines or high-impression X posts, but it is not a descriptor of what is happening. Secondly, that the solution to these concerning fertility rates is simply to jam-pack countries such as Japan, Ireland, Italy, and so on with millions of foreigners is maniacal and downright evil. It’s the sort of idea that could only be devised and implemented in a world totally captured by the lowest of all castes: the merchant caste.

When it comes to the population problem, it strikes me that many people are acting like a billionaire entrepreneur who’s been told that one of his business ventures has failed, and now he’ll just have to make do living as a multi-millionaire. I’m sure it’s beyond all doubt that a decreasing population will have economic consequences, but if the standard economic model is based on constant, never-ending population growth, perhaps the more serious problem is not total fertility rates. It’s the standard economic model. Speaking as a member of the first generation alleged to be worse off than their parents, I’ve not enjoyed much of the economic bounty promised by a relentless stream of immigration. I have witnessed the utter disfigurement of places that were dear to my heart. I’ll take an economic dip over the annihilation of my race and its homelands every single time.

Another reason that I have seen some politicians and public thinkers give for an ever-increasing population invokes competition on the geopolitical stage. The idea is that nations with small populations won’t be able to compete with the abundance of Elite Human Capital to be found in nations which number in the hundreds of millions. This strikes me as rather odd. The population of England, for example, was never more than ten million before the year 1800, yet by the year 1800 this small island nation had already spread across the world, conquered huge swathes of new lands, and established itself as a force of commerce and innovation. Quality of people matters, not quantity. In an age of high technology, I suspect this will be even more true. How scary is a million-man army if a handful of computer nerds can shut down that army’s capabilities with a cyberattack?

When it comes to ideas and creativity, I’m reminded of the “wide range of restaurants” meme. Just as not every Afghan migrant means a new “ethic restaurant” in town, neither does every migrant come with cutting-edge inventions. Small nations aren’t going to be left behind in the coming age. In fact, countries such as Switzerland and Singapore have already demonstrated that small nations will be amongst the most successful.

Just Have More Kids!

We have yet to address some of the myriad maladies which come part and parcel with gargantuan societies, nor have we come to the benefits of living in small societies — but before we do, there are still some ideas that need dismantling.

These ideas sprout not from the political class or the mainstream media, but from the conservative “Right” and nationalist circles. The first idea is that native Europeans and Europeans in the New World must have more children in order to save the West. There are several reasons why this is a bad strategy. First of all, the salvation of the West will not come from entering a breeding war with people who have a massive head start on us and should not be in our countries, anyway. Having children is a serious matter, especially in today’s world. It’s not a decision to be made out of a desire to combat demographic change. When your crying baby wakes you up at three in the morning, I doubt you will find much solace in reminding yourself that you’re doing your part to keep the white race from being outnumbered. A baby needs to be treated with love and patience, not as a demographic statistic.

In any case, for every one baby an upstanding white couple makes, Big Immigration will ensure that 200 suspicious foreign men arrive in that white couple’s country. The “just have more kids” position smacks of the characteristic conservative impotence. Their talking point ought to be “Send the migrants and fakeugees back,” but many of them are still too afraid to state this plainly and publicly. Instead, we have a large portion of the “Right” spamming Trad Life memes and the strange phenomenon of single and childless Internet personalities encouraging Westerners to have more children for political reasons.

Tradiphilia: Myths and Misconceptions of Tradlife

I spoke about the various flaws in the Trad Life worldview a few years ago in a lengthy video called Tradiphilia. To summarize here: in the twenty-first century, finding a “traditional woman” who wants to mother more than two children is easier said than done. Then there are the multiple obstacles that prevent young couples — or couples of any age, really — from having large families. It’s all very nice for well-to-do boomers to boast about how they raised a family despite the difficulties, but I suspect many of these folks are simply unaware of how the economy and lifestyles have changed today. There are parts of Europe where a man makes less than a thousand euros a month working full-time. Just how is he supposed to provide for a wife and multiple children? Indeed, how can he even move out of his parents’ house? Own a car? Pay a mortgage? And before the well-to-do boomer tells him to cancel his Netflix subscription (assuming it’s he who has one, and not his parents), please observe:

Then there is the matter of actually raising these children which so many conservatives say we ought to be having. Along with the ridiculous idea that whites can win a breeding war against the entire Third World and the NGOs that facilitate Third Worlder colonization of the First World, there is the equally ridiculous idea that conservatives will eventually win by outbreeding the “woke Left.” If only it were so easy. The “woke Left” doesn’t need to reproduce when it can simply recruit. Misandrist feminists have been rejecting men and forsaking motherhood for a century, yet misandrist feminism has never held more sway in culture and politics. The feminists didn’t need to reproduce themselves. They acquired power and influence and then recruited. This is but one example.

Conservatives and the like need to reflect on this. In today’s world, there is no guarantee that the children you have will be little versions of their based and red-pilled parents. In fact, there is a worrying likelihood that they will become just the opposite, especially if they go into higher education.

This is not to say that conservative or dissident-nationalist whites should not have children. It is simply a necessary reality check. The “Right” demonstrates a great deal of naïveté on this topic. Too many think that merely having white babies is enough for them to proclaim, “I’ve done my part. Job done,” and even smear childless young men who have devoted themselves to advancing pro-white politics.

Furthermore, the argument that white people need to have more babies and that in having more babies they will retake their countries, frames white people as culpable for their own demographic demise. In fact, for every white conservative or dissident who espouses the “just have more kids” line, there is an anti-white invader who repeats it.
“You don’t like being outnumbered by Pakistani Muslims? You should have had more kids,” says Yusuf, counting the money given to him by the British taxpayer so he can live in a nice house and provide for his five children while the British taxpayer toils to make ends meet and faces a prison sentence if he complains about the injustice of it all.

No. I’m here to reject this framework. It is not the fault of Europeans that our rulers have betrayed us and opened the gates to enemy hordes. It is not the fault of white Americans that the anti-white regime in their country has let in millions of brown border-jumpers. Our only fault is in not reacting accordingly, and in this day and age it is rather difficult to react accordingly or know what reacting accordingly even means. However, it is clear that peddling nonsense such as “just have more kids” and assuming that having more kids is all that it takes to make things right is far from reacting accordingly. I wonder if our adversaries look at us and shake their heads in exasperation, bored with having such incompetent opponents. We’re too easy. While they have captured every institution and seat of power (without firing a shot, mind) and use sophisticated, constant propaganda to shape our very world, we console ourselves with passive strategies such as “have more kids,” shame those on our side who are childless, and totally fail to appreciate the power of metapolitics and the utility of activism, both online and in the streets.

“The Burnout Society”

The subject of low fertility rates in countries such as Japan, South Korea, all Western European countries, and amongst white Americans is worth studying. While I have done my best to make it clear that I do not think “population collapse” is an appropriate term, I do think that low fertility rates say something worrisome about our society. Getting what they say right is of the utmost importance.

It is indeed true that in some parts of the so-called First World, a full-time worker can bring home no more than a thousand euros monthly. Yet, economic constraints do not completely explain why first-world people are having so few children. Hungary’s much-acclaimed policies to promote baby-making haven’t proven to be the aphrodisiac some in conservative and Christian circles celebrated. In the five years since Viktor Orbán implemented various financial incentives for Hungarians to have children, Hungary’s total fertility rate has increased from 1.2 to a staggering . . . 1.6.

One could hardly ask for better conditions for raising a family than the ones found in Scandinavia. Lengthy paid maternity and paternity leave, government-subsidized crèches guaranteeing low costs, and up until recently, a safe, culturally and racially homogeneous society in which to raise children. Despite such perks, birthrates in Scandinavian countries have not only failed to go up, they have actually fallen.

This tells us that something else besides economic woe is keeping Europeans from having children. Conservatives, always eager to embrace simple reasons, trot out silliness such as “rejecting God,” “giving women the vote,” or other such nonsense to explain Europeans’ dismal birthrates. This doesn’t do much to explain why birthrates have fallen and fail to get back up in places such as Japan and Korea, and certainly doesn’t explain why birthrates are falling even in the Third World. In the United States, the white people’s fertility rates are falling the slowest. Every other demographic, including Muslims and Hispanics (who, on the whole, cannot be accused of turning away from their religious traditions and sense of identity) show rapidly declining birthrates.

So what is going on? I posit that raising a family in the modern world is simply unappealing at worst and daunting at best. People such as you and I can spend hours pondering the whys and wherefores, but the vast majority of people don’t live their lives constantly asking themselves if something is not going terribly wrong here, and what can be done to fix it. You and I might be aware of the myth of modernity, the lie of liberalism, the fantasy of feminism, that has us convinced that we are living in the best of times when in reality we are, in many ways, worse off than medieval peasants. Most people, however, are distracted to contentment by their smartphones, their football, their can of beer, their gossip amongst friends, and it’s only in the grim dark of a lonely night that a voice inside their heads might whisper to them, “This isn’t right. There is more to life than this.”

Over the years, several women who spent their younger days as ardent feminists and career-focused girlbosses have come forth and made themselves temporarily famous for publicly admitting that they should have married that “nice guy,” they should have had children, they should have raised a family, and now it’s too late. They are going to spend perhaps two-thirds of their lives alone, with only the fading memories of fun parties and trips to Cancun to keep them company. If such a prospect is so tragic and terrifying, why are so many unable to avoid it until it’s already their fate?

Korean intellectual Byung-Chul Han claims that we are living in a “burnout society.” He is neither “a man of the Right” nor a nationalist, but his assessment of modern life is not very different from that of Julius Evola, Jonathan Bowden, or Yukio Mishima. Modernity is bereft of ritual, drowning in meaningless excesses — hyperactive, overstimulated, exhausting, and fleeting. In these conditions, is it any wonder people are having fewer children? Is it any wonder that the demographics which are just now getting exposed to these conditions are the ones showing the starkest drop in births?

Han is just another name on the long list of philosophers who have passed unfavorable judgements on the post-industrial society, but his perspective perhaps helps us understand the drop in fertility. Indeed, one of Han’s manifestos is entitled The Agony of Eros. In this critique of modern life, he analyses the effect that rampant narcissism, pornography, and consumer goods has had on love. For all the talk about fertility rates, it’s worth remembering that (ideally) first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes baby in the baby carriage. It’s arguable that the real crisis is not our fertility rates, but the total obliteration of love and marriage. Perhaps this is the reason why even countries which offer economic incentives to make babies have not seen significant increases in births. No one has addressed the stagnation and rot in modern love lives. Paradoxically, during this epoch when all manner of sexual perversion and promiscuity is permitted, there is a significant number of both young men and women who have never been kissed. According to Byung-Chul Han, modernity has killed Eros.

When all of these elements are taken together, the reasons why Europeans in particular are not having children become clearer. It’s worth noting that high-IQ, impulse-controlling, long-time-preference whites are more likely to look at the world around them and balk at the idea of bringing children into it. It’s also worth noting that adverse conditions have often caused baby busts and that fertility-rate graphs tend to resemble rolling hills rather than ever-increasing straight lines. In the United States, the total fertility rate reached a record low in the 1930s, following the Great Depression. In the 1970s and into the ‘80s, the US total fertility rate fell to an even lower 1.7! That is well below replacement level and exactly where countries such as Sweden are at today. By 2009, American fertility rates had climbed back to 2.1 (replacement level) before going through another dip in the second decade of the twenty-first century.

In my opinion, this confirms that total fertility rates undergo ups and downs for a variety of reasons, and a falling fertility rate does not mean the sky is falling along with it. For this reason, I am wary of anyone who says that the problem in a planet populated by nearly eight billion humans is that there aren’t enough humans. My wariness — even enmity — extends to anyone who says that Europeans deserve their demographic replacement because they aren’t having “enough” children, or that Europe must import an infinite amount of foreigners to make up for the lack of babies being born. Baby busts are the norm. An economic model built on frenzied population growth is not.

Finally, these reasons also confirm why I do not believe that nationalists should take the position of promoting a breeding war with Third Worlders. Remember, even if birth rates in Africa, for example, keep rising (and they are not), it is not a fait accompli that all those Africans will spill over into Europe. The reason Africans and all the rest are coming to Europe is because they are allowed to. At the risk of sounding like Richard Spencer, it really does come down to power. With proper leadership and with power in the hands of people who actually care about Europeans, preventing rubber dinghies full of Sub-Saharans from reaching European shores would be the easiest thing in the world.

Good Times for a Change

To conclude, let us now consider some of the benefits that might come with a naturally decreasing population. As mentioned at the beginning of this essay, men of renown have thought deeply on the ideal size of a society and came to the conclusion that smaller is better. The administration of law and order is better. General governance is better.

But there is more to smaller societies than mere ease of governing. Particularly in the modern world, small societies might very well provide the remedy to some of the existential illnesses afflicting us. High populations mean environmental degradation. Being a nationalist means that I am also a conservationist. All throughout the West, our landscapes are being torn up to provide the sustenance and housing for populations which should be decreasing slowly, but instead are increasing rapidly thanks to mass immigration. In the United Kingdom, it seems the powers-that-be will not let one blade of green grass get in their way of building new homes, new motorways, and new shopping centers. Line on graph must go up! No amount of GDP growth is worth the permanent destruction of our lands. This is about blood and soil.

A stable population, with birthrates either at a plateau or slight decline, does not require that green fields, centuries-old trees, and ancient monuments be hacked away to make room for more and more ugly new houses and blocks of flats. In fact, a naturally decreasing population would free up a lot of housing. Rather than shriek in horror at temporarily low birthrates and try to import replacement consumers as fast as possible, wise and folk-oriented leaders would adapt to the slow population decline and augment the positives.

Teacher-to-student ratios are sensible in small societies. Traffic flows better in sparsely-populated environments. Without cheap labor imported from the Third World, companies would have to offer competitive wages. Competitive wages would animate people to do the jobs we’ve been told they don’t want to do, therefore we must take in Mexicans and Albanians. Many of these jobs are becoming automated or will be in the near future, anyway.

Highly-populated areas are areas of transient interactions. No one really knows or recognizes anyone else. They see hundreds of different faces a day, and then they never see those faces again. This leads to a low-trust society. Individuals think selfishly, are wary of others, and may act in anti-social ways because they (correctly) feel that there are no consequences to their bad and egotistical behavior. People will be less kind with one another, because the likelihood of their kindness being reciprocated by someone they’ll never see again is nil. On the other hand, small societies promote solidarity and conviviality. People who live in small, lowly-populated environments know each other. They know each other’s families. They behave in a high-trust manner. Children play in the parks without adult supervision. They walk home from school. Their parents have no reason to fear for their safety. People recognize one another and stop to chat. When someone is not doing well, his neighbors and other members of society will know and help. In a small society, the real “problem” is maintaining a bit of privacy.

Small societies also boost each member’s sense of self-worth. In a small society, almost all the jobs people do contribute to the well-being of the community. The butcher is perhaps the only one in town. He does his job well. His reputation depends on good word-of-mouth. Everyone knows him and respects him. Same for the veterinarian. The florist. The baker. The greengrocer. The IT expert. I used to be an English teacher in a small town, and I could barely walk the streets without being greeted or stopped by my students, their parents, or some other person who knew me (or knew of me). In highly-populated areas, there can be hundreds of florists and veterinarians and teachers, each one merely making up one drop in the ocean of humanity.

If I were to say why cases of depression have skyrocketed in modern society, I would point to this atomized and anonymous way of living. Our connections with other people take us out of our own self-obsession, out of our narcissism. Even the most misanthropic soul needs, from time to time, to feel respected and loved by others; and even the most misanthropic soul needs, from time to time, to feel the fillip of self-worth and joy that comes from helping others or being in good company.

Of course, the ruling class and the titans of industry are not interested in any of this. In this perverted world, the only thing that matters is money. The head of the construction company only sees the riches that come with getting more and more government contracts to build homes for the endless stream of migrants pushing up demand for housing. Landlords can’t get enough of it, either. Politicians love the ready-made voting blocs. Employers love the cheap labor. We truly are in a race to the bottom. As ever, the solution to many of our age’s ills are right in front of us, but no one seems interested or even capable of reaching out and taking them. I predict that global trends will continue towards artificial population growth via mass immigration, that society and government will continue to expand, and that more and more natural treasures will be chewed up by constant construction and industrialization.

Nevertheless, one can always think properly. As members of the nebulous but still very real nationalist resistance, it is vital that we divert from these trends, that we don’t get carried away by false narratives or confined within false frameworks. Society is too big. It needs to shrink. In a sane world, a naturally and temporarily shrinking population would be no crisis, and might even offer many good things.

Therefore, reject the population doomsayers.