Demography is destiny 1/2 >‘Hitler was obsessed with demography’ >population — its surging, contraction and migration — explains all of human history.
>the long view is astonishing. It took 1,800 years for humans to increase from 250 million to one billion at the beginning of Queen Victoria’s reign in 1837. As of 2018, we’d reached more than 7.6 billion, the vast majority of that growth post war. And ‘the human tide’ continues to rise.
>The long view of the human race is inevitably less fascinating than a closer-in look at which peoples lead the race in a competitive sense. Since the 1960s, writing about demography has steadily shifted from regarding high fertility rates as tragically entrenching poverty to accepting that numbers confer power.
>ethnicity matters politically’. >‘nations and ethnic groups are real’ and ‘they matter in history’.
>the standard demographic transition after modernisation: in country after country, industrialisation, better sanitation and medical advances lead to more surviving children and longer life expectancy. Population balloons. Urbanisation makes large families economically disadvantageous. Parents register that most of their kids will live to adulthood. Population stabilises. >this transition has hit different peoples at different times. Britain was first, followed by the rest of western Europe. >19th-century Europeans managed to project power, exert influence and claim territory as a consequence of mushrooming domestic populations whose excess these countries could afford to send all over the globe. >Great Britain ‘made the world’, it did so by exporting people’. Ergo, people to spare made the British Empire possible.
>if Europe’s sending its extra population abroad projected power, exerted influence and claimed territory, isn’t mass migration from developing nations to the West not currently doing the same thing?
>democratic countries confer real political power on their inhabitants
>One plausible explanation for the rise of identity politics and the ever-increasing role that race plays in issues of the day is simply mass immigration. Numbers translate directly into voice and clout.
>the West has now reached ‘the second transition’ — below-replacement fertility >many developing countries, modernised much later, continue to grow, and on a scale >Because the primary instruments of lower mortality and expanded life expectancy were initially of western invention, the West has inadvertently engineered its own diminishment. >Africa has failed to get with the programme. Although its fertility rates have come down, they haven’t plummeted nearly as quickly as they were supposed to.
>It may often be said that England has always been a land of immigration, but this is simply untrue.’ Until very recently, England and Wales have absorbed a tiny, demographically incidental handful of Huguenots and Jews. The rise of the population that does not consider itself white British from 2 per cent in the 1960s to nearly 20 per cent in 2011 is ‘historically unprecedented’.
>Britain for having successfully spread its language and culture to English-speaking countries that remain — just — ‘the richest and most economically powerful people on earth’. Nevertheless, these same nations are not only ‘now in retreat in many fields on the world stage; they have significantly retreated as an ethnic group within their own states’. White Britons are expected to become a minority in Britain circa 2060 or so. Starting in 1980, white Europeans in California fell from 70 per cent to 40 per cent in a mere 30 years.
Jose Williams
Pretty redpilled article. Which news outlet?
Noah Ross
it always has been civnat fantasies could only ever work in a 90% white world.
>if Europe’s sending its extra population abroad projected power, exerted influence and claimed territory, isn’t mass migration from developing nations to the West not currently doing the same thing? My New Chinese Overlords are coming
Juan Myers
Experts confirm: the obvious is obviously obvious.
