It was early in the millennium that Sir David Attenborough conducted us through the “Blue Planet”, the BBC’s astonishing exploration of the world’s oceans and the life which they sustain. So enthralling did I find it that somehow I haven’t had the heart to watch its replacement, Blue Planet 2, although I’m told that it was just as good. Justification, you might think, for a State broadcaster lavishly funded by a special tax? Or perhaps not – that may be a subject for another article on another day.
The BBC has now returned to the Blue Planet theme with “Blue Planet Live” to be broadcast very shortly from four dive sites around the world. This time the presenter will be Chris Packham, well known from “Spring Watch” and “Autumn Watch”. Sadly, neither the BBC nor Packham have been able to steer clear of politics. Packham is an environmental pessimist of an extreme type, convinced of the truth of man-made climate change and of the impending exhaustion of the world’s resources, and his views have been adopted by the BBC which gives him frequent opportunities to express them. Packham may be right; it is not my intention to argue for or against his pessimism, but there are counter voices which do not get a hearing because the BBC has decided that Packham, and only Packham, is correct – in this, if in nothing else, he rather resembles that other favourite child of the BBC, Gary Lineker.
Where Packham’s politics become difficult for us is in his attitude to over-population and child bearing. As part of the Blue Planet Live season he is to conduct a discussion in which he will advance the view that people should not bring children into a world afflicted by over population, resource exhaustion and climate change. In other words, he is to advocate wilful childlessness, not to those populations of Africa and Asia which are exploding at an astonishing rate (the population of Nigeria, presently 163 million is forecast to exceed 700 million within eighty years!) but to an audience overwhelmingly of White British people.
The White British birthrate has been 20 to 25% below replacement level for two generations, since around 1970. The proportion of women who have had no children by the age of 45 has increased over the same period from 10% to 20%. The population of England and Wales in 1951 was 42 million (overwhelmingly White British) and we were thought to be so over-populated that we were encouraged to emigrate to the Dominions – Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa – partly in order to relieve overcrowding, and partly to help to keep those countries British. The population of England and Wales is now 56 million of whom 42 million are still White British. The extra 14 million are, of course, the product of immigration and race mixing.
It follows that the 42 million White British are disproportionately concentrated in the older age groups. Their numbers have been sustained, until now, by increasing life spans but eventually longevity will run out for the baby boomers and White British numbers will begin to fall. We can expect on present forecasts that within another generation, by about 2045, the population of England and Wales will be 63 million of whom perhaps 30 to 32 million will be White British. This of course is only a forecast – it could yet be disproved by an end to immigration and an increase in our native birthrate; where Packham is a pessimist we must be optimists (and do our utmost to make our optimism come to pass).
If it had not been for immigration, we could now look forward to a gently decreasing population. This would bring both environmental benefits and social disbenefits, but the latter would be overcome in time by those robotics which, we are told, are going to take most of the jobs.
So Packham’s advocacy of wilful childlessness, intended to induce guilt about having children, is aimed at exactly the wrong audience. Unless he hopes to fill the gaps in our population with the burgeoning surplus of Nigeria; surely not?
By Frederick Dixon © 2019
# # # #
JOIN WESTERN SPRING
Western Spring is not just a website. We are a community of people dedicated to achieving the Six Prerequisites and thereby acquiring the wherewithal needed to win political power and through that secure the future survival, proliferation and advancement of the British people and other White peoples of European descent, wherever they may live. Please join us:
[contact-form to=’[email protected]’ subject=’Membership Enquiry’][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Phone No.’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Postal Address’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Post Code’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Wish to become an Activist, Yes or No?’ type’Activist’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]
# # # #
John Stephens
- Edit
I’ve got no time at all, for the media, nor their “front-men” etc. They use emotion to destroy traditional values, whilst living in a guilded cage, but one they can escape from via large sums of money making TV programmes, then return to them.
To a man, and woman, they say one thing, and do another. Whilst living on nice countryside farms, travelling the world using the very resources they “worry” about, they then bemoan about environmental problems.
I did not ask for ingredients that destroy rain forests. I did not ask for wars. I do not use plastic, nor technology where possible. I did not ask for millions of people to arrive, and create unneccessary infrastructure, and then moan of over-populisation.
John Murray
- Edit
“Packham is an environmental pessimist of an extreme type, convinced of the truth of man-made climate change and of the impending exhaustion of the world’s resources, and his views have been adopted by the BBC which gives him frequent opportunities to express them. Packham may be right; it is not my intention to argue for or against his pessimism, but there are counter voices which do not get a hearing because the BBC has decided that Packham, and only Packham, is correct”
Frederick, I’m afraid that is nonsense, although you covered yourself well there from any actual criticism.
“convinced of the truth of man-made climate change” implies that there is an acceptable alternative view out there, and there isn’t. On the one hand you have science, the world’s scientific community, evidence and fact; on the other you have conspiracy loons, ill informed people, oil company paid shills, a large amount of the “right” in politics and lastly, nationalists. Just because the left have made climate change and the environment thier pet issues has no bearing on the facts. I would also add that those “counter voices” not getting a hearing on the BBC – I have no problem with that as it would just add fuel to the fire and result in more people turning against science… and those counter voices are just plain wrong.
The population issue is a different topic and I have long argued for massive population reduction as having 8 billion people on the planet has utterly ruined what was once a nice clean planet. I agree with you with regards to the hypocrisy of the left though as they would have white people stop breeding while simultaneously watching the non-white populations of the world sky rocket which is no good for the environment or the future of White people.
Incidentally, I utterly reject the idea that Whites should enter in to some kind of “breeding” marathon as it would be pointless. Anyone who thinks that is a good idea simply hasn’t thought it through. We could never outbreed non-whites for a start so we would be entering into a race that we couldn’t win. That endevour would also increase the total population of people on the planet which is bad for the environment.
Then we have to look at the highly likely outcome of a hypothetical scenario that every White woman had 5 children. This would take the man away from his nationalist activism as he would be busy helping to raise those children; then whether we like it not we have to accept the high probabilty that a large percent of all these new White children being raised in this fictional breeding program would actually grow up to be liberals as that is the world they would be raised in and there would be no escaping the influence of their peers at school and in their late teens and early 20’s… Children also like nothing more than to rebel against what their parents believe. A case in point would be Derek Black.
There has never been more White people on the planet than there is now and we need them all engaged in securing our future – not sat at home raising children. White children will continue to be born regardless as that is the natural way of things so there is no need to think that wouldn’t happen – I’m saying we shouldn’t dedicate ourselves to doing that as people such as H. Millard would advise. It is a bad idea.
The problem we have in White countries isn’t a lack of White people, its the ever changing ratio between Whites and non-Whites. Our time and energy would be much better spent resisting immigration and calling for repatriation than trying to ouitbreed these people which would be a futile endeavour.
Sorry for the rant, Frederick – I always enjoy your articles.
(I await Max’s eloquent response 🙂 )
Max Musson
- Edit
“On the one hand you have science, the world’s scientific community, evidence and fact; on the other you have conspiracy loons, ill informed people, … paid shills, a large amount of the “right” in politics and lastly, nationalists. Just because the left have made climate change and the environment thier pet issues has no bearing on the facts.”
.
John, this same statement could be made regarding the significance of racial differences; regarding the truth or otherwise of the Holocaust; regarding the destruction of the World Trade Centre; and throughout most of the last three decades, until recently, regarding the out of Africa hypothesis on human evolution. We all know that in order to further one’s career in academia in modern times, scientists have had to ‘bend’ their science in order for it to conform to political imperative, and we all know that the out of Africa hypothesis is now beginning to unravel when once upon a time it was the ‘Gospel’ of the scientific community and was spoken about as if it were fact rather than hypothesis.
.
I imagine you will soon be announcing that all races are created equal; that the Holocaust narrative is the word of God, that there was nothing suspicious about the collapse of building seven, and that we are all descended from Kunta Kinte’s Great, Great, Great, Great Grandfather?
John Murray
- Edit
“John, this same statement could be made regarding the significance of racial differences; regarding the truth or otherwise of the Holocaust; regarding the destruction of the World Trade Centre; and throughout most of the last three decades, until recently, regarding the out of Africa hypothesis on human evolution.”
I think the difference with the above is that incredibly inconvenient word again “evidence”, of lack thereof, although regarding the Africa hypothesis I’m not so sure. There is plenty of evidence pointing to it and some evidence that says it may not be entirely correct. My own position on it is that I don’t really care as it doesn’t matter either way. Whether we did all originate in Africa or not doesn’t change what we have evolved to be today and that today there are clearly differences between the races of Earth and I think our position should be to advocate to preserve those differences rather than pick holes in something that may or may not be true. Either way, if we accept that the out of Africa theory is false… it would still leave the problem that if we go back further in time we will find that we share a common ancestor somewhere in the chain of evolution and as I’m sure you’re aware, we share 50% of our DNA with a banana. If we look at the similarities between us and Africans, I’m sure we can agree that they are incredibly similar and one could argue almost identical, in comparison to lets say, compairing us to a banana – yet we still share that 50% with a banana.
With regards to climate change, you already know my annoyance with others in the cause when I hear them denying or questioning it; I accept it because of the overwhelming evidence. The idea that thousands of climate scientists are all in on some elaborate hoax to further the politicians “agenda” I find absurd. Most scientists are nerds that study data and look at graphs all day when not taking measurements which is one of the reasons they sometimes look like they lose a debate on tv as they are not propagandists or PR men which is what their opponents often are – and their opponents most certainly do have an agenda.
Even if we accept (and I don’t) that a handful of climate scientists were corrupt and falsified data to suit the politicians agenda it would still have no bearing on the sheer amount of contrary evidence, it would just mean that a handful of them were either corrupt or just wrong in whatever measurements or data they had compiled.
As I said, the evidence for CO2 warming the planet is huge and I’ll just give one example of how we know…
A lot of people like to claim the Sun is responsible which flies in the face of empirical observations. Aside from the fact that solar effects cannot physically explain the recent global warming, as with GCRs (galactic cosmic ray theory), there are several empirical observations which solar warming could not account for. For example, if global warming were due to increased solar output, we would expect to see all layers of the atmosphere warm, and more warming during the day when the surface is bombarded with solar radiation than at night. Instead we observe a cooling of the upper atmosphere and greater warming at night, which are fingerprints of the increased greenhouse effect.
Finally, your last paragraph Max; I’m not sure why you would think that, as I differ somewhat to many others as I don’t buy in to a package of beliefs due to my poilitcal persuasion – I look at every topic in isolation and come to a judgement based on the evidence (or lack of) that I find. This sometimes forces me to accept things to be true which I would rather were not, but I believe that is the correct way of going about things.
Max Musson
- Edit
That’s all very well and good John, but if we use as the analogy human equality and the fact that thousands of anthropology scientists are all in on an elaborate hoax to further a political agenda, why then is it absurd to believe that thousands of climate scientists might have been similarly corrupted?
.
And lastly, how do you know that global warming caused by increased solar output causes all layers of the atmosphere warm, whereas warming caused by greenhouse gases leaves the upper atmosphere cool but cause other atmospheric layers to warm, even at night? You are simply believing something you have been told — you have no way of verifying this.
Frederick Dixon
- Edit
John, I’m happy to accept your reprimand because the issue which I wished to discuss was not climate change, but the fact that Packham is addressing the wrong audience. As I point out, our people accepted the argument for a low birthrate two generations ago, and that has had a disastrous effect for one reason and one reason only – because we have failed (to put it mildly) to close our borders to the fast breeders of the “developing world”. Had we acted as the Japanese have acted until very recently, and put the maintenance of our Britishness at the forefront of policy, I doubt if many of us would worry too much about a low birthrate (although nowhere near as low as that of Japan). In fact we might now be looking forward to living in a country slowly becoming more spacious.
As it is, the descent of the White British to minority status – “the ever changing ratio between Whites and non-Whites” as you put it – could be slowed by three desirable developments (quite apart from halting and reversing all immigration from the third world) namely: 1/ the restoration of our birthrate to replacement level 2/ the Anglicisation and absorption of those EU citizens who choose to remain post Brexit 3/ opening our borders to White people of British descent elsewhere in the Anglosphere. None of which, apart from the second, is at all likely to happen (although there have been some interesting political developments around the concept of “Canzuk” i.e. a close association of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK, complete with freedom of movement for each others citizens).
As for Africa, what can one say? All the work that we in the West are doing to curb climate change will be overwhelmed by the African population explosion and the consequent demand for electricity generation and for resources, and that is why Packham should be out there preaching the word, not here where it is no longer needed.
Alec Suchi
- Edit
Nothing can be known for certain within the physical world: all our “knowledge is provisional. There are degrees of certainty expressed in terms of probability.”Global Warming”n or perhaps now more conveniently”Climate Change” cannot be known for certain whether it is occurring due to human activity or as an entirely natural phenomenon. I suspect that human activity has played a part but the extent cannot be so clearly established. For ideological reasons The Progressives would berate us for unsustainable consumption of resources and that the World’s wealth is unevenly distributed, and is one factor driving mass migration from the poorest areas to the richest.
Resource depletion, and the effects of pollution together with a rising world population are serious concerns. The vastly increasing population of Africa is due to the benefits of western medicines: before, disease and famine controlled the nomadic populations.
At one time I had been attracted to the “Green Movement” where population control and sustainability were fundamental issues but have now given way to social justice and open borders, and have been poisoned by cultural Marxism.
In exploring ways to live self regulated lives and away from the contamination of modern society, nationalists and identitarians need to reclaim the Green Movement from the degenerate progressives.
Wolf of the Sun
- Edit
It used to be ours, when we talked of Blood and Soil, as we must again. That Jorian Jenks was a founder member of the Soil Association is conveniently forgotten, which says a lot about the modern environmental movement, yet another area in which the Marxists have stolen ground. Nowadays, inside every Green is a Red.
And, Alec, your point about “Global Warming” morphing into the less strident “Climate Change” is a very good one. Whilst the so-called statistics were clearly cooked by the tiny Anthropogenic Global Warming clique, no-one can argue against Climate Change – the climate changes, as it would since the Earth is between two ice ages!
John Stephens
- Edit
Alec.
“nationalists and identitarians need to reclaim the Green Movement from the degenerate progressives”.
We cannot reclaim something that was never ours in the first place, as an institution. Nationalists and others, were always the real true environmentalists, family orientated, and have a natural bent towards a self-employment work-life balance.
In addition, rural and small-town skills, created localised wealth, with a much more natural, than idealised “recycled materials” working style. Rather than “reclaim” this fake movement, we should physically BE it.
Stefan
- Edit
Surely the driver of every present day problem is world population growth that has gone vertical but as you say the problem doesn’t really lie with European people as we are 8% of the population & falling.
But mainstream media worry about the rise of populism & climate change.
London’s population is said to rise to 10 million & 80 million for the UK but will the brakes be applied then, I doubt it.
Already power & water shortages are mentioned but the insane mantra of “Build more homes” continues relentlessly.