By Frederick Dixon:
Ever since the end of the baby boom, more than forty years ago, the White British element in the population of the United Kingdom has had a birth rate well below the replacement level of 2.1 children. The youngest of the baby boomers are now moving beyond their child bearing years so, unless the far smaller numbers of White British women in the succeeding generations reverse the low birth rate of recent decades, the White British population must fall when the baby boomers begin to die off in significant numbers.
Will younger women reverse the birth rate? The forecast is not encouraging – twenty years ago, ten per cent of women reached the age of 45 without having had children, today it is 20% and forecast to increase to 25%. It is small consolation to learn that the position is even worse in Germany and Japan where one third of women are childless at 45. Moreover, 43% of female graduates never have children, and as half of all women now go to university (compared with perhaps 20% twenty years ago) there is clear potential for a continuous increase in voluntary childlessness among our brightest and best – so the reported drop of 14 points in average British IQ since the nineteenth century, due to dysgenic breeding, seems set to quicken.
To the consequences of a low birth rate and dysgenic breeding must be added the effects of emigration; the annual net loss of White Britons to emigration is around fifty thousand although this is off-set to some extent by the immigration of white Commonwealth citizens of British descent, the only permanent immigration which would be acceptable in a healthily ordered society.
In view of the above, the only surprising thing about the decline of 400,000 in the White British population of the United Kingdom between 2001 and 2011 is that it was not larger. In a healthily ordered society – one designed to protect the identity and advance the interests of the indigenous population – such a decline, relieving environmental pressures, might not be unwelcome. The disadvantages of an aging and dwindling population could be eased by the admission of carefully controlled and supervised temporary labour on time limited work permits.
Sadly, we do not live in a healthily ordered society. Far from a gentle decline, the population of the United Kingdom increased by four million between 2001 and 2011, due entirely to immigration and births to immigrants. During the same period the proportion of households containing persons of different ethnicities increased from one in twelve to one in eight. The overseas born population increased from 5.5 million (one person in eleven) in 2004 to 8 million (one person in eight) just eight years later in 2012. It is unlikely that more than two thirds of births in England and Wales are now White British i.e. two white parents one or both of whom are of British Isles ancestry.
But there is a gleam of light in this tale of unrelenting woe – studies in the United States have shown that people with traditional values have, on average, significantly more children than those whose values are “liberal”. This is surely because to traditionalists, who value the past and wish its inheritance to survive, continuity is important and there is no better way of ensuring continuity than to have children who will continue one’s family, its history and traditions, far into the future – it is, in truth, the only form of life after death of which we can be certain.
Liberals do not value the past; to them, if they think of it at all, it is a place where bad old things happened – “inequality”, “racism”, “homophobia”, “patriarchy” and so on and so forth. Liberals therefore live wholly in the present; because their minds lack the imaginative breadth and empathy which traditionalism confers, it is easier for them than for traditionalists to surrender to the temptations of hedonism and to embrace that voluntary childlessness which brings to an end a family line which has continued for millennia. The late commentator, Malcolm Muggeridge, once remarked that liberalism was a collective death wish.
Of course marriage and children are not given to all, not even to all traditionalists, but by supporting others who are closely akin to themselves they help to ensure the survival of their own genes. Here we touch on the real subject of this essay – race. Those who are most closely akin to us are those of our own race.
As the White British population dwindles away through a combination of a low birth rate and miscegenation, it will be racial nationalists – radical traditionalists to a man (and woman) who survive. We will then have the chance to rebuild the White British population in our image, to become the White British. To do this our people must have many children and must bring them up in our beliefs. This will require two things:- firstly, a diamond hard philosophy or religion of racialism, providing our descendants with all the certainty which they will need if our beliefs are to survive and prosper and, secondly, a community within which our people can live their common life.
If this is done, our nation will be re-born. A bright future lies beyond the dark clouds of the present – if the right course is taken now.
By Frederick Dixon © 2013
# # # #
Steve
- Edit
I do see a lot of blonde white kids round my way but I also see an “Asian” influx.
Rerevisionist
- Edit
I’ve come to the view that the ‘baby boom’ itself was a bit of propaganda. I don’t think the figures support the idea that post-war babies were enough to replenish white stocks in Britain (and Europe, USA). It was designed to make whites feel they were breeding at a huge rate, and I don’t think it was true.
jackdaw
- Edit
I think this is the hardest aspect of our struggle , To persuede our women to have lots of children. Even getting them up to mere replacement level is an up hill struggle. Our menfolk may have to become … more persuasive!
Thomas a'Becket
- Edit
Ready and willing for duty – sir!
kingdunmail
- Edit
Births to immigrants need not all be seen as bad, many good Europeans have made their home here and their children will be an asset. Non-European immigration will of course have a negative impact.
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
One of the saddest sights these days, to rival ‘mail order brides’ from Siam, has to be that of elderly Britons being pushed in wheelchairs along a seaside promenade by some bored piccaninny ‘carer’. Only a nation that has lost all racial pride could countenance such a thing. To think that the last sentient thoughts of many of our dearest compatriots should have to suffer the personal indignity of relying on such cultural and racial aliens, for whom nursing is no more than a form of subsistence and a way of remaining in this country, is indeed heart-rending. Therefore I would take issue with Frederick Dixon in his otherwise excellent article when he writes,
‘The disadvantages of an ageing and dwindling population could be eased by the admission of carefully controlled and supervised temporary labour on time limited work permits.’
In fact it is in contradiction to another writer, J.R. Bell, who warned in his book, ‘ Of British Blood and British Earth’, of the dangers of an apartheid system that relies on cheap alien labour.
Fortunately, many of our old folk are sufficiently independent not to have to rely on nursing until the very last days of their life; but even if their families can’t cope, a compassionate community should at least ensure that at the end they remain with their own kind.
Observer
- Edit
Is this state of affairs down to nature or is it something else? Just think of what our scientists and social engineers have been beavering away at since the end of WWII.
Without much effort let me see what I can come up with.
The baby boom of the post war years seems credible to me, millions of male being absent for several years suddenly return home. I think we have now entered the era of the end of the boomers – where millions of whites will die off and be replaced by the other..
Then came the counter culture of 60’s, drugs, sex and rock’n’roll. Make love not war.
Feminism came with the counter culture territory where women viewed men as oppressors and rapists. Retreating into a childless world.
Abortion on demand has killed countless white children who could have gone on to reproduce. The female’s rights to own their own body and decide not to have families is all part of the mix. Is it fair to say abortion is simply another form of birth control?
Endless wars from Korea to Iraq have killed tens of thousand of good white male stock.
The contraceptive pill liberated the female from reproducing.
Engineering the economic climate where it takes both husband and wives to maintain and limit the size of the family.
The employment rights of women are enticed into careers and not the home.
Larger proportions of females go through college in search of a career instead of family.
Making wholesale porn available as a sex industry, again as mass entertainment with little risk of pregnacy.
As the author points out these trends have had a duel effect, the more intelligent female is trading family for career and material success, whereas the less intelligent opt for being a one parent family where the male is absent.
Did all of these things and more happen by chance or were they engineered deliberately in the cause of a grand plan?
Liberalism uses the base instincts of the human species to exploit as degeneracy – which undermines society to the benefit of the elites.
For man to attempt to control the most fundamental functions of nature is hubris and folly. no good can become of it.
No wonder conspiracy theories abound.
Rerevisionist
- Edit
“The ‘baby boom’ seems credible to me.”
.
You’re not grasping what I’m saying. It’s only a ‘boom’ if there’s a notable increase on what there would have been without war.
.
I checked a few figures, and it seems likely there was no such ‘boom’. It was a propaganda device along with the supposed need for immigrants, the supposed benefits of immigrants, the increase in birth control, the deliberate making of it difficult to afford children, the increase in criminals on the street, the promotion of child sex etc etc.
jackdaw
- Edit
LOL Thomas a Becket
jackdaw
- Edit
Womens social security has to depend ENTIRELY on having a husband, not the big bro state, or a career, or some independant wealth, but a husband. Her status in the society has to then come with the birth of healthy children, the more children she can manage, the more status she can enjoy.