 |
Not all voting goes through a ballot box. You know this because you are already aware of the phrase "voting with their feet." People express what they want in a number of ways, and, of course, it's well known that democracy in the West isn't really that democratic, so people find other ways to "vote." For example, one of the main complaints that the nationalist right raises against its opponents and mass immigration is the lack of real democracy, often expressed in the phrase "we were never asked."
Mass immigration? "We were never asked." Racial replacement? "We were never asked." Etc., etc.
This sounds rather weak because it unwittingly highlights the weakness of nationalist sentiment. But it also ignores the fact that actually White Western populations -- or just populations in the developed world -- have actually been "voting with their ovaries" for some time for mass immigration and racial replacement.
Yes, for several decades now, the fertility rate for populations in the developed world have been around the 1.4 or 1.5 mark (where this is higher it is usually due to more fertile recent immigrants).
Demanding the end of mass immigration in a society that is actively involved in depopulating itself by around a quarter or a third every generation is, to use the phrase, simply pissing in the wind. None of our advanced capitalist economies is going to do very well on that kind of birthrate without immigration. That's just a brutal fact and one that so many on the dissident right are hiding under the bedclothes from.
Here's a typical well-intentioned nationalist on Twitter clutching his pearls at the latest spate of puff pieces promoting mass immigration to Canada.
Connected links on this Twitter thread lead to this story:
...which contains this golden quote:
“It’s actually not about immigration. It’s about population growth.”
Searching the report behind the story turns up this illuminating graph:
In a zero-immigration, low-fertility scenario, rents would initially fall and wages rise. But then there would then be an enormous rise in taxes to care for all the old people, accompanied by massive business failures, which would then lead wages to fall back again, while taxes rose even higher to (a) either artificially boost employment or (b) pay for all the unemployed.
We can quibble about the exact details, but, suffice to say, our debt-fuelled, turbo-charged economies would almost certainly hit a wall pretty hard.
Personally, as a nationalist, I would be happy to take the economic hit that shutting down mass immigration would bring, and live through the chaos and hard times. After all, chaos and hard times have their upsides too.
If Western societies stayed the course by blocking and then continuing to block mass immigration, they would probably be able to avoid the dreaded minoritisation points of their core populations, which are only a few decades away. But, yes, economically it would be tough and ugly.
If Western societies stayed the course by blocking and then continuing to block mass immigration, they would probably be able to avoid the dreaded minoritisation points of their core populations, which are only a few decades away. But, yes, economically it would be tough and ugly.
The sad truth, however, is that most voters, even those who are in theory or in sentiment opposed to mass immigration, would not be willing to take that hit. In fact, they would squeal like stuck pigs.
The brutal fact that nationalists have to square up to is that most people in their dysfunctional democracies have actually been voting for mass immigration and racial replacement with their ovaries for decades; and would continue to do so with their wallets if nationalists ever looked like succeeding in stopping mass immigration.
In ovary-ocracies are men essentially disenfranchised?
That too is pretty obvious. First, it means that just calling for a stop to immigration is not enough. That is only one wheel on a very shaky cart. Even if, by some miracle, a nationalist party managed to get a total ban on immigration, the sheer vacuum power of declining demographics would soon overturn it. In any country with a large negative fertility rate, naive nationalism is a farce and a non-starter.
Any push for zero immigration only makes sense in conjunction with pushing pro-natalism in an extremely radical way, a way that could only ever be strongly "anti-feminist" (although I would recommend redefining feminism to mean truly pro-woman in the wider sense of promoting healthy demographics for women).
But all this raises the question of whether this would even be a political possibility in today's so-called "developed" societies. There are several reasons why it wouldn't be, and it is important to be aware of these.
Effective political solutions are limited by two factors -- the need for wide-scale popularity combined with reasonable practicality. While stopping mass immigration has long been a popular idea, it is not a practical idea in a society whose population is shrinking by a third or a quarter every generation, especially if that society is tied to a high-population economic model.
Effective political solutions are limited by two factors -- the need for wide-scale popularity combined with reasonable practicality. While stopping mass immigration has long been a popular idea, it is not a practical idea in a society whose population is shrinking by a third or a quarter every generation, especially if that society is tied to a high-population economic model.
Yes, nationalism's popular trump card (anti-immigrant sentiment) is not even practical without effecting other far-reaching and radical changes to society that would be a lot less popular (e.g. drastic anti-feminism, extreme pro-natalism, deep cultural realignment, anti-individualism, and austere economic restructuring).
Added to this, there is the massive problem of nationalism itself, which had wasted the last 70 years or so, making itself deeply unpopular in a number of ways. The cheapest and most effective way it has done this has been to attract an undue number of freaks, losers, oddballs, and shills, and then allow itself, either through carelessness, laziness, or malice, to be associated with Naziism and other unpleasant whiffs from the past.
For these reasons, nationalism, as it stands today, is simply incapable of fulfilling the two conditions of significant political change.
So, is there another way? Yes, possibly, but only if the political change is not on the national scale.
But what does this mean?
It can only mean one thing: recreating nationalism on a sub-national level. If the core racial and ethnic populations of the West wish to survive, they will have to reorganise as tribes or enclaves in their own societies, while finding ways to maintain their exclusive identities and group boundaries. In short, they will have to become states within states, enclaves within multicultural empires, something like what Orania is in South Africa, or even what the Jews were for long parts of their history.
None of this sounds very promising, and clearly requires a lot of work, but that is exactly the situation of nationalism in societies that have been voting with their ovaries for their own extinction for some time now.
So, is there another way? Yes, possibly, but only if the political change is not on the national scale.
But what does this mean?
It can only mean one thing: recreating nationalism on a sub-national level. If the core racial and ethnic populations of the West wish to survive, they will have to reorganise as tribes or enclaves in their own societies, while finding ways to maintain their exclusive identities and group boundaries. In short, they will have to become states within states, enclaves within multicultural empires, something like what Orania is in South Africa, or even what the Jews were for long parts of their history.
None of this sounds very promising, and clearly requires a lot of work, but that is exactly the situation of nationalism in societies that have been voting with their ovaries for their own extinction for some time now.
___________________________________
Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Affirmative Right and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by it here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia).
Yes,you're absolutely correct. Westerners have indeed voted repeatedly for mass immigration and demographic replacement. Germany, Britain, Sweden, France, and Australia, especially salient examples of this.
ReplyDeleteYes, they clearly love it. There is no other possible explanation.
DeleteYour thesis is flawed. By your logic Tokyo, Bejing and Warsaw would be full of immigrants. But they are not. Also, people don't have kids because they want less immigration.
DeleteDave, My thesis is not that Tokyo, Beijing, and Warsaw are identical cities to London, Paris, or Los Angeles. It seems to be yours. My thesis is that low fertility rates are a major factor creating immigration. You would literally have to be a moron to argue against this.
DeleteThe Japanese are inevitably going down the same road as their society ages and loses massive amounts of population. They are more circumspect and are trying to manage it better, but the arrow is pointed in the same way and for the same reasons.
The Largest Immigrant Groups in Japan from 1960 to 2020 (By country of birth)
Japan Radically Increased Immigration—and No One Protested
I have long thought that the best encouragement for natalism (and it actually IS pro-women) is the need to reduce soaring breast cancer rates. Breast cancer is virtually unknown in the third world, where women begin having children at an early age.
ReplyDeleteAll it takes is a public figure with the skill, honesty and courage to communicate this to the public. Someone will eventually raise the issue of this elephant in the room affecting women's health.
Raising children may be a burden to young women - but there are other things that are very much worse.