There is an argument contended by academics, politicians, and occasionally members of the general public that goes as follows: Humans need to have fewer children to avoid the potential disaster of human overpopulation, pollution, and the eventual desiccation of the planet. Per capita, Europeans use more resources and produce more pollution than third worlders. Consequentially it is more urgent that Europeans stop breeding than third worlders in Africa, Asia or the Middle East.
Anyone making this argument is either deeply misinformed, idiotic, or purposefully deceptive. This is because those who make this argument are more often than not also committed to the ideology of globalism and unlimited immigration. This ideology, coupled with the demands of economists and industrialists for cheap labour inevitably leads to any shortfall in indigenous European birth rates being met with immigrants from the third world. Immigrants who anti-European birth rates being met with immigrants from the third world. Immigrants who anti-European birth-rate advocates, being liberals, would demand enjoy the same living standards as the indigenous Europeans, lest indigenous European societies be guilty of “racism”.
An equal life standard to indigenous Europeans would lead to these third world immigrants inevitably producing an equal amount of pollution, and consuming an equal amount of resources per capita as the children of indigenous Europeans would have. Thus if the advice of anti-European birthrates were to be heeded, it would not lead to a European population decline, or to a reduction in pollution or material consumption from geographical Europe. It could only lead to a diminished number number of an already tiny indigenous European population, while the populations of the already numerous African and Asian population groups increase their share of the human population, both in their ethnic homelands and in Europe. It would not lead to fewer consumers or polluters in geographical Europe, it would just lead to fewer ethnic Europeans in their indigenous homeland.
The obvious implication of putting these experts’ advice into practice makes one wonder if such an implication was their objective in the first place. Considering that a moments thought would demonstrate that the purported objectives of a lower European birthrate, namely the reduction of pollution and consumption, would never be in no way advanced by the policy these experts propound makes one even more suspicious.
Some, probably European or European descended people, may ask “well what’s the problem? Humans are just humans, why are you always thinking of survival in terms of “white people”” To that I would say that the far more pertinent and interesting question is why white people are the only racial group to not be concerned with their in-group facing permanent oblivion. Rather than the “open-minded”, and “global” position that such critics think they have, their disinterest in considering the bets interests of their racial and ethnic in-group, is far from the common global position on the matter shared by the majority of humanity. By contrast, it is a parochial deviation from the human norm, arrogantly insisted to be the only appropriate “universal” stance by a hilariously arrogant, tiny and diminishing slice of humanity likely suffering from a delusion of grandeur borne from living off the successes of their ancestors, who were acutely interested in their survival as groups in both ethnic and racial terms.
Indeed since ethnic Europeans, and only ethnic Europeans, can be generally expected to be completely un-phased, and even excited, by the prospect of their children becoming minorities in their ethnic homelands, it is appropriate to ask why this tiny group of people behave so differently to their far more numerous cousins, and how, despite their size, they can remain so ethno-centric in believing that their curious deviation in thinking and behaving is somehow the human norm. It is also worth asking why ethnic Europeans could believe that their attitude toward their own demise is desirable, considering that it is ultimately just a deviant position held by a relatively tiny population group that is in complete opposition to the vast majority of humanity that works toward their respective groups’ survival.
No feedback yet
Form is loading...