In Parliament today (18/04/2024), MP Miriam Cates broached the question of declining British fertility when asked what was to be done. She referred to the idea known as replacement migration. The UN has pushed this policy since 2000, saying that we would need a third of our population to be of immigrant extraction over the next 50 years to make up for our ageing population and combat economic stagnation.
On the other end of the spectrum, Muslim convert and alleged sex trafficker Andrew Tate suggested that “White people” need to outbreed the rest of the world to stop themselves from going extinct—two fallacious statements in as many days.
We have experienced the highest immigration levels in this country in its history. Indeed, the number of new arrivals over the last few years outstrips the total migration numbers in the previous thousand. We’ve not seen any real wage growth for the last 16 years of the mass immigration project, and there’s no indication that that will change under the present system.
Hence, Cates’s comments about economic stagnation are as laughable as they are baffling. Couple this with the hostile racialisation of British society, an out-of-control housing/rental market, and the pension age rising to a level that many will not live to see, and it has to be asked: What is the benefit of continuing this failed economic model if it means impoverishment, second-class status, and eventual loss of self-determination?
Britain’s population currently sits at just under 70 million officially. However, it is suspected that the actual population is much higher as the state fails to grasp concrete stats on who is coming and going at any given time. As you can see from the graph above, Britain’s population at the time of the Industrial Revolution was a little under half of what it is now.
Such sharp rises facilitated by technological and medical advances were bound to change how the average Briton lives. Arguably, by the 20th Century, we saw this come to fruition. A steady drop in the fertility rate is based primarily on the availability of birth control, making reproduction an increasingly conscious activity.
Britain can thrive again with a significantly smaller population. This would dramatically improve individuals’ living standards in the long run, and there is no reason why we should not have attempted to deal with a “top-heavy” elderly population through managed population decrease instead of engaging in a Ponzi scheme of infinite imports.
A new population equilibrium for Britain should be sought. Something that achieves a good quality of life for Britons while being mindful of the challenges of modernity that have replaced the natural population pressures of the past.
The problem with immigrants as a solution (beyond them getting old and bringing non-contributory dependents) is that they initially have more children. However, their fertility rates drop off in Western societies, so you must import more.
The logical conclusion from this process is that you, at best, become a minority in your homeland to facilitate a ropey economic model, or you are entirely displaced. This question has been ignored and shouted down as racism or conspiracism, but it’s no conspiracy. It’s just the logical endpoint of this process.
Tate’s point about simply outbreeding the world is equally as ridiculous but more common across the political spectrum; leftists to tech oligarchs increasingly believe that quantity is a new quality. Many migrants currently have higher birth rates than the native population because of state subsidies.
This often combines with regressive and largely incompatible non-Western cultural norms like polygamy to produce an initially higher birth rate until their subsequent generations “Westernise” to some extent. Migrants also accept lower standards and have/continue to be used as a cudgel to keep wages low across several sectors.
The state effectively subsidises immigration instead of supporting the family and doing the hard work to create population equilibrium. This moronic decision has left Britain in the impoverished, racialised state it is in today.
Tate’s other point is also based on the familiar trope of “not having control of your women”, which is something that Nationalists wholly reject. Nationalists value the contributions of both sexes.
We don’t believe in this third-world-driven divide of the sexes that hostile incomers increasingly use to ingratiate themselves with frustrated and misguided members of our society. Similarly, the division of the generations is something we reject. The old and youth together in one nation. Each generation hands the reigns over to the next with confidence that they have done their best for the future.
The entire point about having children, as some ideological statement, is also objectionable and bound to breed resentment, if not outright ideological rebellion, in youth raised for such a calculated purpose. Nationalists will seek to help families have children and naturally encourage positive family outcomes.
The strength of the family is the strength of the nation, which is why the family unit is repeatedly attacked. The idea of simply having children for the sake of a goal without regard to the raising or environment of the child must be rejected as a third-world imposition not fit for Britain.
Going forward, we must reject the fertility rate argument, as it automatically favours the false mass immigration narrative. We should believe in the ability of Britons to do more with less, as has always been the case in our rich history.
