How White Demographic Decline is Driven By Low Fertility

If you are white and you’re worried about becoming a minority in your own country, have an extra baby. This is the most effective action you can take to prevent your own minoritization.

This is because, in many countries, low white fertility is the dominant driver of demographic replacement. And all it takes to have an extra baby is to find a spouse. Can convincing one person in your life close your country’s borders? Nope! White leftists and recent immigrants are here, and they aren’t going anywhere, and neither are they changing their minds!

As you can see, Germany and the US both have declining white populations. In Germany, the decline is primarily driven by the low white fertility rate. In the US, there contribution from immigration and low fertility are about equal.

If US Whites had just 3 babies each, this is what the trend would look like instead:

Problem solved! But some think they don’t have to have babies. They think their blog or podcast is going to stop this trend:

Nope! Biology says your words aren’t stopping this decades long trend of increasing immigration every year. Politics is fundamentally biological; leftists aren’t going anywhere, unless you outbreed them. If you are based, plan to have at least 3 kids. Once you have 3, have one more just to make sure. Otherwise, what are you doing?

I would love to close the borders, but that will never happen until our offspring are a majority of a polity, unless some huge unforeseen shock happens. It’s simple logic as to why: people are getting more leftist because of dysgenics and mutational load, and the population is getting browner. Every election cycle, the populace is more leftist and more brown. Therefore, our ineffective ideas become more ineffective every 4 years. If Trump gets in office this year, he’ll be more leftist than 8 years ago, because more boomers died and more nonwhites immigrated. He won’t close the border; he won’t begin mass deportations, and he’ll die of old age either in office or shortly after leaving. The voting pool will be worse in 2028, 2032, and so on. Eventually the US will just be Brazil. Extend this to other white countries over a longer timespan.

If you’re American, start making more based white babies, you aren’t closing the border.

If you’re European, your trends are even more driven by fertility, so start reproducing more. While you have more time, and therefore a greater chance of some kind of exogenous political windfall, your time is limited — you have until the end of my natural lifespan, more or less. And that’s extrapolating current trends — in reality, as European whites become more leftist and a smaller portion of the global population, the immigration will probably become more severe. I give the Sellner remigration plan a 10% chance of actually happening — just extrapolate the trends of the last 70 years.

Now take a look at this graph. 30 years from now, globally, there will be more possible immigrants and less people to oppose them. So immigration trends will probably worsen. What can you do about this? Marry and reproduce.

Math appendix

For the above graphs, I used the following model. First, start with P_t, the probability of someone in the population being white. Now, we’ll imagine that everyone reproduces every 25 years in a big batch to simplify the model.

1 - P_{t}^i = \frac{25(\frac{IMM_B}{POP}) + (1- P_t)}{1 + 25(\frac{IMM_B}{POP}) + 25(\frac{IMM_W}{POP})}

We dump in all the immigrants first to get the probability of being white after immigration.

Then,

P_{t+1} = \frac{ \frac{TFR_w}{2} P_{t}^i }{\frac{TFR_w}{2} P_{t}^i + \frac{TFR_B}{2} (1 - P_{t}^i)}

This gives the new probability of white people after reproduction.

Finally, I captured how the population contracted or expanded:

POP_{t+1} = (1 + 25(IMM/POP_t))(TFR/2)(POP_t)

I stared with POP = 1000 because I used net migration per 1000 people. I then assumed that the absolute number would stay the same over time; therefore, the migration per 1000 would go up with the population went down, or down if the population went up, and so the impact of immigration on population composition would change accordingly.

I also assumed

1. All immigration is brown

2. Brown TFR = 2 (and this link with national TFRs is close enough to white TFR by country)

1 will cause an overestimate of the severity of the immigration effect insofar as a fraction of the immigration is white. 2 will cause an underestimation of the fertility effect when nonwhite TFR > 2, and an overestimation when nonwhite TFR < 2. The math above is given so that if the appropriate data becomes available, the same model can be used without these two assumptions. The model will always

3. Assume current absolute immigration stays constant

4. Assume TFRs stay constant

In reality, some are saying nonwhite TFRs are falling while white ones stay the same, so 4 will cause an overestimate of population change; it would seem absolute immigration is increasing, however, so 3 will cause an underestimate. It’s possible to relax these assumptions by having IMM(t) and TFR(t) be realistic functions of time, but this would require seeing the future or making assumptions about the future, so I figured just assuming constantness would be close enough. It gives a picture of what things will be like if nothing changes.