Majority-Minority birth-rates has been right around 50% in the United States, only slightly favoring a majority of birthed whites for about three decades. The 2015 Pew Research findings showed it teetering towards the opposite direction, however, fulfilling the predictions of a future America where there are no minorities or majorities. This also fulfills the ultimate leftist and anti-European quota of “less white.”
How did this happen? Throughout the 19th century, the concept of overpopulation grew in popularity. This lead to a change in the perspective on life as a whole, which previously was “the more the better,” turning towards “maybe killing off a few is okay.” This makes sense, as the science presented at the time pointed towards a gloomy: We’re all doomed.
As is seen frequently in modern times, flashy, often times frightening reports are shared heavily. This was the case in the 19th and 20th century. Let me ask you, do you think that a lower class, welfare collecting citizen cares that much about “overpopulation”? It is typically the middle and higher class citizens with comfort and time to care about such issues who do, and they responded to these reports.
The reports quickly became a sort of propaganda, and this can be quickly checked by asking any living generation before the Millennials. Ask them, I bet they are at the very least familiar with a global fear of overpopulation, and how were they told they could “help” the situation. How else do you help overpopulation, than to populate less? This begs the question, of course: what about the countries who don’t slow down on their overall birthrate?
Turns out, not much care has been openly given to this thought throughout the overpopulation lifecycle. Even today it is omitted as foreign aid increases globally from the aforementioned countries. Even speaking of decreasing this within these countries is immediately shot down and whoever brought it up is labeled a “racist.” Label assigned or not, the issue still persists and the conversation must be had. What is the conversation? If the world is overpopulated, why do we continue to throw money at countries with averages of 4-6 children per woman?
Countries like Niger have shown to have increasing birth rates, a 2014 study stating up to 7 children per woman. Compared, in the same study, to the highest estimate of recent US history of 2 per woman. Yet the bleeding hearts of non-profits and governments continue to help them. On that note, believe me, I know how heartless I am sounding right now; “who is this guy? Saying helping poor countries and starving families is horrible!” Not that long ago I would be arguing your very point, good reader. Maybe even the arguments similar that which you are thinking, especially as a Christian myself, but now I ask why help in this way?
Our large-scale intervention has opened the gates to a simpler life without the development around it for sustaining this way of life. By that, I mean we are shipping over vaccines, english lessons and food to these countries. We are not giving their societies time to develop to their own potential on their own, therefore they will always be dependant on foreign aid and will not develop. This is to say also, why have they not developed beyond rust burdened shacks with mud bricks yet, even with all of this foreign aid to reduce the burden?
Perhaps they cannot.
What comes of this abundance of foreign aid, then? With the cries of “too many!” in the past, what do we see in the same charitable countries now? Diversity quotas. Diversity quotas everywhere. Our companies attempt to appear charitable through virtue signaling by “hiring more people of color.” By excluding “people of less-color,” we attain diversity? This is intrinsically racist against those of European descent. Of course, it does not stop at our larger more left-leaning companies, our politicians are also virtue signaling by “helping” in their own way.
Outside of hiring blocks on a large percentage of whites in government positions, mass immigration is the political tool for fulfilling diversity quotas. This is a direct effect from foreign aid in third world countries, as we have given them the leg up in the breeding game, but they were – and appear to remain – incapable of sustaining this population growth. Meanwhile, countries of European descent have built up so well we not only recognize the issue, but take on the burden ourselves. I do not think this is wise, as it screams of economic collapse, but that is a topic for another time.
How does one fix this then? Well, if I have learned one thing from being a nerd my whole life, it is the Prime Directive from Star Trek. This is a guiding principle in the Television series that prohibits the characters from using superior technology, cultural or scientific developments to interfere with alien civilizations that are underdeveloped. This served as a means of respecting the other cultures by not trying to force modernity on them, and allowing them to be them. Allowing their genetic framework and ancestral legacy to grow in its own and natural fashion.
I propose we decrease government foreign aid until it is absent entirely, and allow the historically active church communities to do what they do very well at. Furthermore, that we stop mass immigration into our countries of majorly European descendents. Not because we should or do hate those without our same legacy, but because we have developed faster and differently than them. Let us uphold their honor by respecting them and their direction without imposing what we think they should do. If they are to become a player in the first world ballgame, then they will do so in their own time. We cannot force it, nor should we.
If this proposition came to be, in its meantime, with less population increasing in the third world countries, and less energy expenditure from the first world countries giving aid, this would free up the European descendants to have more children of their own. To further their own legacies and communities, placing more time in their own interests and families.