POPULATION AND MIGRATION

In many circles today the limits to growth argument of ecologists is out of favor, being dismissed by neo-Marxists, religious fundamentalists, and capitalist technocrats. Yet a cardinal principle of environmentalism remains sustainability, and by this measure America, not to mention the world, is already overpopulated.

In 2011 world population passed the seven billion mark. In 1927 the world held two billion persons. “Some people alive today have seen the population triple in their lifetimes.” Those who minimize the problem point out that the pace of increase has declined. Although the rate of population growth is slowing, in sixty years the human population is projected to reach ten billion.²⁰

Of course, the growth in population is very uneven among the races. Black African populations are growing rapidly. Most Asian and Latin American populations are experiencing moderate growth, while Whites worldwide are reproducing below replacement level – negative population growth. This phenomenon of racial replacement is one reason why population growth cannot be viewed objectively. To see burgeoning non-White populations as a problem is to elicit charges of racism: Any policy that limit the fertility of Third World women is seen as both racist and sexist, while at the same time the fact that aging White populations of Europe and North America are being replaced by expanding numbers of Asians, Africans, and Latin Americans should not be viewed with alarm. The current dogma is that all peoples have the same capacity for cultural development, so there is no reason to object to this demographic transformation. In fact, greater diversity in the West is seen as an advantage.

Another argument used to dismiss environmental concerns about population growth is that Third World peoples use fewer resources than peoples of the West, thus their populations have a smaller environmental impact.

All three arguments used to deny the population problem – slowing of the rate of population growth, the balanced replacement of White with non-White populations, and the low resource use by non-Whites – are specious.

We can take no comfort from the fact the rate of population increase has declined if, as many believe, present levels of resource use are already at unsustainable levels. The exploitation of soil, water, and mineral resources today is the equivalent of deficit spending. In this case population reduction, not the slowing of growth, is required. This is the position of Finnish fisherman, philosopher, and ecologist Pentti Linkola.²¹ Linkola believes the world’s current population is 2.5 times greater than a sustainable level.

The belief that races and cultures are essentially interchangeable, thus making ethnic change of little consequence, has been consistently disproven by history, social science, and current events – e.g., by the tendencies of African-derived peoples in a wide range of contemporary cultures.²² Culture has a racial/ethnic basis, and ethnic change inevitably produces profound cultural change.

It is often stated that Westerners use many times the energy and other resources per capita as do non-Western peoples. If somehow the entire world had the standard of living of Americans, global resource consumption would be five times greater than today.²³ The conclusion some draw from this is that Westerners must accept a lower standard of living as non-Western populations increase their consumption. This is the logical outcome of globalization and the free movement of goods, labor, and finance worldwide.

The idea that non-Western peoples tread lightly on the environment due to low consumption is also erroneous. Consider two countries with approximately the same population densities – Belgium and Haiti.²⁴ The mixed Walloon and Flemish population of Belgium is able to produce enough wealth from their small land area to support their population at a high standard of living. Their environmental protection is exemplary.

Unfortunately, in recent decades Belgium has permitted large numbers of Asians and Africans to settle in their country and their presence now threatens Belgium’s peace and prosperity.

Along with being a political and economic failed state that people are desperate to leave, Haiti is also an environmental disaster. Once called the “Pearl of the Antilles,” Haiti had lush forested hills and fertile valleys. Generations of rapid population growth supported by subsistence agriculture has led to deforestation, overgrazing and soil erosion and depletion. Water running off bare hillsides choke the valleys with mud and debris. “In the last five decades, more than 90 percent of [Haiti’s] tree cover has been lost... The resulting erosion has destroyed an estimated two-thirds of the country’s fertile farmland since 1940, while its population has quadrupled.”²⁵ The UN has declared that Haiti simply has “too many people living on land that can no longer support them.”²⁶

Belgium is able to comfortably support a population density that in Haiti produces extreme poverty. Haitians find large-scale cooperation and long-term planning difficult or impossible, while Belgium has used its social capital to produce goods and services needed in foreign and domestic commerce. Haiti is severely overpopulated, Belgium is not. This is race realism.

Haiti is just one example of non-White overpopulation. It has been suggested that the upheavals produced by the Arab Spring were a result, in part, of raising commodity prices. As Mideast populations grow, they have become more dependent on buying grain from abroad. As food prices rose in the 2010-2011 period, so did unrest.

Every contentious contemporary issue has a racial component, and the inability of the environmental movement to deal forthrightly and honestly with population and migration problems is certainly the result of the anti-White bias of the prevailing ideology. An example can be seen in the changing position of the Sierra Club on the issues of migration and population growth. Founded by racial ecologist John Muir in 1892, the Sierra Club is one of the oldest and largest environmental organizations in the world, with approximately two million overwhelmingly White members. It has betrayed both the environmental cause and the racial interests of its members by supporting amnesty for illegal aliens and continued high levels of “legal” immigration.

For decades the Sierra Club’s position on population had been based on the premise “that immigration drives unsustainable population growth, which then drains resources and harms the environment.”²⁷ Growing pressure from the left led then-executive director Carl Pope to duck the topic of population by claiming it was too controversial to deal with. Pope told an interviewer in 2004 that “this issue is so deeply charged with a lot of issues, including xenophobia and racism, that you can’t get into it and have a clean debate, and therefore you just couldn’t try.”²⁸

By 2013, under the present executive director Michael Brune, the Sierra Club had fully embraced a pro-immigration policy that includes amnesty for illegal immigrants. In addition, it opposes building “border walls in the Southwest” because of the environmental damage they may cause.²⁹

So over the last several decades the Sierra Club’s position on population and immigration has evolved from advocating population and immigration control, to neutrality, to promoting an essential open-borders policy.

Some see the change in the Sierra Club’s position driven by greed as much as ideology. In the 1990s billionaire Wall Street investor David Gelbaum approached Carl Pope with an offer to contribute millions of dollars if it adopted a pro-immigration position. Eventually, Gelbaum got his way and “the organization received over $100 million dollars in a couple of donations over the years 2000 and 2001. In any normal circumstances, such a transaction would be considered a bribe and roundly condemned. But the leadership kept the source of the new riches secret, until a 2004 Los Angeles Times article revealed Gelbaum as the sugar daddy.”³⁰

Today those who support rational policies on population and migration have an uphill fight. They are opposed by religious fundamentalists and radical feminists making common cause against birth control aimed at poor women, while cultural Marxists, ethnic activists, and global capitalists work in tandem to promote quantitative population growth and the free movement of labor.

For more on the corruption of the environmentalist movement see Jewish Environmentalism

HYBRIDIZATION

In most cases it is still possible for professional wildlife managers to formulate policy on the basis of science and reason. However, the sort of muddle-headed sentimentality that dominates Whites’ thinking on race has now spread to their views on wild creatures. People who should know better have a Disneyland understanding of fauna. Animals in the wild do not die comfortably medicated in bed. They are killed by predators or die of injury, disease, or starvation. A bullet is a relatively humane way to go, and hunting is a valuable tool to keep populations within the carrying capacity of the environment.

Hybridization can occur in the wild when new species or subspecies are introduced into an environment. Below are some examples of state and federal government efforts to prevent or reverse hybridization in the wild, thus preserving biodiversity.

For centuries trout, a beautiful fish that requires cool, clean water to survive, have inspired admiration from anglers and naturalists alike. In The Compleat Angler, a book still widely read today, Englishman Izaak Walton (1594-1683) wrote: “The trout is a fish highly valued both in this and foreign nations.”³¹ This is still true today.

Unfortunately, this aristocrat is now threatened by miscegenation. Decades of promiscuous stocking of non-native species, to provide more “sport” for fishermen, has damaged native trout populations in both the Appalachians and the Rocky Mountains. State fish and game departments, the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as sportsmen/conservation groups such as Trout Unlimited are concerned about the genetic integrity of the eastern brook trout and the western cutthroat trout. In both cases the culprit is often hatchery-raised rainbow trout. The problem is twofold. The stocked fish drive out and replace the natives, and they can also interbreed with them, destroying valuable genotypes. Racial ecologist Robert Beverley compares the mixing of stocked fish and natives with “that of a South Los Angles street gang and a Mennonite farming community” ³² – an analogy that would likely be frowned on by the politically correct, given that it implies genetically based differences between human groups.

Dr. Harold Kincaid, a researcher for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, explains that with stocking, “the genetic transformafion of an entire valuable strain gathers a fatal momentum over time.” “We gradually lose genetic material,” he says, as native genomes are “basically broken up” by wave upon wave of introduced hatchery fish.³³

Aquatic biologist John Epifanio is also interested in protecting native fish. “Genetic conservation principles are formulated on the premise that it is prudent to protect rare, unique, and natural gene combinations.”³⁴ According to an article in the New York Times, “38% of North American fish species which became extinct during the past century died out at least partly because of genetic mixing with other species, [and] 68% of the extinct species succumbed at least in part due to replacement by introduced rival species.”³⁵

The National Park Service has taken steps to preserve the native brook trout in Great Smoky Mountain National Park. After decades of stocking rainbow trout, they discontinued the practice in the 1970s. Park personnel found that this was not enough to save the remaining native fish. Only segregation, the physical separation of the species, could do the job. “Since rainbow trout will usually progressively displace brook trout where the two species occur together, the best hope for saving brookies... is to identify those headwaters with lower limits marked by vertical barriers too high for trout to normally leap.”³⁶ In other words, the pure, remote headwaters will be reserved for the brook trout, down-stream for the rainbows.

Similar efforts are being made to save the cutthroat trout native to the Rocky Mountains and Great Basin regions. As with the eastern brook trout, part of the problem has been stocking non-native rainbow trout. One subspecies, the greenback cutthroat, the native trout of the eastern drainage of the Colorado Rockies, is particularly threatened. The loss of habitat and the introduction of “other spring spawning trout species [e.g., rainbows] that hybridize with greenbacks, and fall spawning species that compete with greenbacks for food and space” have depleted cutthroat populations.³⁷

So over the last several decades the states, the federal government, as well as sportsmen and conservation groups have spent millions of dollars in an effort to save various species and subspecies of trout. While the analogy between trout populations and human populations is not perfect, certain principles apply to both. The introduction of new species or subspecies often results in loss of habitat, genetic integrity, and even extinction for the indigenous species.

THE COMMONS

Both environmentalism and racialism have a collectivist component. Several decades ago, Garrett Hardin made the case that the environment is analogous to the village commons of medieval and early modern times.⁵² The commons refers to collectively used resources. The traditional commons consisted of pasture and woodlands used by the village. The new commons are global resources – air and water, especially the oceans. Unregulated commons inevitably become degraded, and are eventually destroyed.

The commons can also be understood as what eighteenth-century political philosophers called the common weal or commonwealth. Racial neologism considers the health and integrity of the folk or ethny as part of the commonwealth of a nation. A core function of the state should be to protect and improve its ethny. The commonwealth consists of those who contribute to the welfare of society. It excludes parasites and freeloaders. Racial ecologism would restrict the freedom of the individual to do harm to the ethny, just as it would restrict the individual from harming the physical environment.

CONCLUSIONS

The three essays concluding here have been an attempt to influence the ideology of contemporary racialism toward a naturalist direction. This is in the tradition of Ernst Haeckel, Madison Grant, et al. Racialism and neologism have been linked in the past in both America and Europe, and we have seen how present environmental issues, such as stocking rainbow trout in the natural habitat of other species, have racial analogies. Several fields, including social ecology and political ethnology, have been suggested as possible approaches to future research and ideological development.

Many topics have been covered here, none in depth. Rather the objective has been aspirational and suggestive, pointing to areas of further study.

In a 2014 essay Greg Johnson identified four ecological ideas useful in thinking about race: habitat, invasive species, hybridization, and predation.⁵³

First, all species and subspecies require a specific habitat, a compatible environment for survival and reproduction. We saw how White flight to the suburbs after World War II created a social and physical environment for the largely White baby boom. By the mid-1960s, integration and immigration, among other factors, began to depress the White birth rate.

Second, when non-native species are introduced to a new environment, they can proliferate using resources needed by native species. Thus non-Whites thrive in White environments, often leading to high birth rates, while the newcomers make disproportionate use of collective resources.

Third, in the case of trout and bison, when non-native species or subspecies are introduced to an environment, unique genotypes can be wrecked by interbreeding. In multiethnic societies miscegenation blends races, destroying distinct and valuable characteristics.

Fourth, predation in the human context includes crime and perhaps the abortion of viable White focuses.

Finally, psychological factors, which Johnson’s essay does not explicitly address, should be mentioned. Psychic stress can cause pathology. Many animals, for example, are difficult to breed in captivity. Human societies can be affected by collective morale problems. For the West today these psychological problems include narcissism, alienation, sexual confusion, drug addiction, and racial guilt. The Center for Disease Control recently reported a decline in life expectancy among White Americans driven largely by self-destructive behaviors.⁵⁴ As documented by Charles Murray, there has been an alarming deterioration of the culture of the White working class as social supports for marriage and high-investment patenting have disappeared.⁵⁵

Most Whites seem unaware of the hostile forces working to destroy our people and culture. Most Whites have difficulty comprehending the possibility of White extinction, or why that might even matter. Framing the discussion in ecological terms may clarify the issues. White communities are as much a part of the natural order as a pod of orcas or a herd of caribou – and even more worthy of cherishing.