Nationalism, Natalism, and the Curse of Affluence

One of the widely held goals of the alternative right is the establishment of a future for the coming generations—generations that are having their birthright stripped from them before they are even born. The children of Western civilization are being displaced, and this movement of ours has the noble goal of doing what it can to stop that.

Of course, there needs to be White children to preserve a future for, and it's here that we have a significant problem. Whites have unprecedented low birth rates. This is a misfortune shared by the planet's other high IQ groups. A quick perusal of birth rates by nation and race show that we have a problem. The CIA World Factbook shows that Germany's total fertility rate (this is the average number of children being born to a woman over her lifetime) is at 1.44, the United States is at 1.87 of which many are non-White, and Canada's is at 1.59. Countries that are generally regarded as being very right-wing and predominately White don't fare any better. Based Poland has a TFR of 1.33, and Hungary has a TFR of 1.43.

As if it weren't bad enough that the rest of the planet is outbreeding us, Whites aren't even having enough children to replace the population we currently have, and the Whites that are having children all too often tend to be having children due to poor self-control rather than a desire to have children. Among others, Marian van Court has hypothesized that global IQs have been falling for some time due to dysgenic breeding, and will continue to fall. If stupid people pass on their genes more than intelligent people the result will be a future that isn't so bright.

Combine these demographic trends with open borders and we have a situation where Whites are going to be a minority in virtually all of our countries in the next century. That, however, is not the topic of this article. We're going to talk about us instead of them.

The American scientist John B. Calhoun conducted a study in 1962 that is relevant to this discussion. Calhoun studied the behaviour of rats given an abundance of food combined with crowded living conditions in order to better understand how social interactions were altered under these conditions.

Calhoun introduced eight rats, four of each sex, into "Universe 1" a pen with constant access to food and water, no predators, no danger, and no want. The rats became acclimatized to the new environment, and after a while their population doubled every 55 days. After 315 days (almost a year) from when the eight rats had been introduced the population stood at 620 and Universe 1 began to get overcrowded.

Suddenly, the population growth began to drop off, and what the study describes next will sound eerily familiar to the denizens of the modern West.

Many [female rats] were unable to carry pregnancy to full term or to survive delivery of their litters if they did. An even greater number, after successfully giving birth, fell short in their maternal functions. Among the males the behavior disturbances ranged from sexual deviation to cannibalism and from frenetic overactivity to a pathological withdrawal from which individuals would emerge to eat, drink and move about only when other members of the community were asleep. The social organization of the animals showed equal disruption. [...] (1)

The female rats became increasingly aggressive, and would increasingly fail to properly take care of their offspring, that is, if they had offspring. Some of the male rats would become hyper-aggressive and get all the females to themselves, whereas others would become incredibly anti-social. The rats separated into different groups, all with sex imbalances. One group had one male rat and seven females , and others had an imbalance in the other direction. The rats were experiencing what Calhoun would call a "behavioral sink"; essentially the end of pro-social behavior and the beginning of the end of society.

The last healthy birth came on day 600, after which there were no new births. The rats died out.

Humans are not rats, yet we are still social creatures who have inherent natures, and the post-war affluence has begun to have similar effects on human society as Universe 1 had on Calhoun's rats. Our birth rates have dropped, women are exhibiting higher rates of aggression in the public realm, and the phenomenon of "pathological withdrawal" has become increasingly apparent in the last two decades. We call these anti-social men NEETs, and the Japanese call them grass-eaters. In Japan they stay home, play video games, and masturbate to anime. In the West they...uh, well, actually, it's pretty much the same story.

Although the minds of the Western opinion makers are too warped to see this as the problem that it obviously is, other developed countries have been taking steps to do something about it. Russia and Singapore, for example, have both implemented pro-natal policies that offer money and extended maternity leave to women who have multiple kids. These efforts have failed. You might think that a few thousand dollars might be enough to tip an indecisive woman, but you'd be wrong. Outlawing abortion doesn't seem to have much of an effect either; Poland (whose total fertility rate of 1.33 we mentioned earlier) has outlawed abortion with seemingly little effect.

What needs to change is fairly obvious; Whites, especially the intelligent ones, need to start having more kids. How we cause this change is more difficult, as the current dearth of White births is more than just an effect of particularly egregious leftism. Feminism, Jewish activism, and the panoply of alphabet soup groups exacerbate these problems and prevent action, but our problems don't end with these groups.

Calhoun attributed the results of his experiment to simple overcrowding, but I think it would be a great mistake to underestimate how abundance and safety affected the experiment. India's total fertility rate is falling, but it is still at 2.5, and India is far more overcrowded than America is.

The Industrial Revolution has created our Universe 1. For perhaps the first time in human history, human beings don't fear being hunted by animals, being killed in warfare, or dying in a famine or a plague. We have spent such a small part of our history in such a state of affluence that we simply can't function properly in it because we aren't evolved for it. We weren't built for the modern world, and how we reconcile human psychology with these new conditions is a question that has yet to be answered, largely because liberalism has no answer to how a liberal society can sustain itself when its members don't have enough kids to keep the population from withering away to nothing.

Solving this problem won't be easy, (and solve it we must, regardless of Third-World immigration) and it isn't a matter of adjusting tax rates, or even of creating an atmosphere that smiles on childbirth. What is needed is serious societal change, because our wealth is killing us. We are not rats; we can see what is happening to us. We don't have to stare helplessly and shrug our shoulders while the inevitable takes its course. With the right leadership, we can change the circumstances we find ourselves in radically enough for us to have functional societies again.

This is a problem that will have to be faced by our people in the coming decades, but the bad news is that the alternative right is not really at the point where it can make policy proposals on how to tackle demographic decline.

The good news is that there's something that we can all do personally to help build a better future. You should have kids, and raise them well. Nothing will doom a family's, or a nation's future more than a refusal to do the one thing that will guarantee that there will be a future to work and fight for.


  1. John B. Calhoun, "Population Density and Social Pathology". National Institute of Mental Health.

Relevant Reading:

Social Matter on Natalism:
On "Grass-Eaters":

The photograph of the boys was taken by William Letts Oliver.