← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · PaleoconAvatar

The Inevitability of Depopulation

Thread ID: 14044 | Posts: 5 | Started: 2004-06-03

Wayback Archive

PaleoconAvatar [OP]

2004-06-03 23:52 | User Profile

The Inevitability of Depopulation

By Troy Southgate

The following article originally appeared in Issue # 29 of Alternative Green. For more details contact: 20 Upper Barr, Cowley Centre, Oxford OX4 3UX, England.

REDUCING the population is one of the central planks of our decentralist strategy and it is only right that we thrash out the details of this plan between us. However, there appears to be a problem. Thus far, none of us have satisfactorily explained just how we intend to carry out such a process.

In the last issue of Alternative Green, Mike Shankland [The Population Problem, p. 8-9] expressed his concern that - despite being in favour of cutting the population - it may be difficult to achieve this objective ‘without compromising’ the rest of our programme. In his seminal text, To End Poverty: The Starvation of the Periphery by the Core [Alternative Green, 1997], Richard Hunt tells us that ‘In Britain there are about 33 million acres of farmland, excluding rough grazing. There are about 58 million people, about half an acre per person.’ [p.201] He also calculates that ‘a family needs about 8 acres to be self-sufficient. That means Britain could support a population of about 15 million self-sufficiently, without exploiting anyone else.’ [Ibid.] However, whilst Richard is correct to point out that cutting the size of the political unit is futile if no attempts are made to reduce the population, I believe that such a reduction is inevitable and, therefore, something which will happen naturally as part of an all-encompassing cosmological master-plan. Indeed, when during a recent telephone conversation I asked Richard to elaborate upon his theory, he put forward one or two additional examples of how to reduce the population; namely, cutting child benefit for the rich, opposing immigration, discouraging large families and offering support for abortion and contraception. Whilst I personally reject both abortion and contraception due to the fact that I believe them to be contrary to the Natural Order, I would go even further and suggest that all attempts to achieve political, social and economic decentralisation by reforming the present system are doomed to failure. Quite simply, it is out of our hands. Let me explain further.

According to the Revolutionary Conservative thinker, Oswald Spengler, human cultures and civilisations are purely organic in nature. Even more important is the fact that all great empires, civilisations and historical peaks are transitory and both grow and wither in accordance with the remorseless march of Time itself. In the words of Spengler, ‘the great cultures accomplish their majestic wave-cycles. They appear suddenly, swell in splendid lines, flatten again and vanish, and the face of the waters is once more a sleeping waste.’ [The Decline of the West, Munich, 1926, p.73] The Italian philosopher, Julius Evola, remarks upon this process when comparing American civilisation with that of Europe. Indeed, whilst America is far younger in terms of the fact that European civilisation has been around far longer than its more arrogant cousin, Evola believes that America is already in the final stages of decline: ‘The structure of history is however, cyclical not evolutionary. It is far from being the case that the most recent civilisations are necessarily ‘superior’. They may be, in fact, senile and decadent.’ [American ‘Civilisation’ in Further Thoughts of Julius Evola, The Rising Press, 2001, p.18] Edward Gibbon says much the same thing in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire [Chatto & Windus, 1960, p. 524-5]: ‘the demise of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the cause of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and instead of inquiring why the Roman Empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long.’ So what has all this to do with reducing the population?

My basic contention is that International Capitalism will eventually overreach itself with disastrous consequences, and, just like the seemingly indestructible civilisations of Egypt, Greece, Rome and the British Empire, is destined to come crashing down like the proverbial house of cards. In other words, attempts to reform the system will only prolong the inevitable demise of the system itself. Furthermore, whilst being very gradual in nature (allowing the most pragmatic individuals to pool their resources and create fresh alternatives on the periphery) the penultimate collapse of the bureaucratic core will have devastating effects on population levels. The State will become an irrelevancy and its disappearance will be followed by famine, disease and internecine conflict. Richard Hunt’s ‘grubby utopia’ will seem like a breath of fresh air once the local mafiosi, drug barons and criminal opportunists have taken advantage of the situation. Amidst burnt-out cars, empty factories and the smouldering ruins of the newly-slain technocracy, the dazed hunter-gatherers who remain will count their lucky stars that they got out whilst there was still time. Returning to Spengler: ‘At this level all civilisations enter upon a stage, which lasts for centuries, of appalling depopulation. The whole pyramid of cultural man vanishes. It crumbles from the summit, first the world-cities, then the provincial forms and finally the land itself, whose best blood has incontinently poured into the towns, merely to bolster them up awhile. At the last, only the primitive blood remains, alive, but robbed of its strongest and most promising elements.’ [p.251]

The population of the British Isles will not be significantly reduced either by halting immigration or by implementing a series of reforms pertaining to birth control. On the contrary, mankind is part of a perpetual cycle which is ultimately determined by extraneous powers beyond our control, although this should not cause us to shirk our responsibilities. According to Evola: ‘It is typical of a heroic vocation to face the greatest wave knowing that two destinies lie ahead: that of those who will die with the dissolution of the modern world, and that of those who will find themselves in the main and regal stream of the new current.’ [Revolt Against the Modern World, Inner Traditions, 1995, p.366] Under the circumstances, therefore, the best that we can do is to prepare for the inevitability of this fact.

Ponce

2004-06-04 00:35 | User Profile

I do agree that the world is way over populated and that we need some kind of "accident" in order to get rid of a couple of billions of us,,,,,,however, who should it be or who is going to be first?.

Will it be some poor helpless black in Africa that only eats once every three days?

Maybe the people of my land? Cuba?,,,,,, after all, they have been living a substandard life for the past 40 years and according to Bush they are a "terrorist" state.

I wont even mention the Palestinian people, the Zionist are already taking care of them.

No my friends, I think that it should be the people that consume 26% of all the world energy and eat five times a day,,,,,,, If that were to happen in the US then that would mean that many more millions of people in the world would survive.

The few must die in order for the many to live,,,,,,,,, all that I can tell you is to be prepare for I see some kind of disaster in the future,,,,,,,

I don't know if you know this but the state of Israel are light years ahead of the rest of the world in making those little bugs that is a danger to the rest of us,,,,,, I still say that AIDS comes from human and not from nature and that pretty soon there will be another bug similar to it but at the same time way more deadly,,,,,,,

PaleoconAvatar

2004-06-04 00:43 | User Profile

Naturally, I'd hope to see the European-descended populations of North America, Australia, New Zealand, the European homeland itself, and whatever's left of South Africa and Rhodesia be the ones left still standing. That's generally how it works anyway--the populations of the Third World have always been at the mercy of natural events. It is Western medical and agricultural technology that's altered the balance and allowed the teeming hordes of Asia, Africa, and Latin America to multiply out of control. And ironically enough, it's Western improvements in communications and transportation technology that's helped import those Third Worlders into our lands. In other words, we're victims of our own success (or maybe the dupes of our own charitableness).

travis

2004-06-05 00:46 | User Profile

Those targeted for depopulation of course will first be those most capable of resisting the Jews. Once that is done, getting rid of the rest of the useless eaters will be easy. Mass starvation will be the preferred method, after all they used it before.

Faust

2004-06-05 01:46 | User Profile

PaleoconAvatar,

**The main problem the European Folk faces is not Depopulation, but as in the case of wildlife it is loss of Habitat. **

There are 58,000,0000 people in Britain, if that number were cut to 15,000,000 that would still be a large population able to built and support a great nation. Look at what Britain did in the past with fewer people, a lot more than it is doing now.

As for the farmland of Britain, I am sue Britain could have more than 33 million acres if they needed it. The Scots of the Outer Hebrides farmed land that was little more than beach mixed with sea weed. Much of that "rough grazing" land was farmed in the past, but it was turn over to the sheep because of the high profits to be made from wool exports.

Loss of Habitat is what puts us danger. As long as we do not let Third Worlders overrun our land we will not be in danger.