by Andrew Hamilton
“Demographic theory, and numerous simulations, have already shown that immigration cannot compensate for population ageing except with flows so large as to hugely increase population growth and rapidly replace the existing population with a foreign one — ‘replacement migration’ indeed.” David Coleman, Professor of Demography, University of Oxford
THE WHITE POPULATION worldwide is experiencing massive demographic collapse, a fact perfectly comprehended — and applauded — by its enemies, who call Aryans “the cancer of human history” and promote genocide as morally “good.” (They have a long habit of calling evil good and good evil, of putting darkness for light and light for darkness.) Genocide directed at Whites is now de facto public policy. (ILLUSTRATION: High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development, United Nations, New York City, October 2013)
It is implemented by numerous methods, including genetic swamping via Third World immigration, curtailment of White births, and the imposition of dictatorial laws suppressing protective reactions (including free speech and political parties) against physical annihilation. Fundamentally, “replacement migration” is the inviting idea — inviting to our overlords — of substituting non-White immigrants for “missing” White babies never born due to culturally-induced low fertility.
With the abrupt onset of sub-replacement fertility in the (then still-White) West after 1970, falling to levels way below any historically experienced or thought feasible, a major problem with the final stage (three) of the prevailing demographic transition model became apparent. (For a discussion and critique of the model see Andrew Hamilton, “Holes in the Demographic Transition Model?”)
That theory had predicted stable replacement fertility (just over 2 children on average) for European peoples, zero population growth, and life expectancies higher than 70 years of age. Household, marriage, and child-bearing patterns would continue to be typified by heterosexual couples in stable, long-term marriages with children.
Today, however, sub-replacement fertility is regarded as a permanent (structural, long-term) feature of White populations. A multitude of living arrangements has replaced matrimony, marriage has been decoupled from procreation, and White children are often viewed as undesirable.
Like many of their colleagues, two Dutch-speaking demographers, Ron Lesthaeghe and Dirk van de Kaa, see White sub-replacement fertility as causing a “demographic need” for “sustained immigration,” a “compensatory trend” that will fuel the growth of multiracial societies far into the future. Lesthaeghe explicitly refers to this as “replacement migration,” though van de Kaa avoids the term.
Should this pattern persist within the existing dictatorial, anti-White, multiracial environment, Whites will cease to be a major race in the not too distant future.
The UN’s Replacement Migration Report
Thirteen years ago the United Nations published a report, Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations? (United Nations Population Division, 2001). “As part of its regular work programme, the United Nations Population Division continuously monitors fertility, mortality and migration trends for all countries of the world,” said the report, which was overseen and possibly written by then-UN Population Division director Joseph Chamie. (p. 7)
Judging from the report and other things he’s written, Chamie appears to favor large-scale immigration and amnesty in the West, although he carefully camouflages his views by the ample use of Communist-style bureaucratese.
In 2000 he condescendingly noted that Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front party in France viewed his report “as a recipe for cultural genocide.” Unsurprisingly, in an enumeration of arguments against amnesty in a different paper (counterbalanced with a long list of pro-amnesty arguments), he makes no mention of the most important one of all: the survival of a people and civilization.
In light of the circumstances, it is of interest whether Chamie is a Jew. His photos do not rule it out. He maintains that emigration is a universal human right, but immigration is not, and therefore up to the receiving country to determine. (Reminds me of a politician I once knew.) He has written articles about Israeli population issues. Despite his mealy-mouthed style, they seem essentially pro-Jewish: the Palestinian refugees of 1948 have no right of return to their homeland; the United States or NATO must provide both Israelis and Palestinians with security guarantees (why, for Christ’s sake?). There is, of course, the cosmopolitan profile. And the kind of influence he wields over the life and death of our people suggests Jewishness as well. Lastly, because Google conceals Jewish identity in searches (except for flaming Jews), I’ll assume Chamie is Jewish until I definitively know otherwise.
The report analyzed eight countries and two regions, all relatively large, which had below replacement fertility in 2000: France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the US, Europe, and the European Union. Though not mentioned, the baseline figures included large numbers of non-Whites due to many years of high fertility Third World immigration and extensive hybridization between Whites and non-Whites.
The time period covered is roughly half a century, from 1995 to 2050. Omitted from the report are Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, whose trends, however, were the same.
“Replacement migration” means “the international migration that would be needed to offset declines in the size of population, the declines in the population of working age, as well as to offset the overall ageing of a population.” (Executive Summary, p. 1)
Keep in mind that whenever you read statements such as the following, anywhere, in any source, hybrid fertility (race mixture) and the much higher fertility of endlessly arriving non-Whites and their descendants are included in the raw numbers, meaning that White fertility must be incomprehensibly low: “Fertility is presently at record low levels in many countries where total fertility rates (TFR) as low as 1.2 children per woman have been recorded in recent years — well below the level of 2.1 children per woman that would ensure the replacement of the parents’ generation.” (Overview of the Issues, p. 8)
The report distinguishes three distinct “migration streams,” each with rising numbers, necessary to offset:
- total population decline
- working-age population decline
- prevent countries from ageing
The size of migration flows needed to maintain a support ratio of working to retired age groups (the third option, “prevent countries from aging”) would require immigration levels so high that the percent of the population by 2050 traceable to post-1995 immigrants and their descendants would range between 59% and 99% of the total. (Chapter 5: Conclusions and Implications, p. 98)
“Such high levels of migration,” the study continues, “have not been observed in the past for any of these countries or regions.” It seems “extremely unlikely” that flows of such magnitude will happen “in the foreseeable future.” (p. 98) Unhappily, we’ve been subjected to thirteen additional years of unchecked, ever-accelerating immigration since those words were written.
The report uses 1995 as the baseline, a period when Western nations already had historically unprecedented numbers of non-Whites within their borders. As the report itself states, “For example, in 1990 [emphasis added], 16 per cent of the population of Canada and Switzerland and 23 per cent of the population of Australia were foreign-born” (p. 98; yes, that’s what it says). Therefore, the numbers, no matter how you slice them, seem radically different from Whites “merely” falling below 50 percent of the population by 2050, as the media and government ordinarily state.
Absent very high migration, projected declines in some nations during the first half of the 21st century will be “as high as one quarter or one third of the entire population of the country.” (p. 97)
The report grumbles particularly about supporting people aged 65 and older (i.e., predominantly Whites). One option would be to require them to work until age 75. By that time, of course, many would have conveniently dropped dead slaving for their Jewish and plutocratic overlords and brown, black, and yellow “replacements.” Also appealing is a substantial reduction in retirement and health-care benefits for the elderly (pp. 97, 98, 99).
During the second half of the twentieth century, the industrialized countries have benefited from population sizes and population age-structures that were the result of a history of moderate levels of fertility and low mortality. These favourable demographic circumstances made possible, to a large extent, the provision of relatively generous benefits to retirees at comparatively low costs to workers and employers. (p. 98)
But those days are over.
The gist of the report may be summarized as follows (Executive Summary, pp. 3, 5):
During the first half of the 21st century, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of below-replacement fertility and increased longevity.
In the absence of migration, the declines in population size will be even greater than those projected, and population aging will be more rapid.
Although fertility (the fertility of racially mixed populations) may rebound in the coming decades, few believe that fertility in most developed countries will recover sufficiently to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future, thus making population decline inevitable in the absence of replacement migration.
Radical reassessments of, and sweeping changes to, economic, social and political programs and policies will be made.
It is odd that the Republican Party, viewed as America’s de facto White party, is pioneering proposed cuts to Medicare, Social Security, farm subsidies, and other programs aimed (by now, accidentally) at its core constituency while simultaneously promoting amnesty and huge welfare programs like Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s Romneycare, the prototype for Obamacare, which vastly expanded Medicaid expenditures for young non-Whites, including illegals. Such Republican initiatives amount to massive racial wealth transfers favored by Democrats, whose anti-White racism is overt. Why not let them do the dirty work? But no.
Because it is such a spectacularly bad idea, replacement migration has had one or two critics.
University of Oxford demographer David Coleman called the UN report an exercise in “demographism,” which he defined, in the words of the Population Reference Bureau, “as an excessive reliance on narrow demographic statistics relating to the numbers of people, without regard to their characteristics and without regard to the consequences of such population change on social and political structures, community relations, or social cohesion.”
Will the ageing populations of the Western world need even more immigrants to avert imminent population decline and to support the unsustainable burden of the elderly? Or is migration on that scale just a simple-minded short-term solution which ignores domestic demographic reserves and which would rapidly transform, in unwelcome ways, the receiving countries into a radically different kind of society. . . ?
Europe already receives many more immigrants than it knows what to do with (up to 1 million a year net for much of the 1990s). Regular labour migration is managed by work permit and by free movement in the EU [European Union]. But most migration is unrelated to economic needs: asylum claimants, spouses and dependents. European public opinion does not on the whole welcome large-scale migration. Europeans think they know who they are and unlike (say) Australians, do not want to become something different. Post-war immigration has already turned large sections of European cities into foreign enclaves. About 10% of Continental Europe’s workforce is out of a job. Europe’s immigrants (especially women) are already less likely than natives to be in the workforce and are much more likely to be unemployed. Compared with its industrial competitors, the EU makes poor use of its own demographic resources. If people of working age throughout the EU had the same work patterns as Denmark, then over 30 million people would be added to the EU workforce.
In 2002 Frank Salter, an Australian researcher in Human Ethology at the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Physiology in Germany, likewise addressed the question of replacement migration, though not directly in response to the UN report. (In a footnote he mentioned a special issue of Population and Environment [March 2001] devoted to replacement migration, in which many articles did discuss the UN findings.)
Instead of replacement migration, Salter advocates “universal nationalism,” essentially the same concept articulated in different ways by Greg Johnson, and Richard McCulloch in his book The Racial Compact (1994) (physical version here). In Salter’s words:
Universal nationalism means thinking again about ethnic states where the state unambiguously serves the ethnic interests of the majority. By ethnic state I mean something closer to the traditional German than the French model of the nation. The German model adopts ethnicity as shared descent as a criterion of citizenship and thus offers a constitutional barrier to replacement migration. In the second half of the twentieth century this barrier collapsed in wealthy states that adopted the French model. (“Estimating Ethnic Genetic Interests: Is It Adaptive to Resist Replacement Migration?” Population and Environment 24 (November 2002): 111-140 at 134)
Salter sardonically observes that “From the majority perspective, it would seem that the only thing more maladaptive than multiculturalism that does not ‘work’ is multiculturalism that does ‘work.’” (p. 133)
To Hell With This
It was consciously decided by elites in direct opposition to the will of the people as expressed by popular vote and in extensive surveys over many decades that collapsing populations in formerly White nations were to be supplemented, and ultimately replaced, by Third World migrants. There was nothing inevitable about this process, as the examples of Israel and Japan, not to mention common sense, prove.
Indeed, Jewish populations everywhere are permitted to retain their own segregated laws, institutions, and communities free of ubiquitous charges of racism or legal prohibitions against discrimination. This includes not only dual/multiple citizenship, Jewish courts, autonomous institutions of self-government (federations, congresses, committees), tax exempt racist organizations such as the ADL, SPLC, and AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), but even domestic terrorist groups (JDL, JDO, JTF) and community vigilante organizations resembling police forces. To the extent that Jews integrate with other races (including, unfortunately, Whites), they do so at their own volition, not because they are compelled to by the state.
As an aside, an enigmatic statement in a brief paper by Charles B. Keely, Professor of International Migration at the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, is attention-grabbing, though not further explained:
[T]here was good evidence, since strengthened, that Soviet authorities [in the mid-20th century] were facilitating movement of asylum seekers into Europe to discomfort the West in return for the West’s attempts to embarrass the East by its open asylum policy for those from Communist countries.
The effect of these Cold War policies was an attempt in the mid 1980s for European countries to change asylum practice. This set up political controversy within European democracies about whether narrowing asylum practice to adhere only to what was required by international conventions was acceptable. Opponents charged that a fortress Europe was evolving based on racist motives toward Third World asylum seekers. (p. 3)
Whether Keely is referring to Communist Jews, Third World colored immigrants, or both, is unclear. Although tens of thousands of Jews were permitted to leave the Soviet bloc without hindrance, Aryans were never free to leave en masse.
Replacement migration blandly treats all races as fungible. The only thing that matters is age of the migrants: they should be young and highly fertile. Even education, language, and basic skills, never mind IQ, do not matter.
Mass immigration was not a policy response to White fertility decline. Immigration throughout the West was imposed before White fertility dropped below replacement level. Replacement migration as an excuse for countering White population collapse surfaced only decades later.
At the middle of the twentieth century — when Europe and North America were still White — the average fertility level stood at 2.6 children per woman in Europe and 2.4 children for the countries of the European Union. For the countries in the UN study, the range was from 2.2 children per woman in Germany and the United Kingdom to 2.7 children in France. Fertility was markedly higher in the US at 3.4 children. By 1965-1970 (nations still White), fertility had increased a little on average for the countries of the European Union, to 2.5 children per woman, but fallen below replacement in Japan and the Russian Federation at 2.0 children. Fertility had decreased to 2.5 children in the United States (still above replacement). By 1995-2000, however, fertility was below replacement level in all countries and regions analyzed by the UN, ranging from a high of 2.0 children in the United States to 1.2 children in Italy. The average for Europe and the European Union was 1.4 children per woman. But by that time high fertility non-Whites were a major factor, demonstrating how suddenly and precipitously White fertility, which is lower than the racially mixed averages, collapsed. (Data from UN, Replacement Migration, Chapter 4, “Results: Overview,” p. 21)
The new migration undoubtedly accelerated White numerical decline through genetic swamping, hybridization, immense compulsory interracial wealth transfers, the movement of White women en masse from the home into the labor force, racially discriminatory laws, and job displacement — not excluding lucrative, powerful, and socially elite positions.
While White immigration is everywhere flagrantly blocked in discriminatory ways, Jewish and non-White migration has consistently been pushed far beyond legal limits — even as laws were continuously expanded to promote higher and higher levels of non-White entrants from the most backward regions of the globe.
“The whole of Europe now became an area of destination for would-be immigrants from other parts of the world. . . . seeking entry by whatever means feasible,” Dutch demographer Dirk van de Kaa wrote.
Open borders for non-Whites were achieved by ceaselessly ratcheting up “legal” immigration quotas, governments’ refusal to enforce existing laws, public subsidies to illegal residents, admitting “guest” and “migrant” workers who never left, providing an open door for anyone born in former colonies long since independent, using restricted categories such as “displaced persons,” “refugees,” and “asylum seekers” as de facto open portals, and chain migration (“family reunification”), a technique by which everyone who arrives is allowed to invite family members as new residents, who in turn invite more family members, and so on in an endless sequence. To top it off, every successive wave of illegal arrivals, numbering in the millions, is ultimately granted “amnesty” (citizenship).
Projections are merely projections. The UN’s Replacement Migration report is important primarily for what it tells us about the anti-White, illiberal elites who promulgate and selectively enforce our racial laws. The report should be viewed in conjunction with “street-level” awareness of political, media, academic, and governmental hatred and rage against Whites, a burning desire to eliminate us physically, as a people, through government and cultural fiat. This attitude, this fixation, this anti-White fury is far more important than any specific, dry projections contained in a globalist policy report promoting the genocidal agenda.
As the Left-wing Guardian (UK) newspaper sneers: “They cry free speech, as if that principle overrode issues of human rights [sic] and morality [sic]. . . . [M]any of us believe that immigration controls are inherently racist, and explicable only by racism.”
Replacement migration, in one form or another, is happening now. It is enforced by states everywhere. How about this instead? Stop immigration, and start deportation.
* * *
Source: Author and Counter-Currents