For the purpose of this post, I will be defining racialism as the following set of beliefs:
Black people are a different species, unique from all other humans, descended from Homo Erectus.
Black people are uniquely poor and violent for genetic reasons which cannot be ameliorated with education, nutrition, or cultural changes.
The best way to decrease global poverty and violence is to decrease the number of black people, and to increase the global proportion of white people.
Civic nationalism based on borders and culture is a distraction; only racial genetics matter.
I don’t hold these beliefs, but the most extreme, hateful, and malicious comments I receive are from people who do hold these beliefs. Today, I want to demonstrate how if racialists were logically consistent, they would support policies of feminist mass immigration.
Borders and Culture
If only racial genetics matter, and not civic nationalism (borders and culture), then the prime directive of racialists should be to increase the white percentage of the global population, and decrease the number of blacks, irrespective of borders.
For example, suppose that whites make up 7% of the global population today, and at current demographic projections, this percentage will fall down to 4% by 2050. However, imagine if there was a government policy which could slow this decline so that whites would make up 5% of the global population in 2050. Racialists would be logically obliged to support such a policy.
This remains true even if it would mean that the EU would, at the same time, go from 70% white to 50% white, or if America would go from 60% white to 40% white. This is because from a racial globalist perspective, borders don’t matter — all that matters is the global percentage of each race.
As it turns out, there is a way to do this. By importing millions of non-whites to the west, the birth rates of non-whites will decrease to be lower than they would otherwise be if they remained in their native homelands. The decrease is large enough that it outweighs the decrease in the white birth rate, resulting in a net proportional increase in white births relative to non-white births.
Data from Finland
Between 2000 and 2023, total Finnish TFR decreased from 1.73 to 1.32. However, over the same period, Somali and Arabic immigrant TFR decreased from ~5 to ~2.5. Since Somalian “native” TFR (Somalis remaining in Somalia) is 6.2, child migration to Finland reduces the Somalian population by 3.7 children over the birth-span (~20 years), a reduction in fertility of 60%.
There are roughly 4.6 million female children in Somalia today. If Somalia continues its current level of growth, the population of Somalis will double over the next 25 years, to a total of 36 million Somalis. However, given the “Finnish effect” on immigrants, if 4.6 million female Somali children were imported to Europe, the lifetime birth rate of those Somali females would converge toward 2.5. As a result, the global population of Somalis would be 5.8 million. In other words, the mass importation of female Somali children to Europe would effectively reduce the Somalian population by 30 million — a reduction of 80%.
Racialists believe that if you removed 4.6 million female Somali children from Somalia, this would create a “population vacuum” that would then be filled with infinity Bomalians. If you remove a patch of grass in Minecraft, the adjacent grass blocks will “fill in” the missing patch. In the same way, when you “empty out” the population of Somalia, the remaining Somalis will increase their birth rate to “fill in” the missing space.
This claim is based on the behavior of biologically maximalist species like rabbits who reproduce until the point of starvation. Unfettered reproduction returns the population to a steady-state after external reduction. But most Africans do not engage in biological maximalism, since the birth rate of almost every single African country today is lower today than it was 20 years ago, even as child mortality rates have fallen or stagnated.
There is some limited evidence that this kind of “baby boom” does occur at the end of a war. However, there is no evidence that it occurs in conjunction with peaceful emigration. Countries with high levels of emigration do not see increases in fertility. Rather, it is the opposite: countries with higher levels of emigration experience a reduction in native fertility.1
Another variation on this belief is that emigration will produce higher “native” birth rates because remittances help develop “native” countries. For example, a Somali goes to Finland, and sends money back to his family. Opponents of immigration claim that economic development increases population growth, but there is no evidence for this. All countries in the world which have experienced positive economic growth have seen declines in fertility. The best resistors to falling fertility are countries with devastating wars, like Afghanistan. Developing Africa will not spur a baby boom.
Now, let’s look specifically at the change in birth rates between “natives” (those who remain behind) and immigrants to Finland:
With the large exception of Senegalese Fulani, immigration to Finland generally lowered TFR.
The larger the initial “native” TFR, the greater the suppressant effect of moving to Finland.
When ethnic groups are divided by region, a stark picture emerges. The effect of immigration to Finland on other Europeans is relatively modest; the effect on Asians is more severe; and the effect on Africans is the most severe (with four notable exceptions).
Using this dataset, these are the three average continental TFRs:
Europeans: 1.525
Asians: 2.196
Africans: 4.143
Averaging by region, the effect of immigration to Finland was a TFR reduction of:
-0.2 for Europeans
-0.7 for Asians;
-1.2 for Africans.
If we apply the “Finnish continental average reduction” to each of these three groups, we get the following:
When you allow for migration, the TFR of these groups converge, which results in a proportional increase in white births (despite a lower absolute number of white births).
Focusing on the EU, Asia, and Africa (Afro-Eurasia, excluding the Americas), we can compare 2025 with two different possibilities for 2050:
In 2025, EU2 residents are 6.6% of Afro-Eurasia.
If migration is banned, whites will be reduced to 3.9% of Afro-Eurasia.
If migration is maximized, whites will be reduced to 4.8% of Afro-Eurasia.
By allowing immigration, the EU will become less white, but the world as a whole will become relatively more white, because of the “fertility opportunity cost” of non-white immigrants. Mass migration is a policy which globalist racists (who do not care about borders or culture, only genetics) are logically obligated to support.
If one is concerned with the percentage of whites in the world, mass immigration is the best way to slow the decline of this percentage. By closing borders, the world will become proportionately less white than it would have become with open borders.
American Data
Some degree of migration is economically optimal. This is the case even if you are racist. If you are a white supremacist, you should want white countries to hoard all the good resources. If there is gold in Africa, whites should go steal it. If the Chinese want to trade, and this brings more wealth to white countries, then trade is good. It is also the case with human capital: if there are non-white workers living in other countries who could be imported to increase the wealth of whites, this is also good.3
If you care about the white race at a global scale (and not civic nationalism, which is culture, language, borders, and lines on a map), you should support mass immigration. The reason for this is that mass immigration is likely to lower the fertility of non-whites more dramatically than it is to lower the fertility of whites.
Racial diversity lowers birth rates for all groups — not just whites.
Overall, states with high white birth rates also tend to have higher Hispanic and black birth rates. The underlying cultural, economic, educational, or religious environments which affect birth rates are shared between races. States where whites tend to be less wealthy and less educated also tend to be states where Hispanics and blacks are relatively less wealthy and less educated.4
White birth rates are highest in states with low diversity — but they are also lowest in states with low diversity. Utah, Idaho, North and South Dakota have high white birth rates; but Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have low white birth rates. The decisive factor here is religion.
Mississippi is one of the most diverse states in the union, but also has one of the highest white birth rates. States like Maryland and California are more diverse, and their lack of religion depresses the white birth rate.
Despite the fact that Hawaii has the fewest whites, the white Hawaiian birth rate is in the same league as that of whites in Montana, Pennsylvania, or Tennessee — not radically depressed. Racial diversity does not collapse the white birth rate, even when whites are only 21.3% of the population.
For blacks, the biggest factor is ruralism vs urbanism. The black birth rate is lowest in California, Rhode Island, New York, and Connecticut, where blacks are concentrated in cities. It is highest in rural states. Urban crime may have a suppressant effect on black birth rates.
In some of the most Hispanic states, Hispanics have the lowest birth rate: California, New Mexico, Illinois, New York, and Florida all have the lowest Hispanic birth rates. The Hispanic birth rate is highest in the interior south and in rural areas. Where Hispanics are crowded into cities, the birth rate is suppressed; when Hispanics are more rural (as in Texas), the birth rate is higher.
Here are states where the black birth rate is higher than the Hispanic birth rate:
In these states, blacks are more rural, while Hispanics are more urban. This has to do with the history of migration in those states (with blacks in Maine lacking any “inner cities,” and Hispanics in Maine zeroing-in on Portland and Bangor for construction work).
Conversely, here is a list of states where Hispanic birth rates far outperformed black birth rates:
At the top is Alabama, where Hispanics tend to be more rural, while blacks are more concentrated in urban environments like Birmingham.
Or take Tennessee, for example, where 382,229 blacks live in Memphis out of a total state-wide black population of 1.1 million. This means that 34.5% of blacks are concentrated in a single city, which suppresses birth rates.
Compare this to Maine, where Portland has 6,174 blacks, out of a total state-wide black population of 25,115, which gives a “top city black concentration” of 24.6%.
The “black urbanism score” is the number of blacks living in the largest city divided by the total state-wide black population.5 Black urbanism decreased black fertility.
The “rural proxy score” is the population of the largest city divided by the total population of blacks. For example, in South Carolina, the largest city has only 150k people, but the black population is 1.7 million, which suggests a high level of black ruralism. By contrast, in Hawaii, the largest city is 350k, while the total black population is only 23k, which suggests a high level of black urbanism.6
As black urban concentration is reduced, the Hispanic birth rate increases. Large concentrations of black people in urban centers might have a depressive effect on Hispanic birth rates, due to ethnic competition between blacks and Hispanics.
Overall, black births declined with increasing church attendance. This is a surprising result, because it contradicts the trend among whites, where church attendance correlates strongly with fertility.
As black religiosity increased, Hispanic birth rates increased in that state. States with higher rates of black religiousness might have more black ruralism, which results in less inter-ethnic competition between Hispanics and blacks (who both are more “urban” than their white counterparts).
As the total non-white population of a state increased, the black birth rate also tended to decrease. The effect was smaller on whites, and the Hispanic birth rate actually seemed to increase. Black birth rates were highest in states with the least amount of non-whites.
Policies which increase the percentage of non-whites decrease the birth rate of black Americans more dramatically than they affect the birth rates of whites.
Summary:
As non-white populations become more westernized, urban, and less religious, their birth rates tend to drop.7
Immigration is a disruptive event that alienates immigrants from religious practice rather than “theologizing” them.
As the percentage of non-whites increases, the black American birth rate decreases.
A feminist plan for open borders.
One argument against mass immigration is that immigrants use welfare. If the problem with immigration is welfare usage, this can be ameliorated by denying immigrants access to welfare. Immigrants can also be taxed at a higher rate to account for their use of the commons (roads, public schools, emergency services). Abolishing birthright citizenship, and requiring those who wish to acquire citizenship to pay a “citizenship fee” based on their lifetime calculated drain on public resources, would diminish the economic burdens associated with immigrant welfare usage.
Putting aside economic concerns, there remains a risk of cultural conflict resulting in violence, warfare, or emotional trauma. Cultural diversity results in hostility and the destruction of social trust. Even if this does not result in bloodshed, it may make life more uncomfortable. When using public transportation, people may be less likely to smile or make small-talk. It is hard to quantify these costs, but we will assume this kind of hostility is mostly driven by male immigrants, not female ones.
As America receives more immigration, friction between migrants and natives increases. We saw this in Springfield, Ohio where low-class welfare users claimed that the Haitian refugees were “stealing their welfare,” and eating cats and dogs. None of this was true: cats and dogs were safe, and benefits to Haitians did not remove or “steal” the existing welfare benefits of native residents. But this is what immigration does. It makes low class natives paranoid, anxious, and fearful.
Xenophobia is an ancient instinct which cannot be eliminated. It can only be managed. If two groups of people look and sound different, the ancient brain identifies a potential threat, which raises cortisol levels and triggers a fight-or-flight reaction. This manifests in populists claiming that America is suffering from a military invasion by Venezuelan gangs.
The way in which MAGA talks about Venezuelans reminds me of how black people talk about the cops:
“They’re killing us out here. Every day, gunning us down, unarmed, in broad daylight. It’s a genocide in these streets.”
Of course, nothing of the sort is happening. Far more whites are killed by whites than any other group; far more blacks are killed by blacks than any other group. Yet the irrational instincts of xenophobia cause insane conspiracy theories to spread like wildfire among the uneducated population.
The solution might be a feminist immigration policy.
A feminist immigration policy means excluding men from migrating to America, and opening the borders to women.
Unfortunately, for deep-seated sexual reasons, self-described feminists tend to oppose this policy. We must overcome the sexual fantasies of American women for the good of all women around the globe.
The feminist approach helps to avoid cultural conflict. But if nationalists desire fewer immigrant babies in western nations, male immigrants are a better choice, because men have a lower TFR than women. This is especially true for Muslims.
But again, if we take the globalist perspective (rather than the nationalist perspective), then a feminist policy still makes the most sense. If you want to reduce the overall fertility of non-whites, it is best to import as many non-white women as possible to the west, to educate them, provide them with contraceptives, and introduce them to feminism. This feminist policy would slow the proportionate decline of whites from a global perspective, even if it would involve making whites minorities within their own countries.
Conclusion.
If you want a modest proposal for a racialist immigration plan, it would be to offer any immigrant a green card who submits to voluntary sterilization. Since that is beyond the pale, I instead put forth a more realistic explanation of how mass immigration as it already exists will not result in proportional shrinking of the global white population.
Immigration drastically reduces the fertility of non-whites, to the point where it results in a net increase of the white percentage of the global population. Anyone claiming that mass immigration will lead to white genocide is not familiar with the dynamics of fertility or genetics.
It is true from a legal and logistical perspective that once a country is full of non-whites, it is difficult for this process to reverse itself without exceptional military action. For example, we now know that centuries of slave trading between Greece, Rome, and Syria resulted in significant Middle Eastern admixture in both Greece and Italy. This process was only reversed due to the population collapse of the 6th century and invasions and immigration of Germanic tribes.
I don’t expect self-described racialists to be convinced that open borders are in the best interests of the white race. However, they should be disabused of the notion that white people are facing the risk of genetic elimination via immigration, since immigration is actually increasing the global percentage of whites. Cultural and political sanctions on expressions of white identity represent a much greater threat to the existence of whites than any amount of immigration.
White culture, music, language, writing, architecture, fashion, food, movies, art, and history will all persist, alongside white genetics and whites as a physically identifiable ethnic group. There was a point some 10,000 years ago when the combination of blonde hair and blue eyes first arose. At the time, that particular mixture of Ancient North Eurasians and Western Hunter Gatherers may have represented far less than 1% of the global population. But despite being vastly outnumbered, that population persisted and grew to be globally dominant in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Since that point, whites have been declining in relative population as other races (Africans and Asians) have adopted new agricultural techniques to support larger populations. The advent of vaccines has significantly reduced global mortality, and transportation networks supported by hydrocarbons and modern security allow for food to be distributed from the fields of Ukraine to the villages of Africa.
This process was not malicious or conspiratorial, and the origins of the demographic shift began long before the phenomenon of Jewish overrepresentation. The seeds of population growth were already being planted in Africa and Asia in 1850, and the fertility decline in Europe was already visible on the horizon by that point as well, long before communists came to power.
If anything, Jews like George Soros and Larry Fink, and liberals like Bill Gates, have done their utmost to slow the growth of non-white populations. They are driving down mortality rates with vaccines, increasing female education, and sending condoms to Gaza.
My intention isn’t to convert my opponents to some new dogma which they can spam as a mantra of 14 words all over comments sections. Rather, I want to introduce some nuance to what is a very controversial and complicated discussion, where nuance is typically mowed down by hysterical vitriol before any critical thinking can begin.
Mass deportations do not make sense from a political, economic, or genetic perspective. Those who feel racially alienated from non-whites should lobby to expand and protect their rights of freedom of association within a multi-racial liberal empire. If white racialists neglect the legal opportunity to go live with other white people, but still advocate for mass deportations, then their goal isn’t to benefit themselves, but to hurt others.
Why exactly people dedicate their time to fantasizing about sadistically hurting others — without any profitable, material, or selfish benefit — is for another article.
This might have to do with remittances helping to develop these countries, since development lowers fertility.
Keep in mind that when I say “EU,” I am speaking of descendants of current natives of the EU — not including future immigrant populations and their descendants.
There are white supremacists who believe that race mixing is infinitely bad (via the one drop rule), and so they believe that no amount of economic advantage is worth the costs of immigration. One drop of African will pervert the entire nation, and lead to inevitable civilizational collapse. Such racialists typically ignore the fact that white Afrikaners are 5% non-white, or the non-white genetics of Finnish, Bulgarian, or Russian populations. Genetics don’t follow the “one drop rule” — that is a spiritual view, not a scientific one.
There may also be assortative, selective internal migration effects which affect all races in a similar direction.
This isn’t really a thorough analysis, but a quick-and-dirty one. For example, New York state has Albany and New York City, among many other cities like Buffalo and Rochester. But for the purpose of this quick analysis, I only looked at how many blacks live in the biggest city (New York City). A more thorough analysis would look at every single city in each state to try to figure out how many blacks are rural.
This isn’t a determinative analysis but an educated probability model. If you want to pay me money to do a more thorough analysis, please sign up and send me a message.
South Koreans, for example, saw no change in fertility when moving from South Korea to Finland.
I enjoy a Modest Proposal argument. We already have examples of sex-specific admixture from European colonialism of the Americas-- if you compare X and Y chromosomes you see more European paternal lineage and more indigenous female lineage in places like Mexico and Central America. You see similar patterns of more paternal White lineage in African-Americans. Sadly these patterns mostly represent sexual exploitation and not voluntary coupling. That would be my fear with your plan as well-- you'd get sexual exploitation of the economically & legally vulnerable women coming to this country.
Long-term, I think a very good solution to racism is for everyone to intermix and produce multiracial children. That has occurred in the past to create amalgams like the modern White European, who contains DNA from West Asia, East Asia, and Africa, as well as plenty of blending of ethnic subgroups that once violently hated each other.
This one is funny as hell 😂 Feminist Immigration might actually be the solution 😂