On October 29, 2015, PRC state media announced that the Communist Party, which has governed mainland China since WWII, is ending the decades-long one-child policy and allowing couples to have a second child. The decision comes as China’s managing directors realize their workforce is rapidly aging due to a skewed population pyramid; nearly a third of the population is over 50. It will rise to 60 in the coming years. The policy is believed to have prevented 400M births, and contributed to female infanticide. In the long run this means not only less women of childbearing age, but that a sizable number of men will be unable to marry native women of their own ethnicity and culture or find a wife in China at all. Since the cohort of married couples will be smaller, presumably the population will decline even further. Maybe the phenomenon of herbivorous men first described in Japan will spread to their racial relatives in China, another downward pressure on fertility. We don’t know yet what all the negative side-effects will be of the one-child policy.
One positive aspect of the policy that is frequently cited is that it helped to alleviate poverty—it is easier and cheaper to raise one child than more than one child, thus lessening the burden on parents and society. The idea of children as burdens, however, is a distinct instinct of homo economicus and one that is not limited to China. It is true that children are expensive but such an attitude treats children like a consumer good—something you purchase to have in your house because you think it’s valuable. And then you die and pass it on to your—ooops you didn’t have any children. If you’re a Chinese communist, children are even worse; they are a threat to achieving egalité and ending poverty. Thus there is an ideological, not just an economic reason to suppress fertility.
In actuality, a healthy civilization views children as an asset or investment in the future; whether that consists of using able-bodied children as farm labor to improve the family’s output, or putting them through education for almost two decades so they can earn higher wages and meet a nice grill and give you grandchildren. There is an imperative that has dwelt among our conscious since time immemorial that we should reproduce. But this makes no sense to the crude materialism of marxists—China outlawed having too many children while the Soviet Union had the highest abortion rates in the world. National Socialists gave German women medals for having children well above the replacement rate, but I digress.
Demographers and other sociologists—the kind who actually look at numbers rather than spouting ((((Frankfurt school)))) axioms about how tradition is fascism and the individual is god—believe it may be too little too late for China if it wants to turn its birthrates around. But for a nation of a gorillion people, of whom about 90% are ethnic Han Chinese, birthrates are not destiny. The Chinese will survive. In fact, population decline in the teeming and overpopulated megacities of China (and Japan) is probably not going to be the end of their world, given the increasing trend towards automation and declining workforce participation rates in industrial and post- or de-industrial societies.
I could LARP about returning to large families and having younger family members provide for the older or unable to work members, or having retired family members provide childcare services and knowledge transfer for younger members, but that would require gigantic cultural shifts that show no sign of happening at a society-wide level anywhere in the East or West anytime soon. Let’s assume for argument’s sake that declining birthrates are irreversible, and that it is improbable that the average woman in China or Japan will ever have more than two children again.
What matters then for societies looking to brave these shifts, into a world of lower birthrates and greater automation, and remain recognizable to themselves and the rest of the world is two-fold: 1.) social security models based on worker-pensioner ratios and retirement ages need to be rethought, and 2.) the mass importation of foreign labor to fill shortages rather than increasing efficiency or using automation must not be allowed to happen. The dumping of Prussian-era welfare statism in lieu of something—anything else at this point—would likely result in the second issue being resolved as well. In fact, China and Japan already have strict immigration controls and both countries are known for their “xenophobia,” the healthy attitude that your commons belongs to your community and not anyone who happens to wander in. The only dissenters are really business leaders and cultural marxists, neither of which are of great enough prominence to legalize the mass importation of diversity into East Asia.
If Japan and China continue to increase efficiency and automation while disincentivizing or outright not allowing most if not all migration from other countries, high birthrates will be unnecessary to survival. It would actually be pretty eugenic for only the most successful people to be able to afford to or want to reproduce, albeit a situation I would find unnatural. But ultimately, were I a Chinese or a Japanese nationalist—and I believe in nationalism for all peoples, though I give my own moral and practical priority—I would support this kind of ethno-technonationalism, to coin a snowflake term. Whatever form nationalism must take in a society to be successful is the right way for that society. For us it may be fashism. For the Orient, probably not. As I envision it, the ethno-technostate would:
- Place the economic and technological needs of its ethnic nation before those of the global economy.
- Favor automation and efficiency over raw population growth and raising fertility. There is no need to ban childbirth to do this; people already suppress fertility because of economic conditions.
- Strictly control its borders and ban most immigration, allowing the majority to persist even if it declines in number, providing net benefits to the native people.
- Encourage unemployed minorities to emigrate/self-deport.
- Provide incentives to have children as necessary, especially to those who are high-performing, successful, intelligent, etc. Someone has to.
I think this is a definite possibility for countries like China and Japan, and I suspect they would prefer it to the Western-style system of importing literally anyone from anywhere to maintain the labor force even if it destroys the majority population and flies in the face of changes in the labor market. That’s why the United States is projected to lose its Anglo-American majority in the 2040s, because we need more diversity or something stupid about it being good for the economy.
And that brings us to the real problem, so to speak; for all our love of comfort, Westerners will be unable to enjoy the fruits of automation and efficiency because our governments have committed to a policy of importing millions of foreign helots to work for them instead. These people are going to be made obsolete. They aren’t going to get that $15/hr wage. And so, we don’t get the option of an ethno-technostate as a vehicle for our survival. We can’t with all those people of color to support. Instead, we will have to struggle and live as our ancestors have since time immemorial and have children, as many as we can, if we want to remain in at least some control of our homelands. One citizen, one vote, means we cannot defend ourselves politically if we are outnumbered or vote our way out of this. After all, a population which fails to reproduce dies. In Europe, where vibrancy levels are vastly lesser than the United States, there is a possibility of ethno-technostates forming. They have time to reverse and reorganize. Right now in Europe there is a renaissance of right-wing parties, especially in Hungary and Poland, and increasingly so in Sweden. We just have Trump. But here on our continent, competition has been introduced at levels that will soon displace us. Half of all children under four are non-white. As much as we spite the politics of comfort and assisted suicide promulgated by the baby boomers, their passing over the next few decades will leave us very much diminished demographically. Where we go from there is uncertain. Maybe the United States will break up into multiple countries and we’ll get one or two of them for ourselves. Maybe there will be a huge reaction and we’ll Make America Goy Again. Maybe we’ll become Brazil. Maybe Argentina. But we need to have a homeland for our people and a future for White children, whether it’s a subregion, a state or an empire.