
7.9.2024


This is the question I asked myself in January, as I watched the American border disappear.

I watched illegal immigrants pouring over, forming giant crowds in El Paso and Eagle Pass. I watched Joe Biden send federal agents to Texas, trying to force them to stand down.

It was shocking. At the time, I was deep into my own project and company. But, suddenly, my work could not distract me.

To be sure, Biden’s presidency had never seemed successful. But something about watching undesired people enter the country felt different. 

It felt visceral to watch unwelcome foreigners step onto the land, fly into the cities, and get millions in taxpayer money. 

As we saw the news, most Americans agreed: we didn’t want open borders and massive immigration. Even men who were historically liberal, such as Stephen A. Smith or Elon Musk, spoke out against what Biden was doing. 

But - despite the unpopularity - nothing changed. The opinions and desires of Americans rang out unanswered.

And so I wondered - why?

Why are Americans forced to accept giant invasions, and even to fund them?

The more I considered this, the more concerned I became. Forcing foreigners into a country is something that a government does to its enemies, not to its own citizens.

Allowing this many immigrants, 10 or 20 million, would undeniably change the nation. And if these immigrants are allowed to vote? It could change the elections directly. Since Mexicans mostly vote Democrat, there is clear incentive for the Democrats to bribe them with free money and hotel rooms. 

If Biden is bribing foreigners to change our elections, he is committing a coup against the American people. Now, whoever imports and bribes the most foreigners can hold power - not the people.

Perhaps this is why it is so visceral to watch an invasion. It is the land that we citizens rule - the basis of the American nation - that is shrinking. We are literally losing ground. And what man enjoys losing  his land? 

Indeed, the human desire to rule land is as old as nations themselves. For thousands of years, humans have formed nations and attempted to gain more land. Even animals are nationalistic: clans of Chimpanzees fight wars over _their_ own borders. To own and struggle for territory is to be a part of nature.

If one considers how we measure great nations - the geography of the Roman Empire, for instance - control over the land is the age-old measure of achievement.  In this measure, the American people are declining. We are losing ground. Our borders were a representation of our nation’s influence; of the land we owned. Now, those borders are caving in. 

America was supposed to be _my_ land - _our_ land - and we were supposed to choose how to rule it. 

But - we don’t. 

So who does?

As I thought about it, I realized that this is not just America’s problem. With recent Muslim and African invasions in Europe, European land is shrinking too. Europe is playing host to millions of immigrants who do not assimilate to the culture, and have no respect for the people there. 

But why?

Listen to a couple of political debates about uncontrolled migration, and you will hear a common argument in favor: the economic argument. The economic argument usually states that, because Western birth rates are declining, we need migrants to improve our quality of life.
  
Birth rates are typically glossed over, but this news is quite alarming. It’s not just our land that is shrinking. Our _people_ are shrinking. The birth rates are below two in America and most of Europe. This has not been the case for more than 1000 years.

Both our land and our people are shrinking. Yet when is the last time a Western political candidate campaigned to rule more land? Or to create more people? On these topics, all I can hear is silence. All I hear in the Western sphere is a third word - _culture._

But what is this culture, really? 

Clearly, our nations are shrinking on all fundamental counts: land, people, and culture.

This is true for almost all nations of European descent.

So, I was curious: I looked at the numbers. 

In 1960, 35 percent of the Earth was white. 90 percent of America was white. 99 percent of Britain was white. 

Now, in 2024, European peoples have shrunk from about a third of the Earth to 9 percent. Westerners have shrunk from 9/10 of America to barely half. The British have shrunk by one fifth in their own land.

These are apocalyptic numbers. Yet, not a shot was fired. Nobody is talking about it. Only in the past ten years have populist movements cropped up, speaking about vague notions of “preserving culture” and promoting the idea that, recently, things went wrong.

But Westerners’ share of the land has been steadily declining for 60 years.

So:

Why does the West shrink?

  

**Land, People, and Culture**

  

What _is_ a nation? What do I actually care about? I’ve never been really involved in politics, so I simply don’t know the answer. 

  

What is a nation? From the legal perspective, it is a set of lines drawn around a piece of land. Typically, these lines are drawn by a group of people - to distinguish the holdings of this group from another. 

  

Therefore, it seems that a nation is the collective ownership of a certain piece of land. Traditionally, citizens have been willing to fight for the sake of that ownership.

  

This makes sense, but the question becomes - as Americans, why are _we_ not fighting for our collective ownership? And why are we losing it?

  

To fight for this ownership implies cooperation, and cooperation implies internal communication and understanding. Secondly, it implies shared trust and interests. Thirdly, it implies a willingness to use force in the first place.

  

So, in America - if we are not cooperating to protect our collective ownership - which one of these things are we missing?

  

Firstly, our language and heritage is British. It is true that I rarely meet anybody who does not speak English. However, our culture today seems very abstract from the original foundations. There is much cultural conflict. Perhaps this is one source of our faltering.

  

Secondly, our trust and interests also may be fractured - if we disagree on our desired culture, perhaps we have different goals. So, it seems we are missing this too.

  

Thirdly, in order to enforce our border, we must have willingness to use force at all - and this is probably down too. Living in the middle class, most Americans I know are more interested in peace than war. Broadly speaking, our culture is very consumeristic and “zero-tolerance” for violence.

  

However, what about the culture? This seems to be more at the root of the American situation. As our borders fall apart - so does our culture. Even as a young man, I have watched radical changes in the culture over the past 15 years.

  

So - it seems that _culture_ is fundamental to a nation. And maybe, if we can understand why American culture is changing - we can understand why the political system is becoming unstable. 

  

So, to reiterate: _Why_ do the lines of a nation get drawn? And _how?_ And _why,_ as a traditional American_,_ are my lines _shrinking?_

  

The answer to all of these is the _people_ that occupy the land, of course. The people have leaders, and those leaders draw lines and combat other leaders’ lines. But the leader is completely supported by the people, and the people by the leader: they are symbiotic. They are a nation. And, together - they claim this land. 

  

If the borders of the land and the people of the land are shrinking, there is only one perspective available - we are in decline. 

  

When I saw we, what do I mean? I mean the European inheritors of this land. America, Europe, and the greater Western legacy. 

  

To be a part of a nation, which I thought I was, is to have a birthright to a plot of land. To allow millions of foreigners into this land is to give that birthright away. America and the West are now locked in a battle between parties who want to keep the land in the hands of the citizens, and those who want to give it away. 

  

Therefore, Americans are now locked in a battle against leaders who support the Americans’ claim to the land, and leaders who don’t.

  

Britain is this way, as well. Much of Europe is. 

  

We are fighting a battle to determine - are our governments legitimate? Is our power legitimate? This is the question of the modern West. 

  

Our economists want to tell us - “the economy is not a zero sum game! Think of innovation! A rising tide lifts all boats!”

  

This is partially true. A rising tide _does_ lift all boats. But it doesn’t lift all boats equally - and what is the difference? Who owns the land, of course! This will tell you who reaps the most profits. 

  

I don’t hate Mexicans, but I don’t like them as much as Americans either. To me, it is obvious - I like people like me. White, yes - but British too. And Scottish especially. 

  

I like to see familiar faces. I like people who share my values, my culture, and my religion. I like people who feel as if I have met them before.

  

This all sounds racist. That’s because it is. I am racist. I have preferences. I would rather live around Scots than Slavs, for instance. 

  

I’m also sexist - but we can get to that later. 

  

It should be said - since racism is usually backwater business - I am not a redneck. I am upper-middle class - close enough to the middle to be a part of broad American culture, but close enough to the elite to understand them. 

  

I am also not an intentional rebel. Rebellious as some of these ideas are, they are merely my observations from my own life - a life which many Americans can surely relate to. 

  

Funnily enough, I have known several men who have - in the quiet of the night or in a drunken moment of honesty - “confess” to me that they feel the same. That they feel they are racist. And they feel quite guilty. 

  

Based on my experiences, and the people I have connected with (of all races), I believe it is very obvious - to be racist is to be human. To feel and agree with a familial bond is to be human. Without such a feeling, we are barely better than robots. Colorblind and cultureless, stumbling through life with no sense of history or people or place. 

  

Indeed, one can think of human love as a set of concentric circles - self, family, extended family, tribe, nation, civilization, race, and species. You can draw any size of circle you want - 1,000, 10,000, 100,000 - at any size, there are that number of people out there who are most closely related to you. If you met them, you’d probably feel it.

  

Each circle has its own value and importance.

  

But what is the _amount_ of importance for each? How important is family vs. race vs. tribe? 

  

  

Ask yourself. It is important. Don’t deceive yourself - the question is, where you are down or making a difficult decision or generally just viewing the world - which circle comes first? Which circle is the filter for your choices?

  

  

  

I’ll ask another question - when is the last time we had a Western leader who put their main faith in the middle four circles? (tribe, nation, race, civilization).

  

It seems we have had many leaders who loved America - but have we? 

  

If they are importing other people, and gaining no land for us, can it really be said that they love us? If they will not fight for us one bit - is that love? Or are they _really_ loyal to principles far grander than the people within the country?

  

  

  

I would like to share some demographics.

  

In 1960, 35 percent of the world was white.

  

In 1960, 90 percent of America was European.

  

In 1960, 99.9% of Britain was British.

  

  

  

You know what the figures are today? 

  

  

  

9% of the world is white. Down 26%.

  

54% of America is European. Down 36%.

  

80% of Britain is British. Down 20%. 

  

  

  

Is that anything but cataclysmic? 

  

What leaders fight for us? 

  

When Nigel Farage gets on stage, watch what they ask him. Watch how they try and pinpoint him into saying something “wrong” - into saying that he prefers British people to Arabs. This sort of rhetoric has been done to every Western leader in the past 60 years.

  

What are they doing?

  

They are proving his fealty to the big circle - species - and ensuring he has no fealty, _or even thoughts,_ about the middle four.  It is a completely Orwellian concept - tiptoeing around obvious opinions so as to pledge fealty to some mysterious force up above.  

  

The television pundits must _ensure_ that the middle parts of Nigel Farage or Donald Trump or Pat Buchanan’s human consciousness are hollowed out - such that not even a thought of tribe, nation, or race exists. And if they do think of nation - it’s multicultural, of course! There is no _biological_ identity of a Brit or an American - of course not!

  

And if one thought is present? Front-page news, massive media blitz. “Scandal”. “Outrage”. And, for 60 years, the Western people have been led into buying it. 

  

Well - I am racist. I am human, and therefore I am racist. I like people who are like me more than people who aren’t, and I would love for my descendants to number the earth like the sands of the desert.

  

Normal, right? But somehow, considered an abomination. Mysterious. 

  

Take note of what I’ve said -  _I would love for my descendants to number the earth like the sands of the desert._ Abrahamic, and obviously not controversial to anyone who knows the Bible. And - most importantly - racist. 

  

If I want my descendants to be like me, and to number the earth, then I am clearly a racist. Because I like those who share my genes and I want them to beat out those how do not. 

  

Racism is _directly tied_ to a man’s desire to reproduce.

  

I am the master race? I will have many children!

  

Racism is evil? I will not have many children, because there i_s no long-term point._ 

  

If I am not racist, I am not _building_ anything by having children. I am merely engaging in a vaguely enjoyable and noble activity. Two kids, suburban house. Why not? 

  

But, better yet, why have kids at all?

  

Clearly my race is not very good, since I am not allowed to promote it. Therefore, as a man, there is no broad mission in having children. Why not just relax? Live in an apartment? Own nothing? There’s nobody to pass things down to, after all. No legacy; no tradition, no culture. All that matters now is money and pleasure.

  

The Western situation is clear. We do not consider our tribes, nations, or races to be great. Therefore, we are not building anything great by having children. Therefore, except for a vague idea that “people do it”, there is no great reason for men and women to have children. 

  

Therefore, after 60 years of this sort of thinking, our borders are evaporating and our share of the world is disappearing. Our  nations are hollow shells, driving themselves into a distant and hostile future while we watch them, ever smaller, moving down the road. 

  

If you can’t destroy a nation from the outside, do it from within - make it so that the nation doesn’t _mean_ anything. There is no real culture or religion or race or custom - and therefore, other groups can come in and hollow it out.

  

If they can do it enough - the nukes are someone else’s! No bloodshed required. 

  

  

**Globalism & Barbarism**

  

It seems clear that there are two forces which act as pincers to cause the West to shrink. 

  

The first is, obviously, the people who are actually entering Western land. These people are always from poorer and less civilized countries, and they often bring these values to their host nations. 

  

Then, there are the elites - the politicians, media, and higher-up forces which aggressively push for these people to be able to enter. These people are what could be called “globalist” - they have a rosy view of technology and collaboration, and believe national competition is outdated. 

  

So, essentially, we are living between the encroaching forces of Globalism and Barbarism.

  

The forces of barbarism are perfectly understandable: poorer people see an economic opportunity, and they take it. Imperialistic men, such as radical Islamists, see an opportunity to seize more land. These are the natural, national forces of all human history. They do not require much explanation. 

  

The forces of globalism, though, are more perplexing. Why do these people want mass immigration? Why do they believe what they do about nations and borders? Who even are they?

  

Globalists are the often utopian people in our societies who don’t mind that the West is shrinking. They believe that this idea of “dominion over the land” is outdated. In fact, many would prefer that Western citizens forget about owning the land altogether.

  

Clearly, there are many people with this view in our government. Therefore, if we want to understand why the West is shrinking, it would be good to understand the mindset of people who don’t care about governance over land at all.

  

These are two worldviews that most often seem to hold this belief:

  

**Technological Communism**

  

- Because of AI and technology, we are approaching an era of complete abundance. This means that everything will be automated, nobody will have any reason to seriously compete with each other, and therefore we will be happy to live as individuals in a prosperous society rather than a collective vying for resources. 

  

- This belief is commonly held by Silicon Valley thinkers and workers. Naturally, these people have a very strong belief in technology. Silicon Valley, and the tech world in general, is also typically averse to physical conflict. This is probably because thinkers are often sensitive people. These people often live physically comfortable lives in the city, and believe that everyone will eventually live this way when tech automates more jobs.

  

**Neoliberal Globalization**

  

- Because of globalization, we are approaching an era of extreme abundance. This means that nobody will have any reason to seriously compete with each other, and therefore we will be happy to live as individuals in a prosperous society rather than a collective vying for resources. 

  

- This is similar to the technological communism belief, except that it has slightly less faith in technology. People with these beliefs are not necessarily counting on a post-abundance society, but are simply counting on technology to continue to advance and provide opportunities for global cooperation. With these increased opportunities, the thinking goes, there will be no reason to seriously compete as nations because we all have different geographic resources and can all benefit more by building a global supply chain. 

  

So - consider these two belief systems: Techno-Communism and Neoliberal Capitalism. 

  

We were taught in modern America that Capitalism and Communism are complete opposites - so why do they seem so _similar?_ 

  

Why does America now have so many prominent capitalist leaders who believe in a centrally-controlled, technological distribution of resources? Why do they believe in a global utopia that will erase our problems? That’s supposed to be communism, right? 

  

Indeed, mainstream Western economies are filled with globalist and utopian ideologies - universal creeds which do not believe in the importance of a strong connection to land. The reasons they give are that it is unnecessary for human societies to compete for resources.

  

But - hold on - isn’t competition the _point_ of capitalism? 

  

It seems as if our societies tolerate monetary competition, but not geographic competition. Why?

  

Geographic competition - competition for land - is the way of much of the mammal world. Historically, this includes humans. Geographic competition, in both humans and animals, is the main source of war. 

  

But today, and for the past 60 years, Western nations have been striving to eliminate geographic competition. We have been striving to keep global borders the same, and to eliminate any conflagrations or significant changes that might occur.

  

This way of thinking is typically called the “Postwar consensus,” in reference to World War II. Since that time, no Western nation has seriously attempted to expand its borders in a meaningful way.

  

If our leaders shun geographic competition at any costs, there are essentially two possible answers as to why:

  

1.

They are correct. We have to discovered human truths that have never been discovered in the past. The truth is that competition over land is fruitless, and it is much better to focus on technology and cooperation.

  

2.

World War II scarred the Western nations such that we became inward-facing and averse to conflict. Therefore, the popular ideology is to shun geographic expansion, and instead seek economic partnership with everyone in the world. 

  

Most Westerners, I believe, still agree with #1. 

  

But, as I watched the border collapsed, it made me angry. And upon seeing the way that Western demographics are shrinking, it made me very concerned.  

  

If we shy away from competition for land - are we forming a monopoly against nature?

  

Are our leaders giving people so much pleasure that they forget about competition? 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

So - to answer if Westerners should care about migration, we must answer - what is the human relationship to land? Is owning land important? Are borders important? 

  

Many of the political opinions about migration seem to fall into two categories - people who want to own and govern plots of land, and people who are okay living with little ownership.  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

Since 1960, there has been much hodgepodge about “meritocracy”, “colorblindness”, and “equality” - but what is the outcome? Only European countries shrink!

  

So - they are not fighting for you, or your parents, or your grandparents. They are fighting for “bigger principles” - and therefore giving Western land to others.

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

Because, of course, the distinction only goes one way.

  

European lands open up to foreigners, but foreign lands are not any bit more inviting to Europeans. No countries subsidize us in our visits - no countries grant us citizenship, housing, or welfare. 

  

Indeed - we give away our land to them, and they do not give theirs to us. 

  

Why? 

  

What is the point?

  

If we have a genius among us, would we not encourage him to have more children? Nurture his blood in our society? 

  

Do we need genius from other places? Are we incapable of having children and expanding? 

  

Of course not!

  

But the establishment assumes so.

  

And thus, we shrink. 

  

In the immigration debates, we always find the topic of “demographics” - the idea that if Western nations don’t take in immigrants, we will lose economic standing because we will not have enough workers to maintain our GDP. 

  

They say that the reason we will not have enough workers is because our birth rates are low.

  

Why are the birth rates low? well, clearly - our masses aren’t producing children.

  

Why aren’t the masses producing children - what are they most down about? Losing their jobs, of course.

  

So why are we at odds with ourselves? The workers complain of the economy, the elites use birth rates as an excuse - and meanwhile, the West keeps shrinking.

  

  

  

It is at this point that I would like to say the obvious - the narratives are all fake. A façade. The West grew for 1,000 years, conquering nearly the whole Earth as a result. 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

Naturally, this raises the question - why are the birth rates low? But, for some reason, nobody wants to ask. 

  

That cannot be the case. Europeans built this civilization, the greatest in the world.

  

  

There is a union in the West between those who are too comfortable and those who are not comfortable enough. Ultimately, it seems, they are two sides of the same coin: brutality and nihilism. Depression and the violent attempt to feel something. 

  

These forces can also be known as the Utopians and the Barbarians. 

  

  

  

  

  

6 of the 8 leaders of the Manhattan Project were Jewish. [https://jewishunpacked.com/the-real-story-behind-oppenheimer/](https://jewishunpacked.com/the-real-story-behind-oppenheimer/)

  

As in Nazi Germany, the body and mind are divided. The body and mind of Christ, Christians and the Jews, are turned against each other.

  

Now, the Jews are cheating on the Christians with other, more savage nations