L | A
New data from 2025 has been released, and so the TFR (Total Fertility Rate) situation is back in the news. As could be expected, the sorts who focus heavily on “natalism” and TFR-connected issues are freaking out, as in many ways the data is quite bad. Or, at least, it’s worrisome if your main measurement for societal success is increasing the total amount of human biomass, with few concerns about who comprises said biomass or what its growth might mean.
Namely, the overall TFR—which needs to be 2.1 for a population group to hold steady—continues to decline from its already low level. Thus, we have a population vase instead of a population pyramid1…and the problem is getting worse by the year.
Adding to the problem is that young women (20-24) now have a lower TFR than middle-aged women in the 35-39 bracket, which is a first ever. Worse, the way the 20-24 demographic’s TFR has fallen off a cliff while the older brackets have not ticked up substantially indicates family formation is not being delayed, but rather just fading away entirely for swathes of the population.
And, of course, while I focus on America, this is a problem pretty much everywhere. Western Europe is particularly hard hit.
To put in perspective how much things have fallen off a cliff, particularly since the 2008-9 Recession, overall TFR is at its lowest ever. White Non-Hispanic TFR has ticked up ever so slightly and converged on the overall TFR for the first time since the War Between the States, but both are nevertheless quite bad.
To look at the birth rate declining in such a way is to see a civilization dying. Or so we are told.
Certainly, it won’t be good for a debt-backed, overly financialized economy premised on infinite growth. Who will need increasing numbers of 96 packs of Gogurt at Costco if our world consists of humanoid robots ambling around to help out the last 7 Americans, all of whom are in a nursing home? Scary stuff! The DJI could drop below 50,000, and Pam Bondi would grimace from behind layers of botox…
But the reality of the situation is somewhat different once the data is zoomed in upon.
Who, after all, is it that poses most of our problems? Who is it that has spent decades trying to destroy Western civilization, and largely succeeding in so doing—as is shown by the South Africanization of America?
The Bioleninist coalition. This is the composite collection of life’s losers who have been molded together into a wrecking ball driven by spite and envy. A good example of such a wrecking ball is the infamous “No Kings” protester pictured below.
“No Kings,” she cried from her mobility scooter. Welcome back, Philippe Egalité. Taxpayers reportedly pay $360k a year for this welfare warrior’s Medicaid bills. Fortunately, she has no kids.
And who is it that composes this Coalition? All white progressives and most minorities. Yes, there are some progressive winners—they still side with it out of fear of social ostracization, as Tom Wolfe noted in Radical Chic. Yes, there are some minorities who side against it. Generally, this group consists of white-identifying Hispanics, who are roughly a third (ish) of the Hispanic total, and then some success stories from the other racial groups. These are generally deeply religious, financially successful, and from culturally conservative backgrounds. Unfortunately, this group is quite small; however grossed out they are by transgenders, close to 100% of black women vote for the “trans the kids” party. And so on.
So, for purposes of looking at the data, the easiest rule of thumb is to assume that those who don’t identify as white and who identify as liberal/progressive/etc. are part of the Bioleninist block. That might be inaccurate at the fringes, and they might disagree with the harder-core Antifa types at times, but on the whole it’s accurate. That’s the collection of interests behind the South Africanization of America, for reasons of ideology, cupidity, or both. From the racial angle, this looks like what was inflicted upon Rhodesia by Zimbabwe. From the intra-white angle, this looks like what the post-WWII British government did to the landed elite.
With that in mind, let’s re-examine the data.
For one, the overall white TFR (this includes the white-identifying Hispanics, generally) has not just held steady but bounced upward recently. It’s still too low, but it isn’t really decreasing in the precipitous way other demographics have collapsed.
And, as Ryan Gidursky recently covered, this means white births are back to being a majority in America.2 The white TFR bump was small, but contrasted heavily with a collapse in TFR amongst non-white groups, particularly migrants. “Births from Chinese immigrants are -17.5 percent, Colombians are -10.5 percent, Ecuadorans are -22 percent, El Salvadorians are -15 percent, Guatemalans are -16 percent, Haitians are -16 percent, Hondurans are -15 percent, and Mexicans are -13 percent,” he noted.3
And within the white block, conservatives are having dramatically more children than progressives. For the 25-35 demographic, the difference is 1.43 to 0.51. That is a dramatic shift from, say, the 1980s, when white conservatives had a TFR of 1.35 compared to a white liberal TFR of 1.10.4
This becomes even more dramatic when the data is looked at more granularly. Not only are those who are willing to define themselves as conservative or strongly conservative the only groups with replacement TFR, but the most conservative are having roughly 4 times as many children as the ultra liberal, as shown by the chart below.5 Here, looking at the older age group is necessary because that is the demographic that’s generally done having kids, so it’s a final score of sorts.
A few conclusions, for now, at least, can be drawn from all that.
One is that there will almost certainly be fewer people in the medium-term future.
Second is that the traits that were selected for in the last generation and are being selected for now are very different than the general middle-of-the-road traits that naturally seemed to exist up until the recent past.
Third is that even if the “extremely conservative” are not increasing much in numbers—even their TFR is only replacement-level—there will be dramatically more of them on a relative basis than now, and conservatives as a whole will vastly outnumber progressives.
So, overall, the population of the future will look very different from that of today. The HR harridans will have essentially bred themselves out of existence.
Of course, there is a wrench in those conclusions: they assume that the border stays shut, and more migrants don’t get into the country. Immigrants almost always join the Bioleninist coaltion, so flooding America with 50 million Squatalajarans so strawberries and chicken breasts are somewhat cheaper will undo multiple generations’ worth of biological threshing. The left knows this, which is why it wants to import 50 million Squatelajarans—it can’t reproduce, and the propaganda effort in the schools is largely a failure—so it aims to replace.
“Democracy Needs Us, ese”
But there are reasons to think that all is not lost at the border.
For one, legal immigration rates, refugee admissions, and naturalizations are still too high, but are trending in the correct direction (steeply down).6 Most refugee admissions now are Afrikaners, which is a huge positive.
Similarly, Africa aside (its statistics are probably made up because no one really knows what is happening in there), Third World TFR is falling off a cliff. Unlike white TFR in America, which is holding steadyish, South and Central American TFR is dropping like a rock and falling below replacement level. Soon, the endless Camp of the Saints hordes won’t really exist in the same way, nor will they have the same demographic pressures pushing them here.
Finally, as mentioned previously, immigrant TFRs are falling like a rock, and generally crashing to below white American TFRs. The “refugee” who arrives and has ten kids issue is a problem in Britain, but isn’t so much an issue in America at this point, on the whole.
So, if the border remains defended—the main thing Republicans can do and why it is so important to not give into despair and hand the country to the race communists—America has a chance of being populated primarily by the sorts of people who read this publication in just a few generations. How exciting!
Yes, changes to the population via this demographic transformation are going to give those of us whose bloodlines make it through this genetic bottleneck an opportunity to remake the world in our image. Purging the progressive attitude opens up a whole host of currently inconceivable opportunities. Much will be back on the table. Recolonizing Rhodesia, colonizing Mars, finally building the nuclear fleet we need, and even solving the crime problem are on the table.
As Europe found after it hanged the crime committing 1% of the population for centuries, much is possible once the demographics change even slightly. That is even more true when they change as substantially as they currently are changing.
And make no mistake, the population is changing. Already, we’re seeing data that young men are becoming more religious. There’s the general rightward drift of the white male youth. Right now, these changes are ripples, but they are growing into demographic waves. The way young women remain leftists in orientation shows propaganda such as that pushed by the schools matters too…but even that is increasingly blunted; ~80% of children of conservative parents remain conservatives, and it is they who are having kids and filling the school districts.
But the most important thing is why they are doing so: birthrates are a referendum on the environment in which those who would be having children live. Birthrates are a referendum on an environment rendered ugly by progressive views of art and architecture, rendered unsafe by progressive policies, and rendered disgusting by progressivism’s Bioleninist tendencies.
The question is who would want to have kids in the shredder of humanity that is the Global Favela, particularly the progressive zones within it, those wretched hells of anarchotyranny characterized by squalor and crime but also oppressive regulation and taxation? Very few, and increasingly fewer, as we’re seeing.
That should be understood as what it really is: a spiritual referendum on the progressive system that has sunk its claws into our world for over a century now.
Those who buy into it fully or who are attached to the project for the usual reasons of envy and spite—all the constituent components of the Bioleninist Coalition—are spiritually dead. They are rejecting existence itself, for they no longer want to exist. They no longer see the point.
They are not driven forward by any sense of duty or tradition—they despise duty and hate tradition. They are not driven by any biological impulse—they reject biology and are at war with nature itself, taking what pharmaceuticals they can to combat it. Life is not within them. Technology and ideology have rendered them men without chests, craven slaves of a wretched lord named comfort and equality.
Meanwhile, those who honor tradition and allow themselves to be driven by biology—which is to say conservatives, whatever that term means at this point—are basically fine. Their TFR isn’t great, but it’s civilization-preserving rather than civilization-ending. They still will exist in 100 years…which is more than can be said for progressives.
Naturally, the progressives who are cognizant of the problem rather than merely gazing into the abyss ever more deeply have no idea what to do about this.
Their solutions consist of doubling down on the same disasters that led to this point: more “girlbosses”7 and more kowtowing to progressive female voters,8 namely. Methinks that will prove ineffective, and just exacerbate the “go to brunch until you die childless” problem that currently exists. Or the more outright race communists want “reparations” and so on to improve minority birthrates; given that the growth of the Great Society has tracked the decline in black birthrates, that seems ineffective too. The more cynical want to flood the country with foreigners, but right now they’re losing that battle—and the political fight is unlikely to improve for them as the children they failed to have create a political deficit.
No, there is no solution. This is a referendum on progressivism itself—on the idea that tradition ought be thrown out in the name of equality and improvement. That has created nothing but an adult Disneyworld with shocking levels of crime, not heaven on Earth.
No, as John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” We’re finding that to be true in more ways than one. Not only does republicanism fail when the population grows base and atheistic, but it then fails to propagate itself and disappears. An amoral and irreligious people is so ill-suited for the world that it simply stops existing, as we’re now seeing.
New data from 2025 has been released, and so the TFR (Total Fertility Rate) situation is back in the news. As could be expected, the sorts who focus heavily on “natalism” and TFR-connected issues are freaking out, as in many ways the data is quite bad. Or, at least, it’s worrisome if your main measurement for societal success is increasing the total amount of human biomass, with few concerns about who comprises said biomass or what its growth might mean.
Namely, the overall TFR—which needs to be 2.1 for a population group to hold steady—continues to decline from its already low level. Thus, we have a population vase instead of a population pyramid1…and the problem is getting worse by the year.
Adding to the problem is that young women (20-24) now have a lower TFR than middle-aged women in the 35-39 bracket, which is a first ever. Worse, the way the 20-24 demographic’s TFR has fallen off a cliff while the older brackets have not ticked up substantially indicates family formation is not being delayed, but rather just fading away entirely for swathes of the population.
And, of course, while I focus on America, this is a problem pretty much everywhere. Western Europe is particularly hard hit.
To put in perspective how much things have fallen off a cliff, particularly since the 2008-9 Recession, overall TFR is at its lowest ever. White Non-Hispanic TFR has ticked up ever so slightly and converged on the overall TFR for the first time since the War Between the States, but both are nevertheless quite bad.
To look at the birth rate declining in such a way is to see a civilization dying. Or so we are told.
Certainly, it won’t be good for a debt-backed, overly financialized economy premised on infinite growth. Who will need increasing numbers of 96 packs of Gogurt at Costco if our world consists of humanoid robots ambling around to help out the last 7 Americans, all of whom are in a nursing home? Scary stuff! The DJI could drop below 50,000, and Pam Bondi would grimace from behind layers of botox…
But the reality of the situation is somewhat different once the data is zoomed in upon.
Who, after all, is it that poses most of our problems? Who is it that has spent decades trying to destroy Western civilization, and largely succeeding in so doing—as is shown by the South Africanization of America?
The Bioleninist coalition. This is the composite collection of life’s losers who have been molded together into a wrecking ball driven by spite and envy. A good example of such a wrecking ball is the infamous “No Kings” protester pictured below.
“No Kings,” she cried from her mobility scooter. Welcome back, Philippe Egalité. Taxpayers reportedly pay $360k a year for this welfare warrior’s Medicaid bills. Fortunately, she has no kids.
And who is it that composes this Coalition? All white progressives and most minorities. Yes, there are some progressive winners—they still side with it out of fear of social ostracization, as Tom Wolfe noted in Radical Chic. Yes, there are some minorities who side against it. Generally, this group consists of white-identifying Hispanics, who are roughly a third (ish) of the Hispanic total, and then some success stories from the other racial groups. These are generally deeply religious, financially successful, and from culturally conservative backgrounds. Unfortunately, this group is quite small; however grossed out they are by transgenders, close to 100% of black women vote for the “trans the kids” party. And so on.
So, for purposes of looking at the data, the easiest rule of thumb is to assume that those who don’t identify as white and who identify as liberal/progressive/etc. are part of the Bioleninist block. That might be inaccurate at the fringes, and they might disagree with the harder-core Antifa types at times, but on the whole it’s accurate. That’s the collection of interests behind the South Africanization of America, for reasons of ideology, cupidity, or both. From the racial angle, this looks like what was inflicted upon Rhodesia by Zimbabwe. From the intra-white angle, this looks like what the post-WWII British government did to the landed elite.
With that in mind, let’s re-examine the data.
For one, the overall white TFR (this includes the white-identifying Hispanics, generally) has not just held steady but bounced upward recently. It’s still too low, but it isn’t really decreasing in the precipitous way other demographics have collapsed.
And, as Ryan Gidursky recently covered, this means white births are back to being a majority in America.2 The white TFR bump was small, but contrasted heavily with a collapse in TFR amongst non-white groups, particularly migrants. “Births from Chinese immigrants are -17.5 percent, Colombians are -10.5 percent, Ecuadorans are -22 percent, El Salvadorians are -15 percent, Guatemalans are -16 percent, Haitians are -16 percent, Hondurans are -15 percent, and Mexicans are -13 percent,” he noted.3
And within the white block, conservatives are having dramatically more children than progressives. For the 25-35 demographic, the difference is 1.43 to 0.51. That is a dramatic shift from, say, the 1980s, when white conservatives had a TFR of 1.35 compared to a white liberal TFR of 1.10.4
This becomes even more dramatic when the data is looked at more granularly. Not only are those who are willing to define themselves as conservative or strongly conservative the only groups with replacement TFR, but the most conservative are having roughly 4 times as many children as the ultra liberal, as shown by the chart below.5 Here, looking at the older age group is necessary because that is the demographic that’s generally done having kids, so it’s a final score of sorts.
A few conclusions, for now, at least, can be drawn from all that.
One is that there will almost certainly be fewer people in the medium-term future.
Second is that the traits that were selected for in the last generation and are being selected for now are very different than the general middle-of-the-road traits that naturally seemed to exist up until the recent past.
Third is that even if the “extremely conservative” are not increasing much in numbers—even their TFR is only replacement-level—there will be dramatically more of them on a relative basis than now, and conservatives as a whole will vastly outnumber progressives.
So, overall, the population of the future will look very different from that of today. The HR harridans will have essentially bred themselves out of existence.
Of course, there is a wrench in those conclusions: they assume that the border stays shut, and more migrants don’t get into the country. Immigrants almost always join the Bioleninist coaltion, so flooding America with 50 million Squatalajarans so strawberries and chicken breasts are somewhat cheaper will undo multiple generations’ worth of biological threshing. The left knows this, which is why it wants to import 50 million Squatelajarans—it can’t reproduce, and the propaganda effort in the schools is largely a failure—so it aims to replace.
“Democracy Needs Us, ese”
But there are reasons to think that all is not lost at the border.
For one, legal immigration rates, refugee admissions, and naturalizations are still too high, but are trending in the correct direction (steeply down).6 Most refugee admissions now are Afrikaners, which is a huge positive.
Similarly, Africa aside (its statistics are probably made up because no one really knows what is happening in there), Third World TFR is falling off a cliff. Unlike white TFR in America, which is holding steadyish, South and Central American TFR is dropping like a rock and falling below replacement level. Soon, the endless Camp of the Saints hordes won’t really exist in the same way, nor will they have the same demographic pressures pushing them here.
Finally, as mentioned previously, immigrant TFRs are falling like a rock, and generally crashing to below white American TFRs. The “refugee” who arrives and has ten kids issue is a problem in Britain, but isn’t so much an issue in America at this point, on the whole.
So, if the border remains defended—the main thing Republicans can do and why it is so important to not give into despair and hand the country to the race communists—America has a chance of being populated primarily by the sorts of people who read this publication in just a few generations. How exciting!
It’s More Than Just an Advantage, It’s a Referendum
This is important beyond just the immediate political advantages.Yes, changes to the population via this demographic transformation are going to give those of us whose bloodlines make it through this genetic bottleneck an opportunity to remake the world in our image. Purging the progressive attitude opens up a whole host of currently inconceivable opportunities. Much will be back on the table. Recolonizing Rhodesia, colonizing Mars, finally building the nuclear fleet we need, and even solving the crime problem are on the table.
As Europe found after it hanged the crime committing 1% of the population for centuries, much is possible once the demographics change even slightly. That is even more true when they change as substantially as they currently are changing.
And make no mistake, the population is changing. Already, we’re seeing data that young men are becoming more religious. There’s the general rightward drift of the white male youth. Right now, these changes are ripples, but they are growing into demographic waves. The way young women remain leftists in orientation shows propaganda such as that pushed by the schools matters too…but even that is increasingly blunted; ~80% of children of conservative parents remain conservatives, and it is they who are having kids and filling the school districts.
But the most important thing is why they are doing so: birthrates are a referendum on the environment in which those who would be having children live. Birthrates are a referendum on an environment rendered ugly by progressive views of art and architecture, rendered unsafe by progressive policies, and rendered disgusting by progressivism’s Bioleninist tendencies.
The question is who would want to have kids in the shredder of humanity that is the Global Favela, particularly the progressive zones within it, those wretched hells of anarchotyranny characterized by squalor and crime but also oppressive regulation and taxation? Very few, and increasingly fewer, as we’re seeing.
That should be understood as what it really is: a spiritual referendum on the progressive system that has sunk its claws into our world for over a century now.
Those who buy into it fully or who are attached to the project for the usual reasons of envy and spite—all the constituent components of the Bioleninist Coalition—are spiritually dead. They are rejecting existence itself, for they no longer want to exist. They no longer see the point.
They are not driven forward by any sense of duty or tradition—they despise duty and hate tradition. They are not driven by any biological impulse—they reject biology and are at war with nature itself, taking what pharmaceuticals they can to combat it. Life is not within them. Technology and ideology have rendered them men without chests, craven slaves of a wretched lord named comfort and equality.
Meanwhile, those who honor tradition and allow themselves to be driven by biology—which is to say conservatives, whatever that term means at this point—are basically fine. Their TFR isn’t great, but it’s civilization-preserving rather than civilization-ending. They still will exist in 100 years…which is more than can be said for progressives.
Naturally, the progressives who are cognizant of the problem rather than merely gazing into the abyss ever more deeply have no idea what to do about this.
Their solutions consist of doubling down on the same disasters that led to this point: more “girlbosses”7 and more kowtowing to progressive female voters,8 namely. Methinks that will prove ineffective, and just exacerbate the “go to brunch until you die childless” problem that currently exists. Or the more outright race communists want “reparations” and so on to improve minority birthrates; given that the growth of the Great Society has tracked the decline in black birthrates, that seems ineffective too. The more cynical want to flood the country with foreigners, but right now they’re losing that battle—and the political fight is unlikely to improve for them as the children they failed to have create a political deficit.
No, there is no solution. This is a referendum on progressivism itself—on the idea that tradition ought be thrown out in the name of equality and improvement. That has created nothing but an adult Disneyworld with shocking levels of crime, not heaven on Earth.
No, as John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” We’re finding that to be true in more ways than one. Not only does republicanism fail when the population grows base and atheistic, but it then fails to propagate itself and disappears. An amoral and irreligious people is so ill-suited for the world that it simply stops existing, as we’re now seeing.
