Bad news is dangerous to one’s health, and even worse for one’s politics. Our Jewish elites spin propaganda that minimizes damage to their own in-group cohesion while simultaneously pumping out a steady stream of pessimistic demographic “news” to the White majority in the United States.

Demographic prediction is particularly useful for propaganda. It is either an elixir of hope that energizes a base population into effective action, or a poison that kills hope and drains life and motivation from individuals.

Our elites deploy demographic bad news to persuade Whites that the contest for power is over: to lay down our arms, remain silent and acquiesce to their removal from the professions, from leading intuitions: from remunerative jobs and from national culture. Increasingly Whites are told through a myriad of channels: obey or pay the consequences.

Never mind that the Ashkenazi birthrate is well below replacement, or that only the Orthodox among Jews have a high birthrate — indeed that the Jewish Orthodox appear to sport a significantly lower IQ and are not likely to sustain Jewish elite dominance. The frenzy of concern about Jewish demographic decline (and the angst over Orthodox dominance) suddenly ceased in Jewish publications across the board in the early 2000s. It would appear that bad news about Jewish demographic decline is Bad for the Jews.

Meanwhile many Whites in the United States have absorbed the toxic pessimism of demographic decline so intricately constructed by our elites. It is easy to understand why. First, the “news” we get is pre-selected, pre-digested, and vomited up daily for our consumption in news sites, movies, newspapers and blared from speakers in grocery stores, gas stations and coffee shops. Second, many White nationalists use demographic data to shock our fellow Whites into action, by pointing out the litany of atrocities committed against us on a daily basis. Who among us are not shocked at the blasphemy of aliens overrunning our sacred temples, deforming out institutions of higher learning, and degrading our national symbols? Obviously we must speak out.

But predicting the imminent demise of our people in order to “wake up” our base is a mistake.

While we must always hold a realistic assessment of our situation, we must not internalize and further the object of this propaganda. Our elites serve up bad demographic news to engender despair. To internalize this despair means White nationalists lose followers and even well-wishers. The world loves a winner. Our people will give up if we convince ourselves that we will lose. Our people will speak up and fight only if there is hope.

This point is effectively made by a brilliant social scientist, Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann, who wrote in 1984 what is now a sociological classic, The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion — Our Social Skin. [1] Friend and confidant of a succession of German Chancellors, including Helmut Kohl, Noelle-Neumann headed the Allensbach Institute, a prestigious polling organization in Germany. She demonstrated that humans are primarily motivated by fear of isolation. Neither Neitzschean will to power, Hegelian search for recognition (thymos) nor a simplistic Marxian lust for material gain account for most human behavior. Rather, given our evolutionary past, a very high priority for humans was to seek group inclusion and conformity to public opinion. If they did not fit in they were evicted. In a hunter-gather society eviction usually resulted in death. To read the social cues; intuit the prevailing mood; and then join the crowd is the modus operandi of the vast majority of humans, including Whites. She quotes John Locke to remind us that there is not

one of ten thousand who is stiff and insensible enough to bear up under the constant dislike and condemnation of his own club.

Noelle-Neumann demonstrates that elections are primarily won by parties that convince the general population that they are going to win. This makes nonsense, of course, of polling: people give answers they intuit are expected. Further, polls are used primarily as propaganda tools by our elite to sway public opinion — hence, perhaps, the general under-prediction of the recent Republican tsunami in the Congressional elections. Objectively, they measure very little. “Fringe groups” “extremists” “controversial” are all terms that have no meaning other than the talking points that frame the official propaganda of the elite.

Fear of isolation also makes nonsense of democracy. Political parties gain the majority of votes required to win by convincing the masses that their side is going to win. Identifying losers by mass media and isolating dissent as a fringe element has proven a very successful strategy for keeping majority Whites from having effective representation in the halls of power.

But the Spiral of Silence also lays out a strategy for dissent. If those outside of power project certainty and loudly proclaim confidence in their future, the average men and women will begin to hedge their bets. They will compromise their adopted opinions and attempt to balance their views with that of the dissenters. Some will even begin to break off and join the dissenting movement, particularly if the movement provides a welcoming network that operates as a new sub-elite, and offers inclusion in a satisfying milieu — even if opposed to the majority. The key is to remember that people rarely form independent opinions. They get their cues from mass media unless they are involved in a dissenting sub-group that overrides these cues.

Noelle-Neumann reminds us that the vertical mass media has replaced a horizontal public opinion. It delivers a brutal top-down narrative that tends to override the subtle intuition and clues that humans at one time utilized to understand dominant opinion. Mass media hijacks normal human community interaction, and crushes its new image onto the group. Her earlier writing in National Socialist newspapers, which she never repudiated, makes clear that she believes that Jewish media masters have formed public opinion in the West for many decades.

Now the real demographic story.

The Black Total Fertility Rate (TFR) has been undergoing a slow, steady collapse. The Hispanic TFR is collapsing as well. The Black birthrate is very approximately even with the White birthrate and the Hispanic birth rate has fallen to mere replacement level.

You are not supposed to know that.

The data are buried in the National Vital Statistics Reports published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [2] These data constitute the only authoritative and trustworthy data on births and TFR in the United States.

The final report for 2013 is not available, but the final reports for 2012 and earlier are easily accessible online. Let’s look at the data. For convenience I compare 2007 to 2012, though the reports go back much further, and confirm the general trends found in this most recent data. The figures are for the Total Fertility Rate. Keep in mind that 2.1-2.2 births per woman are required for maintenance of a stable population — though in the Black community the replacement figure would be higher due to higher death rates.

2007 to 2012 Total Fertility Rate

2007 2012

Non-Hispanic White 1.868 1.765 Fell 5.51%

Non-Hispanic Black 2.133 1.898 Fell 11.02%

American Indian 1.866 1.350 Fell 27.65%

and Alaskan Native

Asian and Pacific 2.038% 1.769 Fell 13.2%

Islanders

Hispanic 2.995 2.189 Fell 26.9%

As you can see Blacks are decreasing at twice the rate of Whites. Hispanics are decreasing at five times the rate of Whites. Asians are decreasing almost three times the rate of Whites, and Native Americans are decreasing five times the rate of Whites.

Hispanics are now just at replacement level and Blacks are below replacement, just barely above Whites. Asians are also approximately the same as Whites, and Native Americans are disappearing from the landscape.

The CDC has done its best not to highlight these demographic changes and to give the impression that 2012 reflects a state of affairs much like 2011 and earlier. Under the “highlights” of the 2012 report it reads,

Births declined 1% for non-Hispanic White and Hispanic women and were essentially unchanged for non-Hispanic Black women from 2011–2012.

Thats one way of looking at it.

Here is another. The population of Whites has been stable and will very slowly decrease because our TFR fell earlier than other groups. Thus maintaining a stable figure for births is significant. Black and Hispanic populations have been surging, and have a higher percentage of their population in childbearing years. Yet Hispanic births, despite the surge in population declined in absolute terms by 1%, and Blacks births have stayed essentiality the same, again, despite the increase in total Black population and the increase in child bearing age cohort.

In a word, Hispanics and Blacks have a falling TFR because the increased numbers and young average age has not resulted in the expected parallel increase in births. Both groups are blowing off their chance for long term demographic increase by having fewer children per women.

There is more to consider. The fastest declines are a decline of births out of wedlock, and most declines in the future will be in — to use a CDC term — “Non-marriage Rates.” Now compare the racial differences for this factor, in the percentage of births in this category.

Non-marriage Rates [3]

White 2012 32%

Black 2012 62.6%

Hispanic 2012 72.6%

Enter Obamacare. This new insurance program, though anathema to most Americans, and especially White Americans, provides free birth control to all women. Very few Americans are left uninsured and without access to birth control. White women seem to have little trouble accessing birth control, and they also seem to have the foresight to make conscious decisions about using it. Free birth control has not done, nor will do much, to lower the White birthrate further. But Blacks and Hispanics are a different matter.

One recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine sheds light on what we can expect to happen. In “Provision of no-cost, Long-acting Contraception and Teenage Pregnancy” participants in St. Louis were provided with contraception at no cost and administered for 2 to 3 years. [4] Of 1,404 teenage girls and women, aged 14–19, 72% deliberately chose intrauterine or implant devises, 28% other methods.

In this study, among Whites, it showed a drop from 37.8 pregnancies per (per 1,000 teens) to 26.9. That is a 28.8% decrease. If applied across the board to out-of-wedlock births among Whites, it would drop the White out-of-wedlock births from 32% to 9.2% of births.

Among Blacks, it showed a drop from 99.5 pregnancies (per 1,000 teens) to 31.8. That is a 68% decrease. If applied across the board to out-of-wedlock births among Blacks, it would drop the Black out of wedlock births from 62.6% to 42.5% of births.

Among Hispanics, if using the same percentage decrease for Blacks, and if applied across the board to out-of-wedlock births, it would drop the out of wedlock births among Hispanics from 72.6% to 49.3%

There is every reason to believe that the free long-term birth control offered by Obamacare and required also for all private insurance providers will have a disproportionately large impact on Hispanic and Black TFR in the future. Obamacare, dysfunctional as it is, may very well provide the coup-de-grace to higher minority birthrates, and add further downward pressure on Black and Hispanic birthrate to levels below that of Whites. Precision is impossible in this guesswork. But there is every reason to be optimistic.

Now some major caveats. Applying these figures from the St. Louis study to whole populations is simply not tenable — it would not work like that for any number of reasons. Out of wedlock births for 14–19-year-old girls does not represent the same conditions of out-of-wedlock births for racial populations a whole. Further, these girls were counseled on birth control, and received $10 for every visit every six months after initial counseling. So this study cannot seriously predict a drop of White out-of-wedlock births to merely 9.2% of White births, nor Black to 42.5%, nor Hispanics (who were not categorized in this study) to 49.3%. But even granted all the methodological problems involved in extrapolating these results to whole racial groups, we can conclude with some certainty that free birth control will drop out-of-wedlock births, and that this will not only add to the downward pressure on TFR on all groups but will disproportionately affect Blacks and Hispanics.

There are further caveats with all these data, including the CDC figures. The CDC counts Indians from the Subcontinent and people from the Middle East as “White.” This would not change the big picture however, since Indians are known to have a birth-rate lower than Whites and more in line with Native Americans. Arabs have had a higher birthrate in the past but recent figures are hard to get, and the birthrate for this group has been falling. Muslims in France and Germany have a TFR of 2.2 and are such a small proportion that they are unlikely to push up the TFR figures of Whites more than a tiny fraction in the 2012 figures.

Of course there is still plenty of bad news to go around. There are millions pouring over our borders from Latin America, and increasingly from Africa, and the Obama Administration is doing its best to facilitate the invasion. The data count the race of the baby by the race of the mother, and there are White mothers with Black fathers, and of course, some Black births by White fathers (though small) and Asian births with White fathers, and so on.

But the Black, Asian and Hispanic communities are now rapidly aging, with heavy downward pressure on their birthrate. Our hostile elites have not found it to be in their interest to discuss this. To do so is dangerous. Non-Whites might complain of “racism” and blame them elite for their demise, as White nationalists have done. Demographic news that discourages minorities from envisioning an inevitable takeover of the country would discourage them. It might even create in Native Americans, Blacks and other components of traditional America, a sense of betrayal — that they are being invaded, flooded, and overwhelmed. Analysis of the CDC data, and other studies like the St. Louis study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, would wreak havoc on the anti-White propaganda and the steady stream of bad news meant for White ears only.

Any way you cut it, however, there is good demographic news out there. Whites in the United States cannot be described as finished. We are surviving the onslaught, and our numbers are steady while other racial groups are in collapse — only to be helped along by Obamacare and poised to fall below our own TFR in the near future.

Guaranteed? By no means. Likely? Yes. To use a favorite propaganda phrase of our elite media, Whites will have the highest birth rate in the country “if present trends continue.”

So let’s not internalize the dominant narrative of demographic bad news. There is good news out there, and we have a lot to live and fight for. Despair is not justified. Given the numbers as they currently stand, and given the future trends, despair is not only unjustified. It is absurd.

Endnotes

Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann, The Spiral of Silence: Public opinion–our Social Skin (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984). ‘Births: Final Data for 2007’ National Vital Statistics Reports (NVSS); Vol. 58, No. 24;

‘Births: Final Data for 2008’ National Vital Statistics Reports (NVSS); Vol. 59, No. 1;

‘Births: Final Data for 2009’ National Vital Statistics Reports (NVSS; Vol. 60, No. 1; ‘Births: Final Data for 2010’ National Vital Statistics Reports (NVSS); Vol. 61, No. 1. ‘Births: Final Data for 2011’ National Vital Statistics Reports (NVSS) Vol. 62, No. 1 ‘Births: Final Data for 2012’ National Vital Statistics Reports (NVSS); Vol. 62, No.9.