The Overpopulation Myth
By Duncan Whitmore
In addition to the alleged problem of human induced climate change, the leftist/elitist/environmentalist/anti-human monologue is beginning to make increasingly explicit noises about the equally mythical problem of overpopulation. “Too many people” is often blamed on a number of apparent calamities, right from the shortage of particular (usually “essential”) resources all the way up to the outright poverty of entire continents, not to mention the effect of population growth upon the supposed “climate emergency” itself. Although few states have enacted explicit policies in order to stop their citizenry from procreating, factoids such as the suggestion that a dozen earths would be needed for every single human to enjoy a Western lifestyle attempt to create an unwarranted degree of hysteria. Of course, the fact that the notion of population control jars with the liberal attitude towards open borders (which can lead to the very real problem of local overpopulation), and that those calling for population reduction never seem willing to offer their own necks for the chopping block are both challenges that are seldom raised. Indeed, in response to the proclamation of Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Wokeness, that they will have only two children in order to “save the planet”, one is tempted to ask why they are bothering to breed at all if the problem is really that serious. Very few of the rest of us, no doubt, would have a great deal of concern if the liberal-left refused to pass its genes on to future generations.
As we shall see here, overpopulation can never be a serious or long lasting issue when there is a society distinguished by free market capitalism. It does, however, have the potential to be a serious problem when a society is blighted by state interference (although the primary effects are still likely to be local rather than general). Read more
Immigration – An Austro-Libertarian Analysis
By Duncan Whitmore
Both the referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union and the election of Donald Trump as the US President have elevated the topic of immigration to the top of the political agenda. Leftist, liberal elites – previously so sure they would arrive easily at their vision of an open, borderless world – have been scalded now that the lid has been lifted from the bubbling cauldron of the needs of ordinary, everyday citizens seeking to preserve their jobs and the culture of their homelands.
It is high time that this vitriolic, divisive and – frankly – often quite tiresome issue is put to rest. That, alas, is unlikely to happen, particularly as the political globalists seem content to plough on with their vision of open borders through the looming UN Global Compact for Migration. Listening to the mainstream arguments (or at least to how the leftist/liberal media chooses to portray them), one would be forgiven for thinking that the immigration question needs to be met by an all or nothing answer – i.e. that it is either an unqualified good or an unqualified bad. We are led to believe that it is a contest between liberals, or self-styled “progressives”, clamouring for fully porous borders on the one hand, versus elderly, conservative, racist bigots who supposedly want to keep everyone out and preserve England’s green and pleasant land for white faces.
The falsehood of this dichotomy is obvious to almost anyone who is not of the liberal-left, and, in fact, a “sensible” view on immigration is quite prevalent – that it is possible to be in favour of permitted, but regulated immigration, allowing some people to cross the border as immigrants to come and live and work in the territory of the state while denying that privilege to others. It is also recognised that immigration is economically beneficial in some situations, but not in others – i.e. when immigrants are highly skilled and productive instead of welfare consumers.
The task of this essay is to sharpen this “sensible” view with Austro-libertarian theory. We will begin by outlining the core libertarian theory concerning immigration before examining a key area for contention among libertarians – whether, in a world populated by states, any particular state should restrict or otherwise control movements across the border by persons who are not considered to be citizens of that particular state and whether this is in accordance with libertarian theory. We will then move on to exploring the economic and cultural implications of immigration policies. Read more
I am obliged to The Englishman’s Castle ticket-office-and-souvenir-bookstall, for flagging up this book, which we all ought to buy a number of copies of and force our GreeNazi friends to read.
“Sir” “Jonathon Porritt”, (….on…? Bit prissy, n’est-ce-pas?) described as an “adviser”, has apparently come out in the true colours of GreeNazis, and on the original 1960s paleophilosophic Rachel-Carson-Paul-Ehrlich-Hegelian battle-ground. This was human population, its supposed right size, its growth, and what should be done about it in the light of their belief that lots of humans is bad, and a few well-chosen ones is good.
The Landed Underclass integrates his own thoughts about why Greens and other antihuman-oids have these ideas about population levels, with the notion of what populations would become, for a polity, under different market conditions.
The Devil, also cited by Landed, has this. I tend to agree that people who advocate population levels of humans under those which currently exist, are deliberately wicked and evil killers.
The continual and extending sexualisation of free-people’s children was written about earlier on here. Now, Trooper has made the connection with earlier but still fairly modern fascist Utopian literature on the subject, which could give us reasons why our children are all being sexualised by the State.
This may or may not have anything to do with why I, running this blog, now find it useful to outreach previously un-libertarianised groups in British society and elsewhere, such as young British men.
There’s nothing wrong with sex. I even agree with the horrible Paul Ehrlich that it’s nice. It is the reward, programmed into the operation of our bodies, and contrived from first principles for us by our genes, for us being successfully able to pass them on before we fry. They (our genes) are toast, otherwise. Er, that’s why it’s nice. Otherwise we wouldn’t be programmed to spend time working out obessively how to do it with someone.
But what he forgets is that the tragedy of civilisation, language, morality and goodness versus evil has crept into the woodwork. Matter has at last reached the state of consciousness where it contemplates its own existence, its origin, its possible fate, and what it ought to do in the meantime.
Thank God I don't yet look like that...He's had too much sex, clearly. (Terrible hands.)