I’m throwing in one extra possibility on the Fertility issue. That is that maybe demographic decline doesn’t really matter.

European civilisation has a decline in its native population. The problems which flow from that are:

  1. Its culture gets diluted and damaged by immigrants
  2. It gets outvoted by immigrants at elections
  3. It lacks raw manpower for economic and military competition
  4. Its gene pool gets weakened by more breeding in of inferior stock

Of those, the first two are clear and present dangers. But reversing demographic decline is obviously not the only solution. Abolishing democracy and establishing European culture as socially and legally privileged seem likely to work too.

As for 3, how much does raw manpower really matter, against technology and efficient economic organisation? Aren’t we all worried about how to find jobs for everybody? Innovate, automate, and 40 million White British would be more than capable of controlling Africa and South Asia again if they wanted to, never mind what 200 million White Americans could manage.

As for racial purity, I accept the possibility of dysgenic breeding, but again, in the context of a culture in which honesty and achievement are valued, I am not convinced we would see any real issue in the short to medium term. The dysgenic effects of a culture favouring parasites and thieves of all races outweigh any other considerations.

Demographic decline is a pressing problem in the context of democracy and crap economics, but democracy and crap economics are pressing problems with or without demographic decline. Maybe in the short term it just shouldn’t be the priority?

Building Theory

The theory of neoreaction has been built up mostly in the form of blogs. Kicked off at Unqualified Reservation, others such as Foseti picked up and expanded on the ideas.

Blogging works well because the conversational aspect provides a stimulus, while the archives provide for some accumulation of thought. However, while not as transient as twitter or irc, blog archives decay into contextless and disorganised masses of information.

A more solid representation of theory is books. Mike Anissimov has started down this road with his Critique of Democracy, and Bruce Laliberte previously expounded his neoreactionary–theological synthesis in a similar form.

That is almost certainly where we want to end up. But in most areas, I think we are not ready for that. We are still building theory, and we need to be dynamic and at the same time organised in our output.

To start the ball rolling, I have begun a page on the question of Fertility. This was triggered, obviously, by the recent post at Outside In examining the question more critically than usual, and my most recent post in response. The aim, however, is to be a live summary of relevant thought on the issue.

At present it is nothing but a statement of the obvious and a bunch of links. I would like to expand it into a thorough map of neoreactionary thought concerning the issue, retaining the links but foregrounding the content. The idea is that one could look at that page and see what views exist on the subject and what the open questions are.

The wordpress-page format is a quick start. One could imagine migrating to a limited-author wiki at some point, although there could be a case for a single editor authority. It will do for now, anyway. I will endeavour to fairly represent the relevant writings, and hope for criticism. My only authority for acting as curator in this way is that I think it’s worth doing; and ultimately the only sensible reaction if I do it badly is for someone else to do it better. I picked this subject not because it is central, but because it is important and yet not central; if someone with more reputation in the community wants to try the same approach with a larger, more central issue, that would would be ideal.

That link again: Fertility


Lukewarm Water

Nick Land raises the question of whether there is actually a solution to the  demographic problem, if there is an economic requirement for women to enter the  workforce in significant numbers.

I am not so pessimistic, that taking women out of the workforce is necessarily such an economic sacrifice. But it is a good point to raise, all the same. The biggest danger that the neoreactionary project faces in this theory-building phase is lack of realism, brought on by wishful thinking or the imagined needs of propaganda. We have to find the right answers to questions, and most importantly to the difficult questions, and not dodge them like mere politicians. Economic impact of removing women from the workforce has to go on the risk register, and not be waved away.

First statement of the problem: A country that puts most women in the workforce has 60%-100% greater gross production than one that takes them out. The latter will not be able to compete economically and will fail as a result.

First reply: China has twice the population of the EU. The EU has twice the population of the USA. The USA has twice the population of Japan. etc. None of the smaller countries appears in danger of being outcompeted and eliminated in the short term due to lower  number of workers. In the longer term, what matters is productivity growth, which is not so obviously affected, and population growth, which is in the favour of the patriarchal rather than the progressive side.

Second statement of the problem: There is a difference between a country with a population of a hundred million, 90% of them economically productive, and one with a population of a hundred and eighty million, 50% of them economically productive. They each have 90 million productive workers, but the latter has 80 million more consumers to produce for.

Second reply: again in the long run that one-off increase can be more than compensated for by productivity growth. Beyond that, as I have argued previously, patriarchy has a large positive effect on the economic productivity of men. Also, as discussed in the comments at Outside In, a large portion of the potential total production of women can be recovered by  allowing a very small number of exceptional women into economic activity.

Third statement of the problem: By taking the most productive women into the workforce and therefore out of the household, you are producing an IQ-shredder—a dysgenic system which takes the most desirable genes out of the gene pool.

Third reply: The situation described is not the true IQ-shredder; a real IQ-shredder is a magnet city which takes the most able men and women out of a catchment area and traps them in a space where none of them reproduce. It is the existing countries which suffer from that effect most, and patriarchy is a solution, in that it provides the exceptional men with high-quality, if not equally exceptional, women, who would be able to actually breed with them rather than leaving them as bachelors or DINKYs

Fourth statement of the problem: those true IQ-shredders will still exist in the world: if high-IQ women cannot work to their satisfaction at home, they will exit.

I think that fourth statement is the real problem, but only part of it. I am not worried that a country of patriarchal men and domesticated women will be outcompeted by a feminist country of herbivorous men and government-office women. I am concerned about the social practicalities of re-imposing patriarchal sex roles in a Western country, even in the imagined wider context of a reaction. Large-scale exit of ambitious women is only one form that social resistance to that development might take.

Over time, I think society could develop in that direction. After all, the current arrangement is not the result of letting women do what they want, but of heavy ideological, memetic and  legal-administrative pressure to get women into work. But even absent that, there is the micro- competitive effect that one-income families are competing for status with two-income families, with the working women active in justifying their choices in the public eye. It might work, but it’s hard to be really confident.

[Possibly Relevant: Arnold Kling on trends ]