Globally, two countervailing population trends are occurring simultaneously.
Overall, world population is growing at an alarming pace, a rate so high many fear it will ultimately exceed the carrying capacity of the planet.
Of course, the term “carrying capacity” is subject to ideological abuse. Estimates of the Earth’s carrying capacity range from less than 1 billion people, which seems ridiculous in light of the fact that it currently “carries” 7 billion and has carried >1 billion since 1800, to 1 trillion, which seems equally far-fetched. Reportedly, two-thirds of estimates fall in the 4 billion to 16 billion range, with a median of 10 billion.
A countertrend is also present. Within the overall population growth, the white race is shrinking precipitously, so rapidly that biological and cultural extinction looms.
Now, if your primary concern is the environment, or overall human sustainability without regard to the fate of subgroups, then white population decline or extinction can be viewed as positive. (This flies in the face of moralistic mouthings about genocide, but governments and elites are indifferent to, or even enthusiastic about, the crime as long as politically incorrect out-groups are targeted.)
In fact, this is the position of the Establishment, government, and most white people. The Population Reference Bureau’s (see below) researchers last year expressed gratification that First World fertility (which means white fertility, since nonwhite immigrants are reproducing rapidly), and Chinese and East Asian fertility, are below replacement level, because otherwise overall population growth would have been higher. The analysts were not concerned about the fate of declining populations because such shrinkage pulled down overall numbers.
Contrast this with a position opposed to white extinction or genocide. The latter view entails de facto support for increasing white fertility to at least replacement level, if not more, within the context of a still-expanding global population.
An alternative, of course, would be to foster asymmetric intra-global population change precisely the opposite of the Establishment’s: lowering nonwhite fertility among the world’s “poor” while increasing white fertility among the world’s “rich.”
Since this is politically incorrect on both racial and Marxist grounds, it is unlikely to win favor within dominant institutional structures.
Growth in World Population
The Population Reference Bureau (PRB)  is a Washington, D.C.-based private, nonprofit organization founded in 1929 to provide population data to policymakers, bureaucrats, journalists, academics, and interested laymen. It analyzes complex demographic data and research to present up-to-date population information in easily understood formats.
According to the PRB, it took all of human history for world population to reach the 1 billion mark in 1800. Growth in increments of 1 billion people since then has been as follows:
1800: 1 billion
1930: 2 billion
1960: 3 billion
1974: 4 billion
1987: 5 billion
1999: 6 billion
2011: 7 billion
Currently, the world is in the midst of its largest population growth in history, adding an additional one billion people every 12 years.
Writing in 1994, population geneticist L.-L. Cavalli-Sforza and colleagues stated:
We are presently in a critical period in which most populations living on the Earth have recently decreased their mortality rates, but only those that did so earlier [whites] have learned to decrease their fertility rates. As a result, there is a rapid exponential growth in many developing countries, leading the world toward demographic bankruptcy unless growth can be effectively curbed. (The History and Geography of Human Genes, abr. pbk. ed., 1994, p. 106)
Virtually all population growth today is in the Third World, or among immense immigrant populations imported into formerly white countries.
As noted, worldwide growth has been less than it otherwise would have been thanks to sub-replacement fertility in Europe, white America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan, and other East Asian nations. White populations, by failing to reproduce, are vanishing.
Large families are still the norm in the Third World, as well as among non-whites imported into First World countries to replace the native inhabitants. Therefore, many non-white populations continue to expand at a rapid rate. Their death rates have been slashed by foreign aid, housing, medical care, transfer payments, and other Western largesse, while fertility rates remain high.
Replacement fertility —where each generation exactly replaces the one before it (i.e., equilibrium, or zero population growth—no expansion)—is currently 2.1 children per couple in the First World and 2.4 in developing countries.
Because some men and women in each generation do not reproduce, couples who do so must give birth to more than 2.1 children to sustain the overall population.
Actual First World fertility is currently below replacement level (signifying population implosion)—despite factoring in miscegenation, which is now substantial, and the high birth rates attributable to permanently-settled non-whites, whose numbers under existing policies are continuously augmented by new arrivals, legal and illegal, at a ferocious pace.
According to the Population Reference Bureau’s 2011 World Population Data Sheet  (the most up-to-date), here are the total fertility rates (TFRs) for the major regions of the globe:
North America: 1.9
New Zealand: 2.2
Developed world (the “white” regions above + Japan): 1.7
Developing world: 2.6-4.5
Since the figures for the “white” world incorporate the high fertility rates of the large, youthful, recently-imported races, actual white fertility is exceptionally low, possibly even negative, as demographer Massimo Livi-Bacci hints in the quoted passage at the end of this article.
One consequence of low fertility is the disappearance of white extended families. The existence of many families with only one or two children greatly reduces the number of siblings, aunts, and uncles, making the demographic winter not only colder, but much lonelier.
US Hispanic Immigrants: A Case Study in Differential Reproduction
First World elites have imposed massive nonwhite immigration on white countries, intensifying the downward pressure on native populations and radically transforming them from white to nonwhite in a breathtakingly brief period of time. Since whites have nowhere to go, they are effectively being annihilated.
The US serves as a case study for this process all over the world.
By 2010, whites made up a rapidly shrinking 64% of the US population. Just a few decades before the figure was 90%.
It is this massive change in racial makeup, replicated in every First World country, that makes me hesitant to call historically white lands “white,” “First World,” “developed,” or any other noun or adjective suggestive of an advanced, racially homogeneous populace. The fact that whites are officially discriminated against, and legally prohibited from speaking, associating, organizing, or voting to effectively protect their interests, renders such designations even more dubious. It is unclear in what sense a declining 64% “majority” of aging, dying helots constitutes a “white” country when they don’t even rule it.
Unlike the rest of the First World, the US population has grown in recent years. Two factors were involved: natural increase and immigration.
Over the past 30 years, 1980–2009, the percentage of growth due to immigration has risen from 24% to 36%.
Immigration began to rise rapidly in the US in the 1970s, shortly after passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. At the same time, the average number of white births leveled off at two children per woman—less than zero growth.
High levels of immigration offset declines in white fertility, thereby making the overall growth rate appear positive compared to Europe.
Between 1990 and 2010, the Hispanic population more than doubled. Of course, immigrants, legal and illegal, from Asia, Africa, and the rest of the world, plus native black and Amerindian populations, must also be factored in.
This massive influx affected more than the raw numbers of newly-arrived nonwhites. The immigrants also had much higher fertility rates than whites. Indeed, the population age structure, or pyramid, of white Americans resembles that of Europeans.
White Americans are aging rapidly as the baby boom cohort reaches age 65+.
Meanwhile, the age profile of newly-imported Hispanics presents a sharply different picture. Their age structure forms a pyramid with a wide base, characteristic of a young, growing population.
Hispanics have a much higher fertility rate than whites—indeed, Hispanic fertility in the US is higher than in Mexico. This creates great momentum for future growth. Even if fertility eventually declines, children already in the pipeline insure a sizeable number of future births. (A baby boom.)
Nevertheless, North America’s Total Fertility Rate for all races combined is still only 1.9 children per woman—below replacement level (2.0 in the US and 1.7 in Canada, which also encourages mass immigration and enforces harsh anti-white policies).
Since no matter where you live in the US, or where you go, you see massive numbers of nonwhites, interracial couples, hybrid children, and elderly whites, the true picture is clear enough. Of course, many who “look white” under such circumstances are actually Jews, non-European Caucasians, Amerindians, and hybrids of every imaginable variety.
Global Growth Conceals White Population Decline
Most brown and black regions of the world are experiencing population expansion. Death rates have fallen precipitously, but fertility rates remain high. Sub-Saharan (black) Africa, which has one of the highest fertility rates in the world, is the poster child in this regard. Though Africa’s death rates are very high, birth rates are even higher.
Meanwhile, in the First World the true extent of white population decline is concealed by aggregate national and regional statistics. White decline is worse than aggregate multiracial numbers suggest due to the high fertility and large numbers of immigrants.
Nevertheless, familiar demographic statistics, graphs, and models can be adapted for racial use. Even without being able to fit precise numbers to the models, application of basic demographic concepts provides a good, dynamic sense of what is happening.
Let’s imagine that Angola’s (currently in Stage 2 of the demographic transition) 2005 age pyramid (below) represents not that specific country, but any rapidly expanding nonwhite race inside or outside the First World. Conceptually, we thus eliminate national boundaries and substitute races for national (state) populations.
The age pyramid for our hypothetical race illustrates what a “population explosion” looks like—many young and few old, many births and few deaths.
Besides a current historically large population, such a race has built-in momentum for future growth because so many young people will reproduce at high rates in the future, even if total fertility gradually drops.
A comparison of Finland’s population pyramids  from 1917 (still white) and 2006 (whites + immigrants) illustrates the effects of the demographic transition (fertility decline) on the white race. It may be viewed as representative.
The population pyramid of 1917 still looks like a pyramid and is typical of a youthful country with a high fertility rate producing healthy numbers of offspring. In contrast, the 2006 profile does not resemble a pyramid at all, but rather a column. White fertility is extremely low—indeed, lower than what is depicted due to immigrant and interracial reproduction.
Finally, contrast Angola’s 2005, or Finland’s 1917, population pyramids with a hypothetical, inverted pyramid presumably characteristic of the current or impending age structure of the white race, characterized by below replacement or possibly even negative fertility—many old and few young, many deaths and few births:An age structure and reproductive profile such as the one shown has grave implications for (a) group survival (b) inter-racial competition for political power, economic resources, and retention of human rights, and (c) the nature of the target audience and potential membership constituency for nationalist movements, organizations, political parties, or ethnostates. Collectively, the target audience for white nationalists will grow older, numerically smaller, less influential, less affluent, and presumably less vigorous and assertive every year.
Italian demographer Massimo Livi-Bacci succinctly sums up the dynamics of this crisis situation:
[Population changes] vary between a maximum annual potential growth rate of 4 percent (many developing countries have a growth rate of over 3 percent) and a minimum of -1 percent (which will be realized by many European countries should the current fertility and mortality levels remain unchanged). We are able to recognize the exceptional nature of the current situation if we keep in mind that a population growing at an annual rate of 4 percent will double in about 18 years, while another declining by 1 percent per year will halve in 70. Two populations of equal size [emphasis added] experiencing these different growth rates will find themselves after 28 years (barely a generation) in a numerical ratio of four-to-one! (A Concise History of World Population, 4th ed., Blackwell Publishing, 2007, p. 20)
Note that Livi-Bacci is saying these disparate growth trajectories exist now. Observe too the tremendous velocity built into the numbers. Race is not static.
Key is ever-changing dynamism, motion, and flux. Races can expand and contract rapidly, both absolutely and relative to other races. They can grow, shrink, collapse, and become extinct.
As with any endangered species or subspecies, white fertility must return to above replacement level as soon as possible—an admittedly arduous task. A race characterized by sub-replacement fertility does not have a future. It will suffer a tragic loss of population, culminating in race suicide or genocide.
Whites must see the dawn of a new demographic spring, have more children, more life, more resources.
Unless this is done, we will cease to exist. So remember—“Tomorrow Is Always Too Late.”