Eighty-three years ago, Joseph Goebbels published an essay entitled Die Krise Europas—“The European Crisis.” Like most of his essays, it was insightful and prescient. It dealt, of course, with the crisis of the moment: namely, a war turning against Germany, a resurgent Judeo-Bolshevism, and the vital role of the Jewish Question in that war. Today, Europe faces a related but different crisis; my objective here is to shed some light on this situation, and perhaps to point a way forward.
Along this line, it is fashionable these days to speak of “the death of Europe,” but this is generally loose and hyperbolic talk, often unsubstantiated by actual data. Europe is not dying, but it is ill, and potentially at risk of a permanent change in its social and political orientation, away from traditional European values and structure, and more toward globalist, consumerist, ‘Americanized’ values and structure. This would be a great shame, and thinking people everywhere ought to do what they can to avoid such an outcome.
Europe faces a number of serious problems at the moment, including the war in Ukraine, a shaky NATO, deindustrialization, and a potential fall in the euro. But the problem I want to address here is with population. This in turn has two aspects: (1) overall declines, and (2) declining share of White and rising share of non-White. Let me take the second aspect first.
Regarding racial population statistics, the first problem we encounter is that most European governments refuse to track numbers by race and ethnicity, which in itself is highly suspicious; one must ask, why don’t they want us to know? They can try to take the moral highroad and claim that demographics are race-neutral, or some such assertion, but this is nonsense. Governmental authorities are clearly trying to hide the reality from their citizens, for reasons that cannot be good.
Thus, we are generally forced to use proxy statistics, such as religion or language, to estimate non-European populations. The most serious problem for Europe arises from their North African or Middle Eastern populations, nearly all of whom are Muslim, and fortunately we have numbers for that. According to conventional statistics, there are about 4 million Muslims in the UK (about 6% of the total), 7 million in France (10%), and 6 million in Germany (7%). These are the largest such populations. Smaller countries have, of course, fewer, but they still constitute a significant fraction of the total; Austria has about 800,000 Muslims (8%) and Sweden about 1 million (10%), with countries like Belgium (7.5%), Switzerland (6%), and Italy (5%) not far behind. (By contrast, the US has about 5 million Muslims, or about 1%.)
The other challenge comes from Black populations. France today has by far the largest Black population in Europe, at around 3.8 million (6%); they are followed by the UK (2.5 million, or 4%), Italy (1.2 million, or 2%), Spain (1 million, or 2%), and Germany (1.3 million, or 1.5%). (Again for reference, the US has about 50 million Blacks, or 14%.)
Combining just these two minority groups, we see that France is in deep trouble, with a total of 10.8 million people (16%), followed by the UK with 6.5 million (10%) and Germany (7.3 million, or 8.5%). But it’s worse than this; it turns out that these two groups only account for about half of the non-White populations; therefore, the actual non-White populations (numbers and percentages) are roughly double these figures.
A lot of numbers here, but the good news is that, despite millions of non-Whites, European White populations still hold solid majorities. On the down side, the trends are negative, as Whites tend to have very low, sub-replacement birth rates, whereas the non-Whites are both immigrating and reproducing at higher levels. The rates are such that, within four or five decades, Whites are at risk of becoming minority populations—i.e. less than 50%—in their own countries.
For example, in June of last year, a report issued by British researcher Matt Goodwin analyzed three population subgroups in the UK: White British, Other White, and Non-White. He shows the non-White population rising from a current level of 19.7% (about double the 10% “Black + Muslim” figure I cited above), rising to 40% by 2060 and 50% by 2078—at which point Whites in the UK will be a minority. (The report made headlines because the ‘White Briton’ category falls below 50% even sooner, in 2063.)
We can expect similar trends to occur in the rest of Europe—a bit faster or a bit slower, depending on current percentage of non-Whites and specific fertility rates. So, for example, France is currently around 32% non-White, and would be expected to go ‘White-minority’ by about 2060. Germany, currently about 17% non-White, would not fall to White-minority status until around 2085—if, that is, all current trends continue.
By reference, the US is currently projected to go ‘White-minority’ in 2045, just 20 years from now. So, if there are any impending “deaths” in the White nations of the world, the USA will be the first to go down. France has maybe 15 more years than America, the UK maybe 30 more years, and Germany perhaps 40 more. Any looming ‘European crisis’ is overshadowed by the much more imminent ‘American crisis.’ This could be good news for Europe, if they are able to watch what happens here in the USA and figure out how to avoid it.
Obviously, I take it as bad news indeed when historically White nations threaten to go White-minority. Under the best, most optimistic scenarios, when this happens, the nature of these societies will rapidly change, quickly diverging from how they were when White-dominant. And they will, of necessity, rapidly manifest the values of their non-White majorities. In short, they will come more to resemble the non-White cultures and nations—cultures which are, by and large, less prosperous, less safe, less healthy, and less productive. Some would call this “worse,” others merely “different”; I leave that to the reader’s assessment.
The Larger Population Question
This, then, is what might be called ‘the Minority Question.’ This whole issue presses up against a larger question, namely that of overall falling populations in Europe. This is a hugely important matter, but one that typically is either (a) completely ignored, or (b) treated with a shallow superficiality. When it does come up, it is usually in terms of some alleged global extermination plot or some kind of devious genocide plan, such as by the ‘vax.’ About the only helpful analysis centers on the Great Replacement issue; more on this below.
For very understandable reasons, it is almost impossible to get straight talk on population. Neither right nor left, liberal nor conservative, religious nor secular factions seem able to give the hard facts of the matter and to consider rational solutions. So, let me offer here some straight talk on population:
By almost any measure, the world is vastly overpopulated. The current global population is approaching 8.2 billion, and it is heading rapidly toward 10 billion by the 2050s. According to latest estimates, the figure will peak at around 10.3 billion by 2085.
The problem is that we, and the Earth, evolved under conditions of much lower, and much less-dense, human numbers. Humans have existed on this planet for around 3 million years, and for literally 99.9% of that time, there were less than 100 million people on Earth—or for those numerically-challenged readers, less than 0.1 billion. And that’s an upper limit; for many millennia, it was much less, even under 1 million at times.
Humanity did not cross the 100-million mark for the first time until about 1000 BC. But then we underwent rapid, exponential increases, hitting 1 billion around the year 1800; and now, within a couple decades, we will be at 10 billion: 100 times the evolutionary norm. Neither we nor the planet evolved to handle that mass of Homo sapiens. On an evolutionary time scale, this is not normal; it cannot be sustained in the long run. It will inevitably lead to disaster. I realize that some people think otherwise; but if they want to make that claim, they have the burden of proof. They must prove that we and the planet can survive with historically unprecedented numbers of people. Good luck with that.
Compounding the problem is that a large percentage of our numbers—perhaps 2 billion people (and growing)—consume resources at high relative rates, pushing total human consumption far beyond that which is sustainable for the planet. Non-renewable resources (like oil) are rapidly diminishing and becoming harder to reach, and renewable resources are consumed faster than they can be replenished. As a result, global ecosystems are in rapid decline. The data are well-known and indisputable, and I won’t recount the numbers here. But when the global ecosystem declines, the human race won’t be far behind—that I can guarantee.
Furthermore, for all members of the planetary ecosystem to flourish, they need space: lots of space, lots of land, unaffected by humans in any significant way. In other words, we need to set aside large amounts of land as functional wilderness. Unfortunately, existing wilderness is also in rapid decline. At present, we are using, altering, or polluting virtually all the ice-free land on Earth.[1]
Under current conditions, it is impossible to avoid catastrophic losses to non-human nature, and eventually to ourselves. Therefore, there is increasing recognition among scientists and ecologists that perhaps half of the Earth’s land area needs to be set aside, unused and uncontaminated, as a functional wilderness.[2] Simply to survive in the long run, humans need to learn to live on roughly half of the Earth; and within that half, to live within the sustainable biocapacity of the land—the ability for nature to supply resources and absorb wastes on a continuous, long-term basis. (If this sounds “far right,” “far left,” or “fascist” to you, then you need to rethink your definitions; this is all just common sense combined with elementary science.)
The end result, though, is rather shocking for most. When all the numbers are analyzed, it boils down to a sustainable global population of around 2 billion people.[3] This is a 75% reduction from current figures. Somehow, and in some way, we need to rid ourselves of 6 billion people—not immediately, not overnight, but within (say) the current century. If we do not, there is a very good chance that Nature herself will step in and drive us down ruthlessly—perhaps to zero.[4] If we have any pretense to being a rational species, we would do well to limit our numbers, and soon.
How, exactly, that can happen, I leave to another time. Suffice to say here that there is a wide range of options, from benign and voluntary to coercive and compulsory, and a “clever animal” like ourselves can certainly devise an effective, fair, humane, and just plan. The other matter is who, exactly, ought to be reduced. As a member of and advocate for the White race, I would obviously like to see my kin’s share increase globally; but again, that topic will have to wait for another time. Let me just say here that there is a case to reduce everyone, all groups, from current levels.
Case Study Italy
With this little background in place, let me turn now to the poster-child for European population problems: Italy. I will look at two representative media articles, but let me first recall a bit of personal experience in this matter.
In the past few years, I have been fortunate to spend some time in northern Italy. In many ways, it is still a great country: the people, food, scenery, and history are fantastic, and I certainly had nothing but positive experiences. And yet it was hard to avoid the feeling that something was amiss. Other Europeans (non-Italians) who I spoke with and who, in the past, had spent time in Italy themselves, confirmed this; they said things like, “The country just isn’t the same.” Of course, Italians have all the usual problems, like inflation, corrupt government, unemployment, rising housing costs, and so on. But clearly something more is going on there, and it’s not good.
When pressed for details, my friends all mentioned one key factor: immigration. Immigrants have changed the character of the nation—and not for the better. Certain parts of Milan, Verona, and other northern cities are best avoided at night. Petty crime and gang violence has increased. In my experience, Blacks and Muslims were visible, at least in small numbers, almost everywhere I went, and this would not have been the case even a couple decades ago. Again, it is hard to get reliable numbers, but Italy apparently has some 1.2 million Blacks (2%) and about 3.5 million Muslims (5%)—though these are surely underestimates. And as before, this implies a total non-White population of at least (2 x 7% =) 14% overall. And it is increasing by the day.
The media regularly reports on Italy and its “population crisis”—usually meaning, its population decline. But our liberal media also typically turn such reports into political commentary propaganda pieces. Two news articles are of interest, both from the UK. The first, from the far-left Guardian, dating to late 2023, is “The battle for births: How the far right are exploiting Italy’s ‘demographic winter’.”
Italy, we read, is undergoing a “slow-motion crisis,” a “demographic winter,” in the decline of its population. Currently at about 60 million, Italians were “shocked” to learn that they had lost 179,000 people in 2022, or about 0.3%. With a fertility rate of 1.24—well below replacement level of 2.1—the nation is projected to drop to 48 million by 2070, a decline of about 20% over the next 45 years or so. The ever-vigilant Elon Musk tweeted at the time that “Italy is disappearing.”
This situation is painted by Guardian journalist Tobias Jones in vague but ominous tones: average age will creep up (true), and the pension system will get overloaded, thus requiring “either huge tax hikes or drastic pension cuts” (probably true). Schools will have to close, as the number of children drops (right). And…the “far right” will exploit this tragic situation—more on that below.
Let’s pause a moment and put this, once again, in historical perspective. For most of the past 2,000 years, including during the Roman Empire, the Italian peninsula held less than 10 million people. It rose to about 13 million in 1300, at the start of the famed Italian Renaissance, which of course was one of the peak periods in human cultural history. The Black Death knocked that down by a few million, but they crept back up to similar levels by the 1600s. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution in 1700, Italy, like the rest of Europe, began a rapid increase; the nation rose to 20 million by 1800, 35 million by 1900, and 55 million in 2000. Italy experienced a “demographic summer,” but this didn’t help it much in either World Wars One or Two. They did, however, have a lot of people.
Now compare this with an evolutionary, ecological analysis. If Italy were to rationally tackle its share of the present global overpopulation crisis, it would, first, demarcate about half of its land area as present or future wilderness; second, it would work to live sustainably on the other half. Using current estimates of the region’s biocapacity,[5] this yields a target population of about (yikes) 15 million. It sounds catastrophically low; and yet, amazingly, this ‘ecological optimum’ population is just about the same as that in which Italy attained her peak of social and cultural prosperity in the 1300s. Or perhaps it’s not such a coincidence; perhaps nature and humanity are “happiest” and can flourish best only at certain optimum levels—levels much lower than we see today. This, at least, is the implication.
From this perspective, Italy’s looming decline from 60 million to 48 million is not only not a “crisis,” it is a blessing. If that nation could then lose another 30 million people over, say, the subsequent 50 years, it would be in a near ideal state—in balance with its environment and in a condition ripe for a new cultural renaissance.
The “Far Right” Threatens
But of course, neither the Right nor the Left see it that way. Present-day scaremongers worry about some planned mass extinctions of national populations or cartoonishly-evil depopulation schemes. But this is not only unfounded, it is prima facie ridiculous. No national leader in world history, to my knowledge, no matter how perverse or evil, ever wanted to deliberately wipe out his own population.[6] Every leader and every government understand that more people are better: more taxpayers, more soldiers, more producers, more consumers, more national wealth, more “weight” on the global stage.
But as the Guardian piece informs us, a much graver problem looms: “far right” leader Giorgia Meloni is making political hay from this “population crisis.” Admittedly, Meloni is happy to tell the nation that it is a crisis—thus ignoring both history and modern ecological analysis. But the writer Jones is more worried about Meloni’s advocacy of the “conspiracy theory” of “the great replacement.” Some years back, Meloni apparently repeated some “antisemitic trope” about Jewish financier George Soros and his advocacy of enforced immigration, by which native White Europeans would be replaced by non-White Africans and Middle Easterners—which indeed is happening, as I argued above.[7] (In good, corrupt political style, Meloni has apparently done nothing to actually stem the flow of immigrants.)
But never mind her; our leftist Guardian has a solution. First, since childrearing is expensive and living costs are rising all around, we need to get more young women into the workplace. “In countries where there is greater gender equality in labor, fertility rates are higher,” says one expert. Jones cites Germany and Sweden, both of which have more working women and higher fertility, though still well below the stability-figure of 2.1. The moral for young women: Don’t choose between job and family—get a job, have a couple kids, and ship them off to daycare. And not to worry, you can always see them on weekends.
The second aspect is more problematic. Jones quotes leftwing demographer Linda Sabbadini: “We need immigrants,” she says. “Only with more migrants of working age will the population grow immediately.” And their added productivity will keep the pension system flush with cash. Unwisely citing the case of Germany, Sabbadini says that “Merkel had the same problem…and welcomed a million Syrians.” Right—and Germany may never recover.
The overall message: More foreigners in Italy are “inevitable.” And more young women need to get out there and work, thus magically inducing them to have more children. It is a pathetic message indeed. Also telling is what is left out: no history, no ecological factors, no racial discussion at all. The “inevitable foreigners” can come from anywhere—impoverished Africa, impoverished Asia, war-torn Middle East—and everything will be just fine. This is the message.
A more recent article came from the BBC last summer: “Italy looks for answers to decline in number of babies.” As with the first piece, it begins with a small village that is “dying,” from which the journalist extrapolates to a “deepening demographic crisis” in Italy. The fertility rate is now down to 1.18, they say, and Meloni’s “right-wing government has been unable to stop the slide.” The article quotes a young Italian woman with an infant under age one; the mother “needs to return to work” and finding affordable childcare “is very tough.” The piece then looks at a small manufacturer, Irinox, which had to create an on-site infant daycare to retain young mothers. Italy needs to provide full-day, year-round, free infant care, we are told, before Italian women will leap into motherhood.
But wait, there is another “solution”: increased immigration. For our small business, Irinox, we read that fully 40% of its workers come “from abroad”—citing “Mongolia to Burkina Faso.” Irinox CEO Katia da Ros argues that “Italy will need more foreign workers to drive its economy.” “The future will be like that,” she blithely says.
The article finishes by looking at some rural schools that are closing for lack of children. Inadvertently, a bit of revealing truth slips out, as a local schoolmaster admits: “this area [Veneto] has been transformed because many people from abroad came here [in recent years]”—read: “many non-Whites moved in to serve as cheap labor, and the towns went to hell.” The schoolmaster continues: “Some people then decided to go to other schools where the migration index was less high.” Read: “White flight away from poor, dangerous, non-White neighborhoods caused many schools to close.” So, now we see why at least some of the Italian schools are closing: too many non-White immigrants, and the native Italians are voting with their feet. Somehow, I am not surprised.
Toward a Real Solution
Our liberal, leftist media have a clear message for Italy, and indeed for the West: Non-White foreigners are needed, they are good for your economy and society, and they are inevitable, so get used to it. And if you don’t like that idea, then the “demographic crisis” of population decline will destroy your country. This is absolute nonsense, on multiple grounds, as I have tried to show.
How about a real solution? (A) Recognize that actual population decline is good and necessary, because virtually every European (and Western) nation has outstripped its carrying capacity. Virtually every nation needs a lot fewer people and a lot more wilderness, if it is to prosper in the future.
(B) Non-White immigrants do much more harm than good, on several levels: they are generally less educated, less intelligent, poorer, sicker, and less law-abiding; they bring with them different values and different belief systems that are incompatible with traditional Western society—in other words, they are unassimilable and their presence will lead to societies divided by race and religion.[8] For their good and ours, they need to stay put.
(C) The US and Europe need to actively plan to slowly and careful reduce national populations while at the same time restoring their traditional demographics. Success on both counts would set the stage for a century-long boom in culture, economy, and social development.
Above I looked at Europe in some detail, but let me close with the U.S.. Currently at 330 million, America is, like virtually all Western nations, living far beyond that which is sustainable. We are rapidly destroying our national ecosystem, depleting natural resources, obliterating native wildlife, and thus setting the stage for ecological catastrophe. We need a plan to put around 1 billion acres into protected wilderness status (about half of the nation), and to live sustainably on the other half. This demands a national population reduction from 330 million to around 150 million—more than a 50% decrease.
If 150 million seems extreme, I would remind readers that this was precisely the US population in the year 1950. There are many Americans alive today who remember a population of 150 million. And I would guess, fondly so. Seriously—who would argue that the US was not in better shape in the year 1950 than in 2026?
As an indigenous White European nation, the United States could start by encouraging the emigration of our large non-White population, which would take us a very long way toward our goal. At present, we have about 62 million Latinos, 40 million Blacks, 20 million Asians, and at least 20 million mixed race or other ethnicities (including Jews). This comes to around 140 million people, ready to return home. If all opted to leave, that in itself brings us down to 190 million—and not far from our goal.
Imagine, if you will, a different America in the year 2100: A nation with vast open spaces, diverse and thriving wildlife, clear-running waters everywhere, and vibrant and healthy soil. A nation of 150 million Whites with little ethnic or racial diversity and hence no racial strife. A unified nation—a United States—with common origins, common values, and common goals, working together for the collective welfare. It need not be simply a vision; it can be a reality.
David Skrbina, PhD, is a former professor of philosophy from the University of Michigan, Dearborn. He is the author or editor of a dozen books, including The Jesus Hoax (2nd ed., 2024), The Metaphysics of Technology (Routledge, 2015), and Panpsychism in the West (MIT Press, 2017).
[1] As of 1995, about 43% of Earth’s surface area had experienced human-induced degradation. Ellis and Ramankutty (2008) concluded that more than 75% of Earth’s ice-free land area could no longer be considered wild. Of Earth’s ice-free land area, 83% is likely directly influenced by human beings. Our pollutants affect plant and animal physiology worldwide [i.e. on 100% of the land]. (“Land transformation by humans”)
[2] This is the “Half Earth” initiative; it has been active since at least the early 1990s.
[3] Similar estimates, of a sustainable global population of some 2 billion people, are defended by Gretchen Daily et al. (1994). “Optimum Human Population Size.” Population and Environment 15(6):469–475; and David Pimentel et al. (2010). “Will Limited Land, Water, and Energy Control Human Population Numbers in the Future?” Human Ecology 38:599–611.
[4] Gaia-advocate James Lovelock argued that humanity would be lucky to have 1 billion people in the year 2100. Australian biologist Frank Fenner wrote that it was already too late, and that we would be extinct by 2100.
[5] Probably the best biocapacity estimates, for every nation, come from The Global Footprint Network.
[6] Such depopulation claims attributed to either Klaus Schwab or the WEF are unfounded; see here.
[7] I note here that Jews are included among the non-White.
[8] This is not intended as a defense of Christianity or “Christian values.” But it is an acknowledgement that such things have been a traditional aspect of Western civilization for some two millennia.
Robert Gamzon, founder of the EEIF
The logo of the EEIF (éclaireurs et éclaireuses israélites de France = Jewish Boys and Girl Scouts of France). Note that in France, “Scouts de France” means Christian, thus the choice by the Jews of the word “éclaireurs” like in “éclaireurs de France” the non-denominational scout movement.
