Childless Cities By Brian Simpson

     Northern European Whites (Nordics), simply do not breed well in cities. I think it was Madison Grant in The Passing of the Great Race (1916) who saw that mass urban life spelt the demographic doom for this once great sub-race. South East Asians have no problem having large families in cities, and nor do Africans, but Whites get totally caught up in consumerism and playing with things, so that having children becomes too hard. And, a system has been created with feminism, and tyrannical schools, that are also expensive, so that few want to breed anymore. Best to eat, drink and drug out, and let it all wither on the vine, the decayed fruit of the West.
  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/where-have-all-the-children-gone/594133/

“New York is the poster child of this urban renaissance. But as the city has attracted more wealth, housing prices have soared alongside the skyscrapers, and young families have found staying put with school-age children more difficult. Since 2011, the number of babies born in New York has declined 9 percent in the five boroughs and 15 percent in Manhattan. (At this rate, Manhattan’s infant population will halve in 30 years.) In that same period, the net number of New York residents leaving the city has more than doubled. There are many reasons New York might be shrinking, but most of them come down to the same unavoidable fact: Raising a family in the city is just too hard. And the same could be said of pretty much every other dense and expensive urban area in the country.

In high-density cities like San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C., no group is growing faster than rich college-educated whites without children, according to Census analysis by the economist Jed Kolko. By contrast, families with children older than 6 are in outright decline in these places. In the biggest picture, it turns out that America’s urban rebirth is missing a key element: births. Cities were once a place for families of all classes. The “basic custom” of the American city, wrote the urbanist Sam Bass Warner, was a “commitment to familialism.” Today’s cities, however, are decidedly not for children, or for families who want children. As the sociologists Richard Lloyd and Terry Nichols Clark put it, they are “entertainment machines” for the young, rich, and mostly childless. And this development has crucial implications—not only for the future of American cities, but also for the future of the U.S. economy and American politics.

The counties that make up Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, and Philadelphia shed a combined 2 million domestic residents from 2010 to 2018. For many years, these cities’ main source of population growth hasn’t been babies or even college graduates; it’s been immigrants. But like an archipelago of Ellis Islands, Manhattan and other wealthy downtown areas have become mere gateways into America and the labor force—“a temporary portal,” in the words of E. J. McMahon, the founder of the Empire Center for Public Policy. “The woman from Slovakia comes to Queens, lives in her second cousin’s basement, gets her feet on the ground, and gets a better apartment in West Orange, New Jersey,” he said. Or a 20-something from North Dakota moves to Chicago after school, works at a consultancy for a few years, finds a partner, and moves to Missoula.”

     Not to worry, because for the liberal local births don’t matter, all that counts is migrants, so migrate away, all day! And, once all the migrants of the world, if not the cosmos, are in the West, and it explodes, or quietly rots, people will then migrate out again. Like the ebb and flow of the tides. Or, it is like playing musical chairs, only more apocalyptic.