White population is dropping as white women decide to have 1 or none

I've posted many times about the fact that white women in modern nations are having so few children that white populations are actually shrinking.

Of course you didn't believe me, since the Mainstream Media never says a word about dat, eh?

Well finally ONE Mainstream source confirms it--but the focus of the story is NOT the U.S. but...Spain.  The first mention of the U.S. is in the 8th paragraph, and most Americans won't read that far in an article seemingly about a small Spanish village.

The website is Politico, which is a Democrat-fellating leftist rag masquerading as neutral.  And to avoid angering the "die-versity is ouah strength" Dem party, and the "We need a female president like Kamala" wing, Politico can't approach this problem from the perspective of "white populations are dropping," but making the focus "the Social Security system."

That's *really* clever.  The problem is that LOTS of white women are deciding not to have kids--or to have just one.  

You may well wonder why that is, eh?  Of course you already know, cuz every TV show and movie has been blasting the message to women and girls for decades: "Having and raising children is hard work, expensive, and compared to the excitement and power of the business world, BORING!  Women should be running companies and countries!  They should be police chiefs, CEOs, generals, all those exciting jobs!" 

"See, if women were police chiefs or the head of Homeland Security we could take care of all doze poor refugee kids from all over duh world!  Now *that* would be exciting!  We give the orders and someone else does the work!"

And once a 15-year-old bites on *that* hook, the prospect of being a Hilliary or Cackles or a governor or senator is SO seductive compared with a boring, useless husband and whiny kids, right?  Kids always need something, whereas in the corporate world rich, sophisticated, well-dressed *powerful* men are always wanting you to join the team to negotiate deals in exciting foreign countries!

Girls see Hilliary Clinton and Cackles and governors like Hochul and Mikie Sherill and Abigail Spanberger and think "I want to boss people around!  Including men!  Cuz dat whut corporate execs DO, right?  That's what I see on TV and the movies, so it must be true.  No changing diapers or washing dishes for THIS stronk, powerful woman!  Nope nope nope!"

Also: the Globull Warmers have convinced young American women that having children is bad for duh climate, cuz children require heating and electricity, and drive cars and take plane trips across the Atlantic to receive fawning awards in Cannes for "saving duh Erf."  So this is yet another reason why American women are having no more than one child, and sometimes none.

So with the "why" established, let's look at the numbers.  I'll be using a number called "TFR"--the total fertility rate.  In the past that's been hard to find, probably because it's an easy concept to understand, and the last thing western pols want is for you to understand this.  [Don't confuse TFR with "fertility rate," which is almost useless: it's the number of births per 1,000 women in a year.  Doesn't tell you anything about whether the number shown is above or below replacement rate, so is much less informative.]

TFR is the *average* number of children a woman has in her lifetime.  It doesn't take a PhD to realze that if each female has 2 children, that would keep the population level (steady).  The actual number needs to be about 2.1, because a small percentage of children die before reaching child-bearing age.  So less than 2.1 and the population of that group steadily drops.

The farther below 2.1, the faster the drop.

In 2024 the average TFR for Europe was 1.34--way below the "replacement rate."  Spain's TFR is just 1.1--the lowest of the large nations.

The CDC reports that in Q3 of 2025 the TFR for the U.S. was 1.594--again, far below replacement.  But that number conceals a far more disturbing truth, because that's the number for *all women in the U.S. regardless of race or citizenship.*

The CDC also claims the TFR for whites is 1.54, for blacks is 1.465, and for Hispanic, 1.893.  But I'm really skeptical, because everywhere I go it seems that black women have lots more kids than whites.  Have you noticed?

https://x.com/BirthGauge/status/2014824763516977591?lang=en

Also, all three TFRs are below replacement, yet the population of the U.S. keeps increasing every year.  How can that be happening?  Of course: millions of "migrants" every year.  

So for the TFR for all women in the U.S. to be 1.626, the rate for whites is *highly likely* to be less than the 1.544 number claimed by the CDC. 

And sure enough, even though there are more white women in the U.S. than non-white, in 2024, for the first time in U.S. history there were more non-white births in the U.S. than white births.

You already have at least an idea of what that means, but what you don't know is how fast it's coming.  So to give you an idea let's use a simplified example: Suppose we assume the vast majority of all births are to women between the ages of 16 and 46.  Now assume we replace that 30-year cohort of women having 2.1 TFR with the same number of women with a TFR of 1.05.  In 30 years it means *half as many births* to this group.

Certainly a simplified example, since white U.S. women are likely at 1.3 instead of 1.05, so over the 30 years needed to completely substitute the new cohort, white births wouldn't be cut in half, but would be down perhaps 40% compared to today.

Liberals and Democrats: "We don't see a problem with that.  Sounds great to us!"
 
Imagine every big city mayor is a Mamdani or a Brandon Johnson or Karen Bass.  Imagine a congress composed of Maxine Waters, Ilhan Omar, AOC.  Imagine every state legislature is majority-minority and majority-Democrat.

It's coming, sooner than you can imagine.