One of the most frequently asked questions about the concept of creating a new ethnostate colony is that of numbers: how big must a settlement be before it can be said to be viable, or be the germination pool of a European survival?
The answer is: far fewer than you might think—dramatically fewer.
The first way to establish this is to examine what evidence there is for the size of original European founding populations.
While it is by the very nature of the historical process, impossible to determine exact numbers 40,000 years or more ago, DNA studies and archaeology can provide some fairly good indicators.
One indicator on the DNA level is a report published in the journal Science, which analyzed the Y chromosome taken from 1,007 men from 25 different locations in Europe. The analysis showed that four out of five of the men shared a common male ancestor about 40,000 years ago.
Researchers looking at the 1,007 chromosome samples from Europe identified 22 specific markers that formed a specific pattern of change—and found that about 80 percent of all European males shared a single pattern, suggesting that they had a common ancestor thousands of generations ago.
The implications of that finding are significant: it means that the European founding population was tiny, a few thousand or maybe even a few hundred strong….
Archaeological evidence backs this up. A report dealing with the replacement of Neanderthals by Homo sapiens compared the number of positively discovered Neanderthal settlement sites with the number of positively-identified Homo sapiens sites during the transition from the Chatelperronian to the Aurignacian periods around 45,000 years ago.
According to the researchers, there are 108 identified human dwelling sites during the period, and only 30 Neanderthal ones. The density of tools and the number of animal remains used by modern humans was at least twice as many as those used by Neanderthals.
The lead researcher in that project, Paul Mellers from Cambridge University, said that although the exact number of each population is nearly impossible to know, “there may have been several hundred Neanderthals in the area studied by the researcher, compared with several thousand humans.”
More recently, Dr. Cameron Smith, an anthropologist and prehistorian at Portland State University in Oregon, completed a report for the non-profit scientific organization Project Hyperion (which is a collection of scientists from around the world devoted to trying to find way to make interstellar travel a reality).
Dr. Smith’s report focused on the numbers of people which would be needed in order to make the survival of a human colony on another plant viable and which would avoid genetic problems caused by possible inbreeding.
We are not here concerned with Project Hyperion’s still science fiction discussions of interplanetary travel.
What is however of value is a present-day leading geneticist’s evaluation of the numbers of people which would make a colony viable.
According to Dr. Smith’s study (as published in the journal Acta Astronautica, Volume 97, April–May 2014, Pages 16–29), a colony could be created with between 14,000 and 40,000 people.
“Population genetics theory, calculations and computer modeling determine that a properly screened and age- and sex-structured total founding population (Nc) of anywhere from roughly 14,000 to 44,000 people would be sufficient to survive such journeys in good health,” Dr. Smith wrote.
“A safe and well-considered Nc figure is 40,000, an Interstellar Migrant Population (IMP) composed of an Effective Population [Ne] of 23,400 reproductive males and females, the rest being pre- or post-reproductive individuals.
“This number would maintain good health over five generations despite (a) increased inbreeding resulting from a relatively small human population, (b) depressed genetic diversity due to the founder effect, (c) demographic change through time and (d) expectation of at least one severe population catastrophe over the 5-generation voyage.”
Once again, the implications of this are weighty.
It means that a relatively tiny base population, properly selected and geographically isolated, can form the basis of a new colony and regenerated racial type—as long as the area has been secured and established.
This conclusion does not even take into account the possibility of human embryo and sperm freezing, artificial insemination and other technologies which are already real and used, which can be further used to boost population levels of any incipient ethnostate.
The broader implications of all these facts:
1. It is clear that those who seek the survival of the European people, do not have to concern themselves with the “saving of all Europe.”
In all likelihood, as discussed in Nova Europa, the vast majority of Europeans are going to pass away, either through self-imposed childlessness, miscegenation, or be murdered off by the growing nonwhite population’s more violent elements.
2. As long as an easily-defensible and defined geographic area is obtained, a founding population does not have to be millions strong.
In fact, given current political and social conditions in North America, Australia/New Zealand, and Western Europe, it is likely that any Nova Europa settlement, once formally defined, will automatically attract numbers far in excess of what the scientists say is necessary to “start over.”
These facts are a source of inspiration, and confirmation that the ethnostate option is the only way forward if the European people are to avoid complete extinction in the coming Dark Age.
You may want to read a Disquisition on Government by John C. Calhoun it which he argues that there is a economy of scale beyond which a country becomes to big to govern. That is the problem with America, it is too big and too diverse. Calhoun further identified what should be the proper frame of reference, individual liberty or the protection and perpetuity of the race, should these two ever come into conflict.
Wouldn’t it be a good idea to establish what is called by the public, a ‘sperm bank’, at this time to begin at least setting aside the best of the best who are still alive and available to contribute. I fear that when worse comes to worst, this will not be possible, and many fine people will die. I’m too old to contribute, as a woman, but there are so many healthy, wonderful young women, as well as men, who could be part of this. I can only hope I’m not the only one thinking of this. We are outnumbered 10 to 1 at this time, and this statistic will only become worse as we continue to admit the third world into our civilized societies in America and Europe. I have read your book, and although I would be a ‘retiree’, I will be glad to join when you establish a ‘homeland’.
Thank you for your wise observations and for putting them into book form for all to read.