The heart of the race is the countryside. This was also explicitly recognised by the National Socialists in Germany. However, this historical fact was not invented by them and has also been recognised by various other racial scientists of the 19th and early 20th centuries. There appears to be a historical-demographic tendency for rural people to move to the cities, while rural folks also tend to enjoy a higher fertility than urban people. An economical explanation may be sought for this. I opt for an evolutionary explanation. While resources (and hence economical opportunities) are scarce, there is fierce competition in rural areas. Only the best adapted individuals can stay. The others are pushed out to try their luck in the cities. This is the traditional situation in civilised countries, and it still appears to hold true today.
If we have a one-way relationship between the cities and rural areas, then the rural migrants may be seen as the ‘fresh and healthy’ racial influx into the cities. The rural areas therefore traditionally determine the racial destiny of the cities. People in the cities, even today in many civilised countries, tend to live shorter lives than their rural counterparts, confirming the idea that rural people tend to be healthier and more robust. The relationship between urban and rural folks can be compared to ‘civilised people’ and what they regard as ‘barbarians’. The former are more pacified and weak whereas the latter are more robust and ready for competition (as they are used to that). Rural people have a culture of fierce competition for scarce/limited resources. There is a limited amount of land that they can work and there is a limited amount of tasks/jobs in rural areas. This creates an enhanced or exacerbated situation of the survival of the fittest.
What is important to note is that the relationship between the rural and urban worlds is unilateral: rural people come to the cities, and not the other way around. Another important factor is that rural people produce the food for the cities. Therefore, they essentially control the lives of the urban people. Rural people are depended upon every single day by the urban people. When the relationship becomes two-way, the situation becomes dangerous because the traditional social harmony is disturbed: there is a sudden influx of people from the cities into the (often much purer) rural gene pool. Cities attract all sorts of people, even foreigners, but rural people help to bring the cities under demographic control: their genes aid in keeping the cities racially pure. However, once the genes of the cities come to the countryside, problems arise. Racial purity will be threatened. There is enough reason to be afraid of migrations towards the countryside. One major reason for urban migrations to the countryside is when the life in urban areas becomes so bad that the countryside looks much more alluring.
When Western countries become increasingly poor, I expect that the migration towards the countryside will increase exponentially. This will be a huge threat to the ultimate survival of the White race. Take the Netherlands for example. It is a country with many cities that are full of foreigners, such as Rotterdam and Amsterdam. Whites are increasingly moving towards the countryside in the Netherlands. As living conditions are worsening in the cities, more and more foreigners are also starting to relocate to the countryside. These foreigners are actually following the Dutch, because the Dutch carry the economical opportunities with them, and the foreigners realise that very well. This disturbance of the traditional order where only rural people come to the cities but not the other way around is a serious danger that is not to be underestimated when it comes to thinking about racial survival. In conclusion, the traditional one-way relationship between rural and urban people is good for the race.