RSS
Wency on how below replacement fertility, Woke Capital, and high anxiety are just some of the blessings modern status striving has given us:
If parents don’t themselves become more money-focused after having kids, even if they do spend lots of time with their kids, nearly everyone in the upper-middle class is obsessed with making their own kids career-focused. And this parental obsession with kids’ material well-being and financial success, to the exclusion of everything else, is an aggressively toxic force. This mentality seems to be a factor not only in the catastrophically small families of the present age, but also the rapid rise of Woke Capital — say anything, do anything to make it into elite corridors.
Caspar von Everec offers speculation as to why foreign policy doesn’t have the domestic purchase it used to have:
Americans nowadays simply don’t care about foreign policy that much. That was a luxury of 70%+ white America, where the economy was good, race relations weren’t as serious, demographics not as bad, culture not as pozzed and the left not as unhinged.
…
There’s simply no stomach for that stuff nowadays. Now its all about race, economic bankruptcy, leftist cultural and physical terrorism and elite power abuse. Sure people might say China is their enemy, but ask how many of them support going to war with China over defending Taiwan. I doubt it would be more than 20%. Same with Russia over Ukraine.
As multiple nations assert themselves within the geographic boundaries of a single country, what takes place inside that country increasingly becomes foreign policy. Caspar intends this as a lamentation, and there are obviously negative aspects to it, but there is an upside to it for much of the rest of the world. When America is collapsing in on itself, it’s not collapsing buildings in your country. A little gratitude, please!
The good doctor DanHessinMD diagnoses the underlying condition responsible for many of the symptoms our sick society is suffering with:
The central mental error of our age is the conceit that through clever application of language you can change the rules of the world.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.
Continuing with pithy aphorisms, WorkingClass offers a great slogan for an American populist party to adopt–if such a thing existed:
Work and wages. Not war and welfare.
For those who want to work, wages will be nominally higher in the coming years. They’ll buy less, though. Foreign wars may end out of necessity despite the drastic reduction in welfare to the military-industrial complex that would represent. When Rome could no longer afford garrisoning troops in Britain because it needed them closer to home, they came home. The crisis of the third decade is only getting started.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
I assumed he was an MD and he corrected me earlier that the is simply located in Maryland and is not a physician.
As ever.
The actual acceleration started with Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society and Vietnam. As Kevin Phillips wrote in the 70s, that’s when our prosperity went. Jobs in the industrial sector, formerly all but bullet proof, began going offshore at the same time inflation ate up the wages those jobs paid. It’s hard to tell people now that a $4 per hour job in Detroit could support a family and house payments back-when. They did but you had to be pretty frugal about everything.
As the militia man Bruce Campbell put it once, the bankers decided the working man had too much time on his hands. For the first decade, inflation ate up all the extras. Wages in America remain a joke which is why having a YouTube channel or creatively using GoFundMe is probably better than working no matter what it is you do.
The silver lining might be that immigrants, Joe Biden’s ace card, are getting wise enough to grab a few benefits and split. Hondurans are good for 6 months then they go back home. It’s no longer streets paved with gold thanks to COVID. So there’s some good in everything.
I find myself in agreement with Wency.
“say anything, do anything to make it into elite corridors.”
Saker has a piece up asking “why so little push back”.
Sailor has a piece up exploring the “flight from white”.
But there are still a lot of White Amerians who don’t suck.
I have the good fortune to reside in rural (red) Texas. I operate a flea markt booth on week ends so I get to talk with a lot of people. I always ask people I don’t recognize if they are “local”. Usually if they are new arrivals they are from out of state. Last Sunday a lady answered “We are Texans. We are moving here to escape the rising crime in Dallas”.
I have been saying for some time that the next white flight will carry folks past the burbs and all the way out of the metroplex. Decent people who are able are abandoning the shithole cities.
End the hate
Separate
Ascendants have the rural lands emptied as people move into the cities for work and higher living standard. Central parts are clean, orderly centers of trade, commerce and rarely industry (now dislocated to the suburban belts everywhere in the world).
Descendants have it happen in reverse. The cities are economically devastated and emptied, as they become increasingly unsafe. Urban poverty is high. Ghettoes, all the nice stuff.
The twin disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan broke the public on the idea that our betters understood what they were doing in sticking our beaks in all over the planet, or that there was any upside for ordinary people in military adventurism. Of course that doesn’t mean the establishment isn’t still busy funneling taxpayer dollars into its favorite client states and arms manufacturers, but it’s at a level that doesn’t register with most of the public. In our woke era, the supposed guardians of democracy in the media have no interest in committing any acts of journalism that might raise this issue in the public discourse.
The ‘work and wages’ approach is a door wide open for the right to walk through, but it’s not clear to me that the GOP has yet paid a sufficient penalty for its insane fealty to the Chamber of Commerce agenda of lower capital gains and marginal income tax rates as well as an open door immigration policy. There is a lot of trash that still needs to be taken out.
-1- Fealty to the Chamber of Commerce
-2- Open door immigration policy
-3- Lower capital gains and marginal income tax rates#1 -- The new MAGA GOP has jettisoned the U.S. Chamber of Commerce [CoC] agenda of sending jobs to China. The CoC realized that their plan is thwarted and has switched to the DNC slate: (∆)#2 -- There is more work to be done on immigration. Some key items that need Congressional support to pass:
• The "Stay in Mexico" policy greatly reduced skipping out on asylum hearings as a method of illegal entry. It needs to be reinstated.
• Complete e-verify needs to be put in place for all corporate hiring and backed up with stringent enforcement.
• H1B/OPT visas need to be slashed and China totally eliminated from these programs.
• Long term - The U.S. needs a system to track serious visa over stays. However, this is more technically challenging than it initially appears.While a MAGA U.S. House majority seems likely, the U.S. Senate is problematic. Swamp critters, like Romney and McConnell, do not share MAGA priorities. The new Populist GOP needs to get to 51 seats with out them. #3 -- Raising taxes in a weak economy has been tried multiple times and always makes things worse. MAGA re-industrialization needs to generate real jobs for real people, thus speeding up the economy. Fixing income tax related problems will have to wait, and the loopholes are worse than the marginal rates.PEACE 😇
__________(∆) https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/08/28/the-bloom-is-off-the-ruse-tom-donohue-and-u-s-chamber-of-commerce-announce-support-for-far-left-democrats-in-2020/Replies: @Marshal Marlow
Work and wages. Not war and welfare.
I say:
Power and victory. White Core America.
Motherhood is work and so is dislodging from power the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire. Dole out the conjured up currency and level up but in a different way than envisioned by treasonous turd Boris and his bunch in England.
Take control of the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank and dole out the loot like Vikings splitting the spoils.
A global asset bubble implosion and currency collapse has been baked into the cake and White Core America will take advantage of that to assume control of the electronics of the American Empire.
The American Empire is an electronic empire: electronic currency and electronic propaganda and electronic command and control of the conventional and nuclear weapons of the US military.
Instill within the hearts of White Core Americans the spirit of William the Conqueror and let them bang it out bravely against the evil and treasonous JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire.
The Murdoch faction of the JEW/WASP Ruling Class just put out a bit in the WSJ praising the presumably WASP restraint of the banker scum at Brown Bothers Harriman and I found it to be a good laugh.
In juxtaposition to the JEW bankers I suppose that bank of money-grubbing twats at Brown and others could be considered “restrained” or “bounded” in their greed for loot but that seems to be faint praise indeed. Harriman State Park is lovely and maybe the Harrimans are more decent than the Pratts but that ain’t hard to do. Look at that treasonous asshole Willard Pratt Romney and figure out if it’s hard to be more honorable than that Mormon Mammonite money-grubber dirtbag Mitt.
Take power and rule is a simple motto for the new political force called WHITE CORE AMERICA.
Attention all Americans of English ancestry: If you ain’t an evil treasonous scumbag like those in the Bush Organized Crime Syndicate, then you are an American of English ancestry and not a WASP.
I use WASP like Baltzell; narrowly defined.
England must dissolve the UK and go it alone and English ancestry people in the USA must tell the WASP turds to phuck off.
God Bless The English, Here And In England.
REMOVE THE JEW/WASP RULING CLASS NOW!
TAKE CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK NOW!
George Washington and Andrew Jackson Are On Our Side.
The 'work and wages' approach is a door wide open for the right to walk through, but it's not clear to me that the GOP has yet paid a sufficient penalty for its insane fealty to the Chamber of Commerce agenda of lower capital gains and marginal income tax rates as well as an open door immigration policy. There is a lot of trash that still needs to be taken out.Replies: @A123
You raise three different points:
-1- Fealty to the Chamber of Commerce
-2- Open door immigration policy
-3- Lower capital gains and marginal income tax rates
#1 — The new MAGA GOP has jettisoned the U.S. Chamber of Commerce [CoC] agenda of sending jobs to China. The CoC realized that their plan is thwarted and has switched to the DNC slate: (∆)
#2 — There is more work to be done on immigration. Some key items that need Congressional support to pass:
• The “Stay in Mexico” policy greatly reduced skipping out on asylum hearings as a method of illegal entry. It needs to be reinstated.
• Complete e-verify needs to be put in place for all corporate hiring and backed up with stringent enforcement.
• H1B/OPT visas need to be slashed and China totally eliminated from these programs.
• Long term – The U.S. needs a system to track serious visa over stays. However, this is more technically challenging than it initially appears.
While a MAGA U.S. House majority seems likely, the U.S. Senate is problematic. Swamp critters, like Romney and McConnell, do not share MAGA priorities. The new Populist GOP needs to get to 51 seats with out them.
#3 — Raising taxes in a weak economy has been tried multiple times and always makes things worse. MAGA re-industrialization needs to generate real jobs for real people, thus speeding up the economy. Fixing income tax related problems will have to wait, and the loopholes are worse than the marginal rates.
PEACE 😇
__________
(∆) https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/08/28/the-bloom-is-off-the-ruse-tom-donohue-and-u-s-chamber-of-commerce-announce-support-for-far-left-democrats-in-2020/
On the other hand, I can see Red & Blue agreeing on taxpayer subsidies - not as if it's their money after all.
On my initial remark, which I recall Iffen criticizing at the time, I will say I was probably in a sour mood. “Aggressively toxic” is probably too strong a phrase — there’s nothing wrong with wanting your children to be able to make a living, up to a point. Like so many social ailments, it’s a matter of obsession over one good thing at the expense of balance.
I suppose the way I see it, I’d be happier if one of my sons drove a garbage truck in Texas, went to church, married well, and produced numerous well-parented grandchildren than if he were a world-class chef in NYC whose one child identified as transsexual (to his wife’s pride). Yet this seems to make me an outlier even among church-goers in the upper-middle class. I have a Catholic acquaintance who is tremendously proud of his son who fits the “chef” description and yet seems to be somewhat embarrassed of his son who is closer to the “garbage man” (actually not precisely sure what the latter’s career is, just that he does blue-collar work and has three sons).
On the ongoing saga of crashing fertility, I was just talking to a young lady last week in her mid 20s, who saw me with my youngest (and no doubt observed my receding hairline), and she shared that she was still working on her Master’s and wanted to wait until her late 30s before she had kids, but her boyfriend was ready to settle down now. Late 30s! As an ideal! I think the way that most probably plays out is that he dumps her and she produces 0. And the funny thing is that, like nearly all women, she was clearly drawn to my baby *now*, but the modernist mind-virus got to her and convinced her that completing the Master’s and building the career were higher priorities.
Of course, our own elites have aggravated the problem by destroying the industrial economy, such that downward mobility is likely to be catastrophic. There is no simple working-class life to fall into.
https://youtu.be/HbN99f9esS4
Important to remember that teenagers are, by definition, a very easily socially pressured and influenced lot. Since most people are by definition average, most people are not going to blaze their own path and will conform to the norms around them as adolescents. This is critical when understanding the dynamics of college attendance vs. more practical jobs.
It’s one thing to have kids at that age because the choice is either that or not having a family at all. Life happens. For a lot of people, this wasn’t an intentional plan but how the cards came. Some people make mistakes, others are simply unlucky. Some unfortunate souls are in both camps: they make mistakes which are then punished far in excess of the “crime”, so to speak. (Just ask anybody who has been unemployed in the 21st Century US-it’s not something you can just shrug off, it’s a crippling blow that permanently damages your prospects if severe and ill-timed enough.) It might not be an ideal, but it is infinitely better than the alternative, no?
But I do agree that it is quite another to structure your life around an ideal that revolves around finding a man at the exact right time and him impregnating you will all due speed, because again, life does happen. One can draw an interesting parallel between that and the post Cold War economy of the United States, which emphasizes cost reduction to the barest penny at the expense of preparing for things going wrong.
I’ve told my daughters that I am very sceptical of the notion that they must have a “career”, although they go to a girl’s school that is very heavily orientated that way. A lot of the poor girls have clueless parents. I’ve known – still do know – plenty of miserable women in the late thirties, forties and fifties who are single and childless. One particularly conceited specimen – a neighbour – thought she was indispensable in her job so her being made redundant must have come as a shock. OTOH my son’s partner has just had another baby – a girl – and she’s as happy as happy can be.
When I was dating after my divorce in my early forties I met several women of a similar age but I just wasn’t interested because they had passed the age of fertility. It’s far, far easier for a reasonably presentable man at that age since fertility is rarely an issue.
Chateau Heartiste used to go on about this, of course, in his inimitable style, and his censorship by the Establishment was an act of cultural vandalism.
Good observations. This last point is one that Nassim Taleb has also harped on quite a bit, and I think he has a point there — systems designed with minimal slack are doomed to collapse.
Though I think her late 30s mentality, even if it did work out, would very likely only produce one child anyway. While from a lifestyle standpoint, it’s a world of difference to be a parent of one vs. a non-parent, from a long-term social standpoint, a TFR of 1 is more like a TFR of 0 than a TFR of 2+, since a TFR 1 population is still on the way to zero and will have covered most of the distance in two generations.
No: I agree. It should be recognized for the sub-optimal outcome that it is, and it also has to be underlined that *women* are the ones who have the harder set biological clock and have to plan ahead. It's not a mentality I'd encourage for society as a whole as an ideal, to be clear. I just think it's counterproductive to sneer at people who are already in that position and discourage their efforts, because what's done is done. All things considered, it's probably far better for them, and for society as a whole, to have that one kid than to have none at all. So if a 37 year old woman wants to get pregnant ASAP, she should go about doing so rather than drowning her tears in wine. And if the parents tell the one child their regrets about not having more, then the kid will likely do things differently.
The delusions around their own fertility and attractiveness to men they believe they deserve are stunningly outsized and no amount of casual observations of reality, realtime feedback from badthinkers like me, or 10,000 years of history will dislodge the progressive story arc from their epic starring themselves. They have swallowed the hook.
Somehow “insert man here” in chapter 10 of 15 does not on its face awaken parent and other loved ones to the danger of such a selfish, precarious, and trite perspective on the sacred duty of wife and motherhood.
Even so, many cute ladies and those who manage to remain attached to some version of realistic awareness of their relationship value to a man manage to slide into some facsimile of marriage or single mother sainthood - often both.
But most often not with men they truly find both attractive in that hindbrain arousal and status attraction way that they likely could have ten years prior.
Relationship formation is often a function of male thirst and the conditioning of men to sublimate their own preferences and priorities to those that serve to fulfill that feminine journey - as opposed to her peak power to select. Which has waned greatly despite her self-delusions and Cosmo cover stories.
Which of course also ends up counter-productive to her inmate desires and thus is unfulfilling ala “I’m just not happy” “we just grew apart” being baked into the wedding cake.
Beneath the long shadow of dopamine hits along the casual “dating” and adventuring that comes with relationship recreating with “not marriage material” men off all stripes is a boring, average man who will fail to compete with the past as well as the kid(s). I have seen this play out countless times. Noticing it is verboten, of course.
To say that is a recipe for disaster is easy. But go ahead and try to talk of these things in polite company and you will be destroyed for misogyny and many other sins of anti-progress.
Meanwhile fatherhood has been defined by both the State and the kulture at-large as merely a financial obligation; a quid-pro right that must be maintained via the marketplace. Which is why I don't bother with throwing the modern male under the bus for not “manning-up”. He's already under the bus.
The opportunity cost of careerism is huge. And we all end up paying. There is a massive center or gravity that pulls the young back into the trappings of the gods of “market” and money and away from what truly brings joy and prosperity. Humility. Grace. Gratitude. Family. Community. Posterity.
I don't know what will break that spell but am reluctantly coming around to the side that is convinced only collapse will restore what is natural.
My experience yielded me much knowledge and some wisdom, but no children. So I have paid the toll personally. I have a lovely lady and relish being an uncle, both blood and proxy, but we all have to pick one: marketplace or A People.Replies: @Wency, @Corvinus
You ARE an outlier. You have working class values in an upper class world. How did that happen? Understand this much. The working class may have a trade but they do not have a career. Garbage Man is neither. It’s a JOB. We have jobs so we can support ourselves and our families.
“Aggressively toxic” is quite mild from my point of view. But the people you are referring too are not my peers. I need not avoid offending them.
Really, the whole "your job is you" thing needs to die. It works for a very select minority of people in the population, any population. Most people would be far happier treating their job as what it likely is: what they do to earn money to support their family and personal interests.Replies: @dfordoom
It’s something that strikes a strong personal note with me, the importance of always having “system resiliency”. Nothing shows the flaws of the neoliberal/rentier class mindset than that, IMO.
No: I agree. It should be recognized for the sub-optimal outcome that it is, and it also has to be underlined that *women* are the ones who have the harder set biological clock and have to plan ahead. It’s not a mentality I’d encourage for society as a whole as an ideal, to be clear. I just think it’s counterproductive to sneer at people who are already in that position and discourage their efforts, because what’s done is done. All things considered, it’s probably far better for them, and for society as a whole, to have that one kid than to have none at all. So if a 37 year old woman wants to get pregnant ASAP, she should go about doing so rather than drowning her tears in wine. And if the parents tell the one child their regrets about not having more, then the kid will likely do things differently.
Almost as if simultaneously making people invest more and more of their time and identity at work while preventing from, say, finding a mate at work is not a great idea…
Really, the whole “your job is you” thing needs to die. It works for a very select minority of people in the population, any population. Most people would be far happier treating their job as what it likely is: what they do to earn money to support their family and personal interests.
Society should be built around biological principals.
First is the immune system. Bodies without one are prey to micro-organisms, parasites, and cancer. It is not an optional thing – it is not something to be tabooed with the label of “hate.” And it is not something with a superficial, lip-service design, but something that has been brutally tested for millions of years, by infinite trillions of attempts. It is designed not to attack the self – occasionally, it malfunctions and does so anyway – the result is not good.
“Import black cells into white body. Give them extra nutritive substances. Do not attack blacks, instead attack whites” sounds like melanoma. What should alarm people is that it is the first operating principal of modern Western society. IMO, the “marketplace of ideas” taken at its best idealization is like an adaptive immune system standing alone, without any barriers, and without any innate immune system. Even if it would work, you will be dead, before it can go into action.
Next is homeostasis. The body needs to operate within various narrow windows of pH, temperature, and chemistry. Any small variance from these windows will result in death. For civilization: the TFR of intelligent people is one of these narrow windows. In the case of civilization it is not a case of dying instantly – but in generations. This does not mean that delay is a good thing.
“Work and wages” is a good, nationalist slogan. Unfortunately we are not ruled by nationalists. Not any of us in the 5 Eyes sphere, anyway. There’s a reason why the term “Globalhomo” is accurate.
“This mentality seems to be a factor not only in the catastrophically small families of the present”
I am sorry, I must disagree strongly with you here. You are blaming the victim.
Bottom line: when people have the physical maximum number of children they physically can, when they literally breed like rats (apologies to rats, that don’t know any better), the resulting population pressure can and does consume all resources until most people are crushed into subsistence level poverty. At that point the society is capital starved and corrupt and unstable.
It is the Iron Law of Development that FIRST people limit their fertility rate to less than the physical maximum: one or two or three well-fed kids instead of six or seven chronically malnourished and stunted ones. THEN – if everything else goes halfway right – they can assimilate significant per capita wealth. And the society ass a whole becomes stronger and more stable.
In the Great Depression the US fertility rate fell because people were worried about having kids they could not support. It rose during the baby boom, to a maximum of three, but still, this was appropriate to the circumstances. Now it’s getting harder and harder to get a stable job and raise a family, and the fertility rate is falling. But here’s the thing: we are not importing all these third-world refugees because Americans are refusing to have kids. Americans are having fewer kids because the post-1970 forced population growth of 100+ million has crushed their prospects. Without massive third-world immigration (and outsourcing), the American fertility rate would be higher – just not high enough to drive down wages which is the whole idea, of course.
Now it’s getting harder and harder to get a stable job and raise a family, and the fertility rate is falling.
But here’s the thing: we are not importing all these third-world refugees because Americans are refusing to have kids. Americans are having fewer kids because the post-1970 forced population growth of 100+ million has crushed their prospects. Without massive third-world immigration (and outsourcing), the American fertility rate would be higher – just not high enough to drive down wages which is the whole idea, of course.
I say:
The Ruling Class is use using nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and sovereignty-killing mass illegal immigration to drive up housing costs and to lower wages and that hinders AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION for White Core Americans.
I wrote this in April of 2018:
The real estate business is big business. The real estate business is in the mass immigration and low interest rate business. The FIRE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE business is in the business of grabbing every last buck there is before the inevitable global financial implosion.
White Core American political leaders have to be in the AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION business in order to win back the United States from the big business money-grubbers that are stealing it away. You all know that the newspapers, radio, internet and TV propaganda business is in bed with the real estate big business racket. When you run for office on a platform of reducing immigration to increase AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION, expect to get rhetorically smashed by the shysters who run the local and national corporate media.
Baby Boomer David Byrne asks:
And you think you’ve had enough?
Big business, after the shakeup
https://www.unz.com/isteve/california-democrats-kill-bill-to-boost-housing-near-transit/#comment-2293996
Tweet from 2015:
https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/646039972731092993?s=20
People in modern industrialised countries that have declining populations and that have experienced virtually no immigration also have incredibly low birth rates.
So whatever is causing birth rates to plummet it's not population growth or immigration. It's also not poor economic prospects.
Low birth rates are an inherent characteristic of modern capitalist societies. In such societies birth rates will be very low with or without immigration.Replies: @Rosie
Work and wages. Not war and welfare.
DISLODGE THE JEW/WASP RULING CLASS OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE
TAKE CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK AND DOLE OUT THE LOOT
The scoundrels in the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire and the money-grubbing billionaire scum and the White Upper Middle Class Snot Brats have sent out The Hilsenrath to gingerly bring the subject of Fed-induced income inequality and wealth inequality to the sweetheart rascals who read the Wall Street Journal.
Hilsenrath has been reputed to be a propaganda whore more than willing to do the rhetorical and propaganda bidding of the vile avaricious louts who own and control the Federal Reserve Bank.
The Hilsenrath vs the Dane Trader on whether or not the monetary extremism of the Fed creates massive income inequality and massive wealth inequality. June Bug vs the Hurricane and many wealthy prefer to live on gravel roads to keep out the peasants.
It is obvious that the asset bubbles created by the Fed have advantaged the globalizer plutocrats and the White Upper Middle Class Snot Brats and the White Geezer Money-Grubbers born before 1965.
Hilsenrath was sent out to bring the obvious truth about the asset bubbles to the public because using the propaganda apparatus to cover up the Fed-induced income inequality and wealth inequality would jeopardize both the concentration of wealth and the concentration of propaganda power. Give a little to keep most of the pie type thinking.
The corporate propaganda apparatus covers up the Fed asset bubble bank robbery by the globalizer plutocrat billionaires and the White Upper Middle Snot Brats and the White Geezer Money-Grubbers born before 1965.
Hilsenrath focused on inflation taking a bite out of the ass of regular Americans but the obvious fact that the Fed is creating asset bubbles that benefit the plutocrat globalizers and the White Upper Middle Class Snot Brats and the White Geezer Money-Grubbers is the 800 pound gorilla in the bit by Hilsenrath.
I am sorry, I must disagree strongly with you here. You are blaming the victim.
Bottom line: when people have the physical maximum number of children they physically can, when they literally breed like rats (apologies to rats, that don't know any better), the resulting population pressure can and does consume all resources until most people are crushed into subsistence level poverty. At that point the society is capital starved and corrupt and unstable.
It is the Iron Law of Development that FIRST people limit their fertility rate to less than the physical maximum: one or two or three well-fed kids instead of six or seven chronically malnourished and stunted ones. THEN - if everything else goes halfway right - they can assimilate significant per capita wealth. And the society ass a whole becomes stronger and more stable.
In the Great Depression the US fertility rate fell because people were worried about having kids they could not support. It rose during the baby boom, to a maximum of three, but still, this was appropriate to the circumstances. Now it's getting harder and harder to get a stable job and raise a family, and the fertility rate is falling. But here's the thing: we are not importing all these third-world refugees because Americans are refusing to have kids. Americans are having fewer kids because the post-1970 forced population growth of 100+ million has crushed their prospects. Without massive third-world immigration (and outsourcing), the American fertility rate would be higher - just not high enough to drive down wages which is the whole idea, of course.Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Wency, @dfordoom
In the Great Depression the US fertility rate fell because people were worried about having kids they could not support. It rose during the baby boom, to a maximum of three, but still, this was appropriate to the circumstances.
Now it’s getting harder and harder to get a stable job and raise a family, and the fertility rate is falling.
But here’s the thing: we are not importing all these third-world refugees because Americans are refusing to have kids. Americans are having fewer kids because the post-1970 forced population growth of 100+ million has crushed their prospects. Without massive third-world immigration (and outsourcing), the American fertility rate would be higher – just not high enough to drive down wages which is the whole idea, of course.
I say:
The Ruling Class is use using nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and sovereignty-killing mass illegal immigration to drive up housing costs and to lower wages and that hinders AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION for White Core Americans.
I wrote this in April of 2018:
The real estate business is big business. The real estate business is in the mass immigration and low interest rate business. The FIRE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE business is in the business of grabbing every last buck there is before the inevitable global financial implosion.
White Core American political leaders have to be in the AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION business in order to win back the United States from the big business money-grubbers that are stealing it away. You all know that the newspapers, radio, internet and TV propaganda business is in bed with the real estate big business racket. When you run for office on a platform of reducing immigration to increase AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION, expect to get rhetorically smashed by the shysters who run the local and national corporate media.
Baby Boomer David Byrne asks:
And you think you’ve had enough?
Big business, after the shakeup
https://www.unz.com/isteve/california-democrats-kill-bill-to-boost-housing-near-transit/#comment-2293996
Tweet from 2015:
In the Great Depression the US fertility rate fell because people were worried about having kids they could not support. It rose during the baby boom, to a maximum of three, but still, this was appropriate to the circumstances.
Now it’s getting harder and harder to get a stable job and raise a family, and the fertility rate is falling.
But here’s the thing: we are not importing all these third-world refugees because Americans are refusing to have kids. Americans are having fewer kids because the post-1970 forced population growth of 100+ million has crushed their prospects. Without massive third-world immigration (and outsourcing), the American fertility rate would be higher – just not high enough to drive down wages which is the whole idea, of course.
I say:
The Ruling Class is use using nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and sovereignty-killing mass illegal immigration to drive up housing costs and to lower wages and that hinders AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION for White Core Americans.
I wrote this in April of 2018:
The real estate business is big business. The real estate business is in the mass immigration and low interest rate business. The FIRE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE business is in the business of grabbing every last buck there is before the inevitable global financial implosion.
White Core American political leaders have to be in the AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION business in order to win back the United States from the big business money-grubbers that are stealing it away. You all know that the newspapers, radio, internet and TV propaganda business is in bed with the real estate big business racket. When you run for office on a platform of reducing immigration to increase AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION, expect to get rhetorically smashed by the shysters who run the local and national corporate media.
Baby Boomer David Byrne asks:
And you think you’ve had enough?
Big business, after the shakeup
https://www.unz.com/isteve/california-democrats-kill-bill-to-boost-housing-near-transit/#comment-2293996
Tweet from 2015:
Collapsing demographics are a global phenomenon that afflicts every potential military rival of the US. In fact, it maybe hitting China harder than the US as they have little inward migration and rely more on manpower to support their economy than the US. Much of the US labor force is engaged in non essential work in government, education and even healthcare and could, should the need arise ,be redeployed to more critical sectors ( say making military equipment) without doing any damage to the underlying economy.
It is also unlikely we will ever again wage war as was done in WW1 and WW2 where 20% of a nations’ male population was transformed into soldiers, navy and air force personnel. Its likely the last manned combat aircraft are on the assembly line today. Precision guided munitions can hit what needs to be hit to destroy enemy factories and infrastructure and do so quickly so neither side will ever again have the time to raise millions of troops, train, equip and send them thousands of miles to fight so I wouldn’t be too sanguine that war against lesser nations will be too costly or manpower intensive for the US or China to fight. A couple of hundred missiles and or cyber attacks can destroy almost any society save for subsaharan African ones and they don’t matter.
Anyone who thinks Fauci has any power is a fool. Fauci is a tool, a stooge, a puppet. He was made to seem powerful by the Jewish media and deep state that ran cover for him. Now that Trump is out and the globalists want to reopen the economy, they are throwing Fauci under the bus. So, the downfall of Fauci won’t really change anything because the Jewish Power behind Fauci will remain intact.
Jewish Power is like the devious general in PATHS OF GLORY who uses anyone and tosses him aside when no longer useful. As long as the puppet-master behind Fauci still has the power, it doesn’t matter if the puppet Fauci is toast, just like nothing will change in PATHS OF GLORY because the devious general still holds all the cards.
-1- Fealty to the Chamber of Commerce
-2- Open door immigration policy
-3- Lower capital gains and marginal income tax rates#1 -- The new MAGA GOP has jettisoned the U.S. Chamber of Commerce [CoC] agenda of sending jobs to China. The CoC realized that their plan is thwarted and has switched to the DNC slate: (∆)#2 -- There is more work to be done on immigration. Some key items that need Congressional support to pass:
• The "Stay in Mexico" policy greatly reduced skipping out on asylum hearings as a method of illegal entry. It needs to be reinstated.
• Complete e-verify needs to be put in place for all corporate hiring and backed up with stringent enforcement.
• H1B/OPT visas need to be slashed and China totally eliminated from these programs.
• Long term - The U.S. needs a system to track serious visa over stays. However, this is more technically challenging than it initially appears.While a MAGA U.S. House majority seems likely, the U.S. Senate is problematic. Swamp critters, like Romney and McConnell, do not share MAGA priorities. The new Populist GOP needs to get to 51 seats with out them. #3 -- Raising taxes in a weak economy has been tried multiple times and always makes things worse. MAGA re-industrialization needs to generate real jobs for real people, thus speeding up the economy. Fixing income tax related problems will have to wait, and the loopholes are worse than the marginal rates.PEACE 😇
__________(∆) https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/08/28/the-bloom-is-off-the-ruse-tom-donohue-and-u-s-chamber-of-commerce-announce-support-for-far-left-democrats-in-2020/Replies: @Marshal Marlow
Re-industrialisation sounds nice but it’s too hard. Private investment in the amounts required will only happen if the investors can be confident of receiving a commercial return over multiple political cycles – that means Red & Blue agreement on trade barriers that force citizens to buy American and/or taxpayer guarantees. At the moment Red and Blue can’t agree on what day it is, so there’s no chance they’ll agree in any meaningful way on a joint-policy lasting 25 years. Without a rock solid guarantee, private investment will stay away from bricks & mortar factories – much safer to play the usual unproductive games on Wall Street.
On the other hand, I can see Red & Blue agreeing on taxpayer subsidies – not as if it’s their money after all.
saddle people and paddle people
I am sorry, I must disagree strongly with you here. You are blaming the victim.
Bottom line: when people have the physical maximum number of children they physically can, when they literally breed like rats (apologies to rats, that don't know any better), the resulting population pressure can and does consume all resources until most people are crushed into subsistence level poverty. At that point the society is capital starved and corrupt and unstable.
It is the Iron Law of Development that FIRST people limit their fertility rate to less than the physical maximum: one or two or three well-fed kids instead of six or seven chronically malnourished and stunted ones. THEN - if everything else goes halfway right - they can assimilate significant per capita wealth. And the society ass a whole becomes stronger and more stable.
In the Great Depression the US fertility rate fell because people were worried about having kids they could not support. It rose during the baby boom, to a maximum of three, but still, this was appropriate to the circumstances. Now it's getting harder and harder to get a stable job and raise a family, and the fertility rate is falling. But here's the thing: we are not importing all these third-world refugees because Americans are refusing to have kids. Americans are having fewer kids because the post-1970 forced population growth of 100+ million has crushed their prospects. Without massive third-world immigration (and outsourcing), the American fertility rate would be higher - just not high enough to drive down wages which is the whole idea, of course.Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Wency, @dfordoom
As a model of development, I disagree with this. The fact is that the population was still booming as the West was industrializing — it was ultimately industrialization that caused fertility to drop, not a drop in fertility that caused industrialization. Though I agree with you up to the point of acknowledging that societies do experience a “demographic dividend”, so to speak, that’s essentially a one-time benefit as the birth rate drops, the share of the population in the labor force surges, and capital per capita increases.
I suppose I also think that the Malthusian state is essentially man’s destiny, and that we’re living in a brief and pleasant (though sometimes neurotic and soul-crushing) interlude between Malthusian states (for predicting what the back end will look like, I’ve taken an interest in Karlin’s concept of the AOMI). We can modify the terms somewhat of what the next Malthusian state will look like, and we can perhaps delay or expedite it by a matter of decades, but I don’t believe it’s within man’s power to prevent it in the long run.
There’s an income effect on fertility (at least for husbands, not wives), so you’re not entirely wrong, but it’s rather weak and I really don’t believe it explains much of the change at all.
The weakness of the income effect should be obvious when you observe that income and fertility are negatively correlated basically without exception, both between countries and within countries — i.e., any pro-natal benefit associated with more income ceteris paribus is swamped by all of the other anti-natal cultural effects that are associated with more income. In places like China where people make much more money than their parents, they also have a lot fewer children than their parents.
Someone did an analysis and found this negative correlation between fertility and income extended back to every US Census since at least the early 19th century — i.e., before the Industrial Revolution even came to America.
Good commentary. Having been on the other end of the idealized sacred feminine journey of having it all in the sexual dystopia of modern “dating”, I can say that most are not sticking that landing.
The delusions around their own fertility and attractiveness to men they believe they deserve are stunningly outsized and no amount of casual observations of reality, realtime feedback from badthinkers like me, or 10,000 years of history will dislodge the progressive story arc from their epic starring themselves. They have swallowed the hook.
Somehow “insert man here” in chapter 10 of 15 does not on its face awaken parent and other loved ones to the danger of such a selfish, precarious, and trite perspective on the sacred duty of wife and motherhood.
Even so, many cute ladies and those who manage to remain attached to some version of realistic awareness of their relationship value to a man manage to slide into some facsimile of marriage or single mother sainthood – often both.
But most often not with men they truly find both attractive in that hindbrain arousal and status attraction way that they likely could have ten years prior.
Relationship formation is often a function of male thirst and the conditioning of men to sublimate their own preferences and priorities to those that serve to fulfill that feminine journey – as opposed to her peak power to select. Which has waned greatly despite her self-delusions and Cosmo cover stories.
Which of course also ends up counter-productive to her inmate desires and thus is unfulfilling ala “I’m just not happy” “we just grew apart” being baked into the wedding cake.
Beneath the long shadow of dopamine hits along the casual “dating” and adventuring that comes with relationship recreating with “not marriage material” men off all stripes is a boring, average man who will fail to compete with the past as well as the kid(s). I have seen this play out countless times. Noticing it is verboten, of course.
To say that is a recipe for disaster is easy. But go ahead and try to talk of these things in polite company and you will be destroyed for misogyny and many other sins of anti-progress.
Meanwhile fatherhood has been defined by both the State and the kulture at-large as merely a financial obligation; a quid-pro right that must be maintained via the marketplace. Which is why I don’t bother with throwing the modern male under the bus for not “manning-up”. He’s already under the bus.
The opportunity cost of careerism is huge. And we all end up paying. There is a massive center or gravity that pulls the young back into the trappings of the gods of “market” and money and away from what truly brings joy and prosperity. Humility. Grace. Gratitude. Family. Community. Posterity.
I don’t know what will break that spell but am reluctantly coming around to the side that is convinced only collapse will restore what is natural.
My experience yielded me much knowledge and some wisdom, but no children. So I have paid the toll personally. I have a lovely lady and relish being an uncle, both blood and proxy, but we all have to pick one: marketplace or A People.
In a new Malthusian state, a lot of things will seem worse to our 21st century eyes -- hunger and famine will be real forces again. But family, community, children, mothers, fathers, and perhaps God will all be held in considerably higher esteem. And people will have some way of living alongside modern technological media without going insane.Replies: @nebulafox
Leave the building of civilizations to us normies, Chad.Replies: @Rosie
The delusions around their own fertility and attractiveness to men they believe they deserve are stunningly outsized and no amount of casual observations of reality, realtime feedback from badthinkers like me, or 10,000 years of history will dislodge the progressive story arc from their epic starring themselves. They have swallowed the hook.
Somehow “insert man here” in chapter 10 of 15 does not on its face awaken parent and other loved ones to the danger of such a selfish, precarious, and trite perspective on the sacred duty of wife and motherhood.
Even so, many cute ladies and those who manage to remain attached to some version of realistic awareness of their relationship value to a man manage to slide into some facsimile of marriage or single mother sainthood - often both.
But most often not with men they truly find both attractive in that hindbrain arousal and status attraction way that they likely could have ten years prior.
Relationship formation is often a function of male thirst and the conditioning of men to sublimate their own preferences and priorities to those that serve to fulfill that feminine journey - as opposed to her peak power to select. Which has waned greatly despite her self-delusions and Cosmo cover stories.
Which of course also ends up counter-productive to her inmate desires and thus is unfulfilling ala “I’m just not happy” “we just grew apart” being baked into the wedding cake.
Beneath the long shadow of dopamine hits along the casual “dating” and adventuring that comes with relationship recreating with “not marriage material” men off all stripes is a boring, average man who will fail to compete with the past as well as the kid(s). I have seen this play out countless times. Noticing it is verboten, of course.
To say that is a recipe for disaster is easy. But go ahead and try to talk of these things in polite company and you will be destroyed for misogyny and many other sins of anti-progress.
Meanwhile fatherhood has been defined by both the State and the kulture at-large as merely a financial obligation; a quid-pro right that must be maintained via the marketplace. Which is why I don't bother with throwing the modern male under the bus for not “manning-up”. He's already under the bus.
The opportunity cost of careerism is huge. And we all end up paying. There is a massive center or gravity that pulls the young back into the trappings of the gods of “market” and money and away from what truly brings joy and prosperity. Humility. Grace. Gratitude. Family. Community. Posterity.
I don't know what will break that spell but am reluctantly coming around to the side that is convinced only collapse will restore what is natural.
My experience yielded me much knowledge and some wisdom, but no children. So I have paid the toll personally. I have a lovely lady and relish being an uncle, both blood and proxy, but we all have to pick one: marketplace or A People.Replies: @Wency, @Corvinus
Thanks. I’m perhaps not quite so pessimistic on the prospects for a young man who pursues the matter with wisdom and intelligence. There are still good women out there, and much of the competition are total duds. But it took me quite a while to find what wisdom I did in the matter of attracting and selecting a mate, and I’m fortunate to have narrowly avoided some grave mistakes along the way.
I tend to think we’ll never get fully back to “natural” (which is what the story of Eden communicates), but per my comment above, things will feel more natural when we’re either on the way to or have already arrived at a new Malthusian state, and not before. Which I think will probably come without a total civilizational collapse, but it won’t happen before the 22nd century, at the absolute earliest.
In a new Malthusian state, a lot of things will seem worse to our 21st century eyes — hunger and famine will be real forces again. But family, community, children, mothers, fathers, and perhaps God will all be held in considerably higher esteem. And people will have some way of living alongside modern technological media without going insane.
In a new Malthusian state, a lot of things will seem worse to our 21st century eyes -- hunger and famine will be real forces again. But family, community, children, mothers, fathers, and perhaps God will all be held in considerably higher esteem. And people will have some way of living alongside modern technological media without going insane.Replies: @nebulafox
No shit, I wish there was some way we could get in contact. I could use the advice, on this topic and elsewhere.
Welp: time to get going. Mondo muyo. Only actions matter.
Acta, non verba...as we say in some parts of the Manosphere.
Anatoly Karlin has had meetups with at least one of his regular commenters, so that sort of thing can be wangled if you really do think it would be a good idea.
(If I were writing that now I would probably substitute protonmail for yandex for the initial burner rec, just because it seems to be a little less of a pain to set up, but it doesn't really matter.)
Other people here could probably come up with something better, though.
To make it easier, I just created a new e-mail address that I can start sharing for this purpose: misterwency [at] yandex [dot] com. I suppose just let me know here if you respond to it (also so I can verify it's you and not some anon troll or something).
Only actions matter.
Acta, non verba…as we say in some parts of the Manosphere.
There is; AE can put you in touch (assuming you both agree) or you can use a burner email or something.
Anatoly Karlin has had meetups with at least one of his regular commenters, so that sort of thing can be wangled if you really do think it would be a good idea.
Here was my suggestion on how to do this in a previous thread; you can follow that thread to see what they actually did, which ended up being somewhat similar.
(If I were writing that now I would probably substitute protonmail for yandex for the initial burner rec, just because it seems to be a little less of a pain to set up, but it doesn’t really matter.)
Other people here could probably come up with something better, though.
As RSDB says if the emails provided with your handles are real and both are desirous let me know and we’ll privately get you in touch.
"say anything, do anything to make it into elite corridors."
Saker has a piece up asking "why so little push back".
Sailor has a piece up exploring the "flight from white".
But there are still a lot of White Amerians who don't suck.
I have the good fortune to reside in rural (red) Texas. I operate a flea markt booth on week ends so I get to talk with a lot of people. I always ask people I don't recognize if they are "local". Usually if they are new arrivals they are from out of state. Last Sunday a lady answered "We are Texans. We are moving here to escape the rising crime in Dallas".
I have been saying for some time that the next white flight will carry folks past the burbs and all the way out of the metroplex. Decent people who are able are abandoning the shithole cities.
End the hate
SeparateReplies: @Svevlad
You can generally tell the state of a civilization by the urban-rural balance.
Ascendants have the rural lands emptied as people move into the cities for work and higher living standard. Central parts are clean, orderly centers of trade, commerce and rarely industry (now dislocated to the suburban belts everywhere in the world).
Descendants have it happen in reverse. The cities are economically devastated and emptied, as they become increasingly unsafe. Urban poverty is high. Ghettoes, all the nice stuff.
The email I have recorded here is no longer valid, and hasn’t been for years.
Anyway, I’m not sure it’s such a good idea, on second thought. I would be a lot more open to it if I’d managed to fix things by now… but at this point, if I somehow manage to reverse my life trajectory, I’m really not certain how much from this period I’m going to want to remember. Or really, can afford to remember in the process without being dragged down by the ghosts of my past. This is really kind of embarrassing to reveal, but I recently came to the conclusion that part of the reason I obsessively commented on this blogs here at Unz was because it was the only positive, tangible feedback I’d ever had in my life. I didn’t consciously realize that earlier. I thought it was just me being weak or lacking discipline, when it was something a bit deeper.
Seriously, though, that’s nothing against you or the commentators I’ve followed here: it really isn’t. I’ve learned a hell of a lot. I won’t get schooled again in life. I’m rebuilding my education, my body, everything from scratch. I’ve been inspired to revamp everything that I am. However behind the curve I am, I’m growing up. I’d like to think what I’ve learned from some commentators here had something to do with it. But you can see why it might not be healthy going forward, through no fault of your own.
If you want to take it to e-mail, we could. I don’t pretend to be a guru, but I’ll provide what sincere feedback I can, and I’ll pledge on my honor to never spread anything I learn about you here or elsewhere.
To make it easier, I just created a new e-mail address that I can start sharing for this purpose: misterwency [at] yandex [dot] com. I suppose just let me know here if you respond to it (also so I can verify it’s you and not some anon troll or something).
Really, the whole "your job is you" thing needs to die. It works for a very select minority of people in the population, any population. Most people would be far happier treating their job as what it likely is: what they do to earn money to support their family and personal interests.Replies: @dfordoom
I agree wholeheartedly.
I am sorry, I must disagree strongly with you here. You are blaming the victim.
Bottom line: when people have the physical maximum number of children they physically can, when they literally breed like rats (apologies to rats, that don't know any better), the resulting population pressure can and does consume all resources until most people are crushed into subsistence level poverty. At that point the society is capital starved and corrupt and unstable.
It is the Iron Law of Development that FIRST people limit their fertility rate to less than the physical maximum: one or two or three well-fed kids instead of six or seven chronically malnourished and stunted ones. THEN - if everything else goes halfway right - they can assimilate significant per capita wealth. And the society ass a whole becomes stronger and more stable.
In the Great Depression the US fertility rate fell because people were worried about having kids they could not support. It rose during the baby boom, to a maximum of three, but still, this was appropriate to the circumstances. Now it's getting harder and harder to get a stable job and raise a family, and the fertility rate is falling. But here's the thing: we are not importing all these third-world refugees because Americans are refusing to have kids. Americans are having fewer kids because the post-1970 forced population growth of 100+ million has crushed their prospects. Without massive third-world immigration (and outsourcing), the American fertility rate would be higher - just not high enough to drive down wages which is the whole idea, of course.Replies: @Charles Pewitt, @Wency, @dfordoom
I don’t agree. People with very good prospects (and there are still plenty of people who are doing very nicely indeed) are also having fewer kids.
People in modern industrialised countries that have declining populations and that have experienced virtually no immigration also have incredibly low birth rates.
So whatever is causing birth rates to plummet it’s not population growth or immigration. It’s also not poor economic prospects.
Low birth rates are an inherent characteristic of modern capitalist societies. In such societies birth rates will be very low with or without immigration.
I agree with Wency here. Falling fertility is a consequence of development, not a cause.
I think you’re correct. What that means is that pro-natal policies based on economic measures might produce a very slight short-term spike in births but in the long run such pro-natal policies will make the situation worse.
Though tax credits (how the US incentivizes children currently) probably do less than any of these -- I'm convinced that no one's behavior is modified by the incredibly complex and constantly-changing US tax code except in how they structure estates, investments, and small businesses. Most people get a tax refund every year, but the amount of the refund is a black box to them and they're not thinking about it at all if tax time isn't near.
I actually disagree with this slightly. For one, I do think there’s a difference between the income effect per se and subsidies. If you directly subsidize children, give a family $400/month/child and publicize it and make it automatic and keep it in place for long enough that people perceive it as permanent, the long-term effect won’t be large, but it still will be positive and a lot larger than simply taking the cost of such a program and dividing it equally as a UBI for every adult in the country. And I think that boosting wages actually has less of an effect than a UBI would, since some of those wages go to women and this can become a disincentive to produce children.
Though tax credits (how the US incentivizes children currently) probably do less than any of these — I’m convinced that no one’s behavior is modified by the incredibly complex and constantly-changing US tax code except in how they structure estates, investments, and small businesses. Most people get a tax refund every year, but the amount of the refund is a black box to them and they’re not thinking about it at all if tax time isn’t near.
Well, I continue to wish you the best. We certainly enjoy having you here, but at the end of the day, this is just a hobby. Getting your house in order is more important, and if you feel you can’t do both at this time, then prioritize your house, by all means. And offer remains open to reach out.
Thanks, man.
I deeply resent this imposition of Tiger parenting on White Americans.
Of course, our own elites have aggravated the problem by destroying the industrial economy, such that downward mobility is likely to be catastrophic. There is no simple working-class life to fall into.
When I was dating after my divorce in my early forties I met several women of a similar age but I just wasn't interested because they had passed the age of fertility. It's far, far easier for a reasonably presentable man at that age since fertility is rarely an issue.
Chateau Heartiste used to go on about this, of course, in his inimitable style, and his censorship by the Establishment was an act of cultural vandalism.Replies: @Rosie
Hmm. One wonders why they would trust a man to support them after watching their mother go through a divorce in middle age.
Lol.
People in modern industrialised countries that have declining populations and that have experienced virtually no immigration also have incredibly low birth rates.
So whatever is causing birth rates to plummet it's not population growth or immigration. It's also not poor economic prospects.
Low birth rates are an inherent characteristic of modern capitalist societies. In such societies birth rates will be very low with or without immigration.Replies: @Rosie
You are massively underestimating the impact of parenting inflation. Parents in New York genuinely believe that failing to get their one child into the right preschool will seriously undermine his future, and given the extreme competition for slots at elite gateway universities, they are probably right.
But I think my point stands - people with high incomes and bright economic futures are having fewer kids. So boosting the economy and boosting people's income won't fix the low birth rate problem.
Given that birth rates are falling everywhere across the globe (including sub-Saharan Africa) it has to be obvious that factors that are particularly American are unlikely to be the cause.
Birth rates are falling in rich countries and not-so-rich countries. Birth rates are falling in countries with high immigration, and in countries without immigration. Birth rates are falling in countries infected by Wokeism and in countries unaffected by that plague. Birth rates are falling among white populations and non-white populations. Birth rates are falling in Islamic and Buddhist countries and in secular societies. They're falling in the US even though the US still has lots of Christians. As the economy goes up and down the fertility trend has still continued downwards.
So is there a common factor in all these countries? I can only think of a few. One obvious one is capitalism. And its handmaiden, consumerism. Another is increasing urbanisation. I can't think of any others.Replies: @Rosie, @V. K. Ovelund
Oh I’m aware of that sort of thing. And it is one of the many factors driving birth rates down.
But I think my point stands – people with high incomes and bright economic futures are having fewer kids. So boosting the economy and boosting people’s income won’t fix the low birth rate problem.
Given that birth rates are falling everywhere across the globe (including sub-Saharan Africa) it has to be obvious that factors that are particularly American are unlikely to be the cause.
Birth rates are falling in rich countries and not-so-rich countries. Birth rates are falling in countries with high immigration, and in countries without immigration. Birth rates are falling in countries infected by Wokeism and in countries unaffected by that plague. Birth rates are falling among white populations and non-white populations. Birth rates are falling in Islamic and Buddhist countries and in secular societies. They’re falling in the US even though the US still has lots of Christians. As the economy goes up and down the fertility trend has still continued downwards.
So is there a common factor in all these countries? I can only think of a few. One obvious one is capitalism. And its handmaiden, consumerism. Another is increasing urbanisation. I can’t think of any others.
I don't think the effect is huge, but it doesn't have to be huge. A few percentage points is what makes the difference between replacement and sub-replacement fertility. I would like to se data on this.
Of course, you're also quite correct that consumerism depresses fertility. The people who decide what sorts of things confer status are precisely the profiteers of consumerism, and because these aren't the gubmint, people are OK with this mass brainwashing operation we call advertising. If the gubmint does it, of course, it's "fascism," which, so far as I can tell, just means having a government that is powerful enough to control the plutocracy.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hitler-institutes-the-mothers-crossReplies: @dfordoom
But I think my point stands - people with high incomes and bright economic futures are having fewer kids. So boosting the economy and boosting people's income won't fix the low birth rate problem.
Given that birth rates are falling everywhere across the globe (including sub-Saharan Africa) it has to be obvious that factors that are particularly American are unlikely to be the cause.
Birth rates are falling in rich countries and not-so-rich countries. Birth rates are falling in countries with high immigration, and in countries without immigration. Birth rates are falling in countries infected by Wokeism and in countries unaffected by that plague. Birth rates are falling among white populations and non-white populations. Birth rates are falling in Islamic and Buddhist countries and in secular societies. They're falling in the US even though the US still has lots of Christians. As the economy goes up and down the fertility trend has still continued downwards.
So is there a common factor in all these countries? I can only think of a few. One obvious one is capitalism. And its handmaiden, consumerism. Another is increasing urbanisation. I can't think of any others.Replies: @Rosie, @V. K. Ovelund
What you say is mostly true. Yes, birth rates are falling everywhere, but eventually they bottom out and stabilize. The point at which they stabilize is where economic factors come in.
I don’t think the effect is huge, but it doesn’t have to be huge. A few percentage points is what makes the difference between replacement and sub-replacement fertility. I would like to se data on this.
Of course, you’re also quite correct that consumerism depresses fertility. The people who decide what sorts of things confer status are precisely the profiteers of consumerism, and because these aren’t the gubmint, people are OK with this mass brainwashing operation we call advertising. If the gubmint does it, of course, it’s “fascism,” which, so far as I can tell, just means having a government that is powerful enough to control the plutocracy.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hitler-institutes-the-mothers-cross
I think that declining population is something we'll have to learn to live with in the short to medium term. Nobody ever knows what will happen in the long term.That's true enough.
The problem is that any workable solution to the demographic crisis is either going to involve the destruction of capitalism or it's going to involve some form of totalitarianism. If we decide that destroying capitalism is too scary then we'd need the government to undertake a mass brainwashing operation to persuade people to have more kids. As long as capitalism exists such a brainwashing operation probably won't work so we'd end up with all the unpleasantness of totalitarianism and probably it still won't solve the problem.Replies: @Rosie
But I think my point stands - people with high incomes and bright economic futures are having fewer kids. So boosting the economy and boosting people's income won't fix the low birth rate problem.
Given that birth rates are falling everywhere across the globe (including sub-Saharan Africa) it has to be obvious that factors that are particularly American are unlikely to be the cause.
Birth rates are falling in rich countries and not-so-rich countries. Birth rates are falling in countries with high immigration, and in countries without immigration. Birth rates are falling in countries infected by Wokeism and in countries unaffected by that plague. Birth rates are falling among white populations and non-white populations. Birth rates are falling in Islamic and Buddhist countries and in secular societies. They're falling in the US even though the US still has lots of Christians. As the economy goes up and down the fertility trend has still continued downwards.
So is there a common factor in all these countries? I can only think of a few. One obvious one is capitalism. And its handmaiden, consumerism. Another is increasing urbanisation. I can't think of any others.Replies: @Rosie, @V. K. Ovelund
Are cause and effect reversed?
The question is not rhetorical. It is a real question. What I mean is, do persons capable of high incomes opt for low incomes because they have many children?
I ask because some of the highest earners in my line of work earn high incomes by chasing the work around the United States, moving house every two to four years. Not desiring to uproot five children, I have let one opportunity after another after another slip away during the past two decades (yet do not regret any of it). Net opportunity cost: probably about U.S. $600,000 after tax over a period of 25 years.
However, I should not assume that my experience were typical. Meanwhile, which is the cause and which, the effect?
A single, unattached man without any great ambitions for his life, committed to the hedonistic ethic du jour, enduring the daily grind of work merely to enjoy TV, porn, and video games on evenings and weekends, is at some point going to question whether it makes more sense to invest his energy in his career or in devising a scheme to survive without work (and thus to make the TV/porn/video game trifecta into the sole focus of his life).
Well, I happen to know two separate high-IQ men of my generation who, after their careers started to dead-end in their 30s (which I think might have been due to boredom breeding stagnation more than anything else), decided that a work-free plan for life (relying on a combination of savings, mooching, and thrift) was better than a working life. Both men, of course, are childless.
I don't think anyone truly understands human reproductive behaviour.
In the past people had children because it was something that just happened. It was for most people an inevitable result of marriage.This led some people to assume that there was some kind of instinctual drive to reproduce. That idea now seems much less convincing.
Whatever the situation may have been in the past the fact is that having children is now a choice. You get married and you have the option of having children.
I don't think we really understand why some people choose to have children and some people don't and I don't think we really understand why some people have one child and others have several. I don't think people themselves understand why they make these choices, because having children is an emotional rather than a rational decision. People who have children do so because they want to but I doubt if they could give a coherent rational explanation for wanting children. I doubt if they could give a coherent rational explanation even to themselves.
Economic factors might cause people to have fewer children or those economic factors might be after-the-fact rationalisations. Some people might claim that they decided not to have children in order to save the planet but that might also be an after-the-fact rationalisation.
We need to know why people make these choices but I don't see how we can find out. It's difficult to study a problem if people themselves do not fully understand why they make certain choices.
This is a good question. But I can just as easily see an effect going the other way: a large family dependent on his provision can motivate and focus a man.
A single, unattached man without any great ambitions for his life, committed to the hedonistic ethic du jour, enduring the daily grind of work merely to enjoy TV, porn, and video games on evenings and weekends, is at some point going to question whether it makes more sense to invest his energy in his career or in devising a scheme to survive without work (and thus to make the TV/porn/video game trifecta into the sole focus of his life).
Well, I happen to know two separate high-IQ men of my generation who, after their careers started to dead-end in their 30s (which I think might have been due to boredom breeding stagnation more than anything else), decided that a work-free plan for life (relying on a combination of savings, mooching, and thrift) was better than a working life. Both men, of course, are childless.
Good question.
I don’t think anyone truly understands human reproductive behaviour.
In the past people had children because it was something that just happened. It was for most people an inevitable result of marriage.This led some people to assume that there was some kind of instinctual drive to reproduce. That idea now seems much less convincing.
Whatever the situation may have been in the past the fact is that having children is now a choice. You get married and you have the option of having children.
I don’t think we really understand why some people choose to have children and some people don’t and I don’t think we really understand why some people have one child and others have several. I don’t think people themselves understand why they make these choices, because having children is an emotional rather than a rational decision. People who have children do so because they want to but I doubt if they could give a coherent rational explanation for wanting children. I doubt if they could give a coherent rational explanation even to themselves.
Economic factors might cause people to have fewer children or those economic factors might be after-the-fact rationalisations. Some people might claim that they decided not to have children in order to save the planet but that might also be an after-the-fact rationalisation.
We need to know why people make these choices but I don’t see how we can find out. It’s difficult to study a problem if people themselves do not fully understand why they make certain choices.
I don't think the effect is huge, but it doesn't have to be huge. A few percentage points is what makes the difference between replacement and sub-replacement fertility. I would like to se data on this.
Of course, you're also quite correct that consumerism depresses fertility. The people who decide what sorts of things confer status are precisely the profiteers of consumerism, and because these aren't the gubmint, people are OK with this mass brainwashing operation we call advertising. If the gubmint does it, of course, it's "fascism," which, so far as I can tell, just means having a government that is powerful enough to control the plutocracy.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hitler-institutes-the-mothers-crossReplies: @dfordoom
Judging by the experience of countries like Singapore and South Korea it seems quite likely that TFR will stabilise at around 1.0. Slightly less than half replacement level.
I suspect that addressing those economic factors is unlikely to increase TFR much above 1.5, and even that might in the long term be optimistic.
I think that declining population is something we’ll have to learn to live with in the short to medium term. Nobody ever knows what will happen in the long term.
That’s true enough.
The problem is that any workable solution to the demographic crisis is either going to involve the destruction of capitalism or it’s going to involve some form of totalitarianism. If we decide that destroying capitalism is too scary then we’d need the government to undertake a mass brainwashing operation to persuade people to have more kids. As long as capitalism exists such a brainwashing operation probably won’t work so we’d end up with all the unpleasantness of totalitarianism and probably it still won’t solve the problem.
You also have to factor in the genetic consequences of childlessness becoming socially acceptable. If people who most want children are having most of the children, you're going to wind up with a different kind of population. I think you're already seeing this in the US, where birthrates among the most educated women are ticking up.Replies: @Rosie, @dfordoom
I think that declining population is something we'll have to learn to live with in the short to medium term. Nobody ever knows what will happen in the long term.That's true enough.
The problem is that any workable solution to the demographic crisis is either going to involve the destruction of capitalism or it's going to involve some form of totalitarianism. If we decide that destroying capitalism is too scary then we'd need the government to undertake a mass brainwashing operation to persuade people to have more kids. As long as capitalism exists such a brainwashing operation probably won't work so we'd end up with all the unpleasantness of totalitarianism and probably it still won't solve the problem.Replies: @Rosie
That is Singapore and South Korea’s problem. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Asians are the most status-driven, materialistic people on Earth. I think a pronatalist Western society would stabilize in the Nordic range of 1.7-1.8, and even Nordic societies are not all that pronatalist. There is no social pressure to have kids there. It’s just that the safety net makes people less afraid to have kids.
You also have to factor in the genetic consequences of childlessness becoming socially acceptable. If people who most want children are having most of the children, you’re going to wind up with a different kind of population. I think you’re already seeing this in the US, where birthrates among the most educated women are ticking up.
https://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/12/are-chinese-people-the-worlds-most-materialistic/282398/
Unfortunately there's zero evidence for it and it's probably pure wishful thinking.Replies: @Rosie, @V. K. Ovelund
You also have to factor in the genetic consequences of childlessness becoming socially acceptable. If people who most want children are having most of the children, you're going to wind up with a different kind of population. I think you're already seeing this in the US, where birthrates among the most educated women are ticking up.Replies: @Rosie, @dfordoom
Notice Sweden’s place at the bottom of both lists in this article. Norway isn’t even on the list.
https://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/12/are-chinese-people-the-worlds-most-materialistic/282398/
My daughters are from my second marriage.
Why didn't you have kids with your first wife instead of using her during her youth and dumping her for a younger woman in middle age?
The delusions around their own fertility and attractiveness to men they believe they deserve are stunningly outsized and no amount of casual observations of reality, realtime feedback from badthinkers like me, or 10,000 years of history will dislodge the progressive story arc from their epic starring themselves. They have swallowed the hook.
Somehow “insert man here” in chapter 10 of 15 does not on its face awaken parent and other loved ones to the danger of such a selfish, precarious, and trite perspective on the sacred duty of wife and motherhood.
Even so, many cute ladies and those who manage to remain attached to some version of realistic awareness of their relationship value to a man manage to slide into some facsimile of marriage or single mother sainthood - often both.
But most often not with men they truly find both attractive in that hindbrain arousal and status attraction way that they likely could have ten years prior.
Relationship formation is often a function of male thirst and the conditioning of men to sublimate their own preferences and priorities to those that serve to fulfill that feminine journey - as opposed to her peak power to select. Which has waned greatly despite her self-delusions and Cosmo cover stories.
Which of course also ends up counter-productive to her inmate desires and thus is unfulfilling ala “I’m just not happy” “we just grew apart” being baked into the wedding cake.
Beneath the long shadow of dopamine hits along the casual “dating” and adventuring that comes with relationship recreating with “not marriage material” men off all stripes is a boring, average man who will fail to compete with the past as well as the kid(s). I have seen this play out countless times. Noticing it is verboten, of course.
To say that is a recipe for disaster is easy. But go ahead and try to talk of these things in polite company and you will be destroyed for misogyny and many other sins of anti-progress.
Meanwhile fatherhood has been defined by both the State and the kulture at-large as merely a financial obligation; a quid-pro right that must be maintained via the marketplace. Which is why I don't bother with throwing the modern male under the bus for not “manning-up”. He's already under the bus.
The opportunity cost of careerism is huge. And we all end up paying. There is a massive center or gravity that pulls the young back into the trappings of the gods of “market” and money and away from what truly brings joy and prosperity. Humility. Grace. Gratitude. Family. Community. Posterity.
I don't know what will break that spell but am reluctantly coming around to the side that is convinced only collapse will restore what is natural.
My experience yielded me much knowledge and some wisdom, but no children. So I have paid the toll personally. I have a lovely lady and relish being an uncle, both blood and proxy, but we all have to pick one: marketplace or A People.Replies: @Wency, @Corvinus
Unfortunately, your knowledge and wisdom of the “manosphere” has put you at a potentially biological dead end. I suppose you could still sire offspring, but that would take a tremendous intellectual and emotional investment on your part, one that at your advanced age, is other than recommended.
Leave the building of civilizations to us normies, Chad.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e6/6d/d3/e66dd37ae7b955f0ce0e5926b3074603.jpg
You also have to factor in the genetic consequences of childlessness becoming socially acceptable. If people who most want children are having most of the children, you're going to wind up with a different kind of population. I think you're already seeing this in the US, where birthrates among the most educated women are ticking up.Replies: @Rosie, @dfordoom
Which still means declining population. It still means that population decline is something we’ll have to learn to live with.
That’s the “breeder genes” theory. That eventually you’ll have a population consisting almost entirely of people who carry the “breeder genes” and that therefore eventually population will start to increase again.
Unfortunately there’s zero evidence for it and it’s probably pure wishful thinking.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/09/study-on-twins-suggests-our-political-beliefs-may-be-hard-wired/Replies: @dfordoom
Unfortunately there's zero evidence for it and it's probably pure wishful thinking.Replies: @Rosie, @V. K. Ovelund
Not really. It means we have to figure out how to raise the birthrate a little rather than a lot.
Why would you think that ideal fertility would be less genetically influenced than, say, political ideology or religiosity?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/09/study-on-twins-suggests-our-political-beliefs-may-be-hard-wired/
So I still think the odds are that below-replacement fertility is here to stay. I think it would be wise to start making plans to adapt to a world of declining populations because that's what we're most likely to get.When there's some evidence I'll start to take the Breeder Genes theory seriously. I think it's dangerous to indulge in what is highly likely to turn out to be wishful thinking. Copium is a dangerous drug.
I believe I’ve had words with you before on this site.
Why didn’t you have kids with your first wife instead of using her during her youth and dumping her for a younger woman in middle age?
Leave the building of civilizations to us normies, Chad.Replies: @Rosie
I remain unconvinced that these crybabies aren’t just refusing to join any club that would have them as a member. Or maybe they just won’t settle for a woman who will settle for them (“men they truly find both attractive in that hindbrain arousal”). I guess they expect women to respond to worshp and lust after them as if they were Christopher Hemsworth circa 2010. How can one not have contempt for such ridiculous creatures?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/09/study-on-twins-suggests-our-political-beliefs-may-be-hard-wired/Replies: @dfordoom
Sure. But I think that the factors that are driving low fertility are not going away. In fact most are probably accelerating. Consumerism doesn’t seem likely to go away. Nor does urbanisation. And people like having choices. They like being able to choose whether to have kids or not. I would expect that the pressures that drive birth rates down will probably overwhelm any pro-natalist measures, at least in the short to medium term.
So I still think the odds are that below-replacement fertility is here to stay. I think it would be wise to start making plans to adapt to a world of declining populations because that’s what we’re most likely to get.
When there’s some evidence I’ll start to take the Breeder Genes theory seriously. I think it’s dangerous to indulge in what is highly likely to turn out to be wishful thinking. Copium is a dangerous drug.
Unfortunately there's zero evidence for it and it's probably pure wishful thinking.Replies: @Rosie, @V. K. Ovelund
Anatoly Karlin believes that he has found some evidence for it, for example here and here.
Does his example of French vs German fertility explain why French fertility collapsed in the first place?
I still think that Breeder Genes idea is something that some right-wingers have latched onto as a cope. When people believe something because they desperately desperately need to believe it because it's the only thing that gives them any hope then I tend to assume that the belief in question is probably a cope.
It's also very typical of contemporary alt-right/dissident right/traditionalist thinking which is mostly just a whole collection of copes. It's unfortunately a symptom of the desperation of many right-wingers who just can't see any way they can win without magic.Replies: @Wency
Karlin is interesting on this topic but demographics and human reproductive behaviour are fiendishly complex. I don’t think there’s any way to separate any possible “breeder genes” effect from all the countless economic, political, religious, ideological, social and cultural factors that influence birth rates.
Does his example of French vs German fertility explain why French fertility collapsed in the first place?
I still think that Breeder Genes idea is something that some right-wingers have latched onto as a cope. When people believe something because they desperately desperately need to believe it because it’s the only thing that gives them any hope then I tend to assume that the belief in question is probably a cope.
It’s also very typical of contemporary alt-right/dissident right/traditionalist thinking which is mostly just a whole collection of copes. It’s unfortunately a symptom of the desperation of many right-wingers who just can’t see any way they can win without magic.
The part that's "cope" is that we'll live to see it, and that the inheritors of the Earth will be what we want them to be.Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone
From last July:
Rob replied:
More at thread
Does his example of French vs German fertility explain why French fertility collapsed in the first place?
I still think that Breeder Genes idea is something that some right-wingers have latched onto as a cope. When people believe something because they desperately desperately need to believe it because it's the only thing that gives them any hope then I tend to assume that the belief in question is probably a cope.
It's also very typical of contemporary alt-right/dissident right/traditionalist thinking which is mostly just a whole collection of copes. It's unfortunately a symptom of the desperation of many right-wingers who just can't see any way they can win without magic.Replies: @Wency
At some point, the heritability of fertility (due to some combination of genes, pro-natal culture, and genetic proclivity to preserve that culture) will turn fertility around. To me, this is basically a mathematical inevitability, assuming the human race survives (and I expect it will).
The part that’s “cope” is that we’ll live to see it, and that the inheritors of the Earth will be what we want them to be.
My feeling is that very low fertility will be with us for quite some time. Whether than means fifty years or a hundred years or longer is impossible to say.
So we need to start thinking about how we're going to adapt to a fairly lengthy period of population decline.
There's no doubt whatsoever what the US response will be. It will be massive immigration, probably on a greater scale than anything seen in the past. The entire corporate sector, the entire small business sector and the farming lobby will demand higher immigration levels. The military-industrial complex and the foreign policy establishment will demand higher immigration levels in order to maintain global US military and political hegemony.
I cannot see any future Administration being able to stand up to the combined strengths of those lobbies. Some political candidates will make noises about immigration restrictionism but once elected they will cave in to the pressure of those pro-immigration lobbies.
How other countries will respond will be more interesting.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
The part that's "cope" is that we'll live to see it, and that the inheritors of the Earth will be what we want them to be.Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone
I certainly think that really long-term demographic trends are completely impossible to predict.
My feeling is that very low fertility will be with us for quite some time. Whether than means fifty years or a hundred years or longer is impossible to say.
So we need to start thinking about how we’re going to adapt to a fairly lengthy period of population decline.
There’s no doubt whatsoever what the US response will be. It will be massive immigration, probably on a greater scale than anything seen in the past. The entire corporate sector, the entire small business sector and the farming lobby will demand higher immigration levels. The military-industrial complex and the foreign policy establishment will demand higher immigration levels in order to maintain global US military and political hegemony.
I cannot see any future Administration being able to stand up to the combined strengths of those lobbies. Some political candidates will make noises about immigration restrictionism but once elected they will cave in to the pressure of those pro-immigration lobbies.
How other countries will respond will be more interesting.
My feeling is that very low fertility will be with us for quite some time. Whether than means fifty years or a hundred years or longer is impossible to say.
So we need to start thinking about how we're going to adapt to a fairly lengthy period of population decline.
There's no doubt whatsoever what the US response will be. It will be massive immigration, probably on a greater scale than anything seen in the past. The entire corporate sector, the entire small business sector and the farming lobby will demand higher immigration levels. The military-industrial complex and the foreign policy establishment will demand higher immigration levels in order to maintain global US military and political hegemony.
I cannot see any future Administration being able to stand up to the combined strengths of those lobbies. Some political candidates will make noises about immigration restrictionism but once elected they will cave in to the pressure of those pro-immigration lobbies.
How other countries will respond will be more interesting.Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
Does any of these exist as a coherent entity? Do they in fact demand any such thing?
If they do, it is hard to point to specific instances. Your sentiment has been echoed my many, so little blame falls upon you, but I judge the sentiment a myth.
I believe that what happens is that business responds en bloc to whatever incentives the state erects for them. People mistake that response for a demand, when it probably isn’t even a request.
When businesses in competetion with one another do join forces to demand something, it is probably either of two things: [i] reversal of a nonsensical policy inadvertently implemented by politicians and bureacrats who do not understand the industry; or, more likely, [ii] something the politician or bureaucrat wishes to do, anyway. There used to be a third: [iii] protection against foreign competition, but in the U.S. during the past 50 years point iii has run afoul of point ii.
For one example, look at the tech sector’s lobbying on H1B visas. Here’s one article (which I won’t pretend is a great one but it gets the message across):
https://www.cnet.com/news/senate-approves-immigration-bill-with-increased-h-1b-visas/
But you can also observe in that bill that there were conflicting interests: the tech companies want to bring over Indians, they don’t really care about bringing over Mexicans and they’ll go either way on the latter to get a deal done. It’s probably worth observing that of the four great tech megacorps (Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple) 2 CEOs are now Indian and thus have both business and personal reasons to advocate for Indian immigration.
But meanwhile, the farm lobby only cares about Mexicans and Central Americans. Here’s another article I pulled:
https://www.globalatlanta.com/mexicans-in-the-south-from-agriculture-diplomacy-to-anti-immigrant-dialogue/
Here’s the interesting quote (and these people are academics and most likely leftist, not exactly immigration alarmists):
The part that's "cope" is that we'll live to see it, and that the inheritors of the Earth will be what we want them to be.Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone
That seems intuitive, but decade after decade the religious outbreed the irreligious yet total fertility declines and subsequent generations become less religious than the ones that birthed them.
The end result will almost certainly be that you’ll get lots of Indians and lots of Mexicans.
I fully agree — the simple model that says mildly pronatal mainstream Christians will outbreed the irreligious by 0.5 TFR or whatever and thus take over based solely on the heritability of religiosity, that’s broken, because mainstream Christians with 2-3 children have too many apostasies to offset their slight TFR bump. Which is really just telling us that there’s not an easy, short-term biological escape from antinatalism and leftward creep.
The only point I was really making in my comment is that at some point, a pronatal culture will take over. Maybe this change happens gradually, or maybe it’s a more extreme scenario. Maybe the human population has to decline by 95% over the course of 1000 years for it to happen, or the US and Europe (and perhaps even Asia) have to be Africanized, or the means of making and consistently using birth control have to be basically lost. Or perhaps governments will clone people in artificial wombs.
Human beings at present are poorly adapted to our environment, and at some point for the trend to reverse, either our preferences or the environment will have to change (probably both), but not necessarily in a way that will be pleasing to our sight.
I suppose I see the pronatal political project as trying to restore pronatalism and shape the demographic path on our own terms as opposed to some of the more grim scenarios under which we can imagine it inevitably returning. But also in my heart of hearts I just plain despise antinatalist sentiments.
Do you think there's any way that a pro-natalist culture could emerge as long as capitalism and consumerism remain intact?Replies: @Wency
I could see a pronatal culture taking over in a collapse of civilisation scenario. As much as I despise our current civilisation I think I’d prefer not to see it collapse. If civilisation collapses the birth rate will be the least of our problems. And there’s also the very strong chance that the collapse of civilisation will lead to even more drastic population collapse.
Do you think there’s any way that a pro-natalist culture could emerge as long as capitalism and consumerism remain intact?
Do you think there's any way that a pro-natalist culture could emerge as long as capitalism and consumerism remain intact?Replies: @Wency
I don’t really see how it happens without religion, at least among white people. I think I’ve proposed a basic model here before, at least for the US:
1. Highly pronatal Christian groups (Anabaptists, Tradcaths, Quiverfull adherents) become a significantly larger share of Christianity. This part is mostly inevitable and is already happening, due to both their growth and every other segment of Christianity shrinking.
2. These groups become large enough and enthusiastic enough that they go on to influence more assimilated and lukewarm Christians.
3. Secular degeneracy continues apace. Secular white TFR drops to 1, or less. People start noticing lots of polyamorous pansexual cat ladies whose corpses are already devoured by their cats by the time they’re discovered a week after they die alone.
4. Between an increasingly large share of the population being pronatal and Christian, another segment consisting of apostates who nonetheless come from large Christian families and agree with some pronatal values, and secular people who just want a family and see how well the two different models are working, the dam breaks, people revolt against degenerate antinatal media, and a new social consensus forms.
Not saying this is likelier than some sort of civilizational collapse, but it’s the only path I really see for white people. You’re not going to get there based on secular rightism. Which, for starters, is basically DOA among women.
But I think that in the case of the US the system is going to be propped up for decades to come by massive immigration. Most people will remain blissfully unaware that there is a demographic crisis.
I also think that American Christianity is likely to become less and less white. Which poses a problem for white nationalist types who think Christianity is going to save the White Race.I agree with that.
Yes, I’d agree with that.
But I’m not so sure about that point. As Christianity overall slowly declines in numbers it’s possible that the more assimilated and lukewarm Christians will become even more assimilated and lukewarm. I think it’s likely that most mainstream Christian Churches will respond to declining numbers to trying even harder to assimilate to liberalism. That’s what they’ve been doing for a century. I suspect that most assimilated/lukewarm Christians will concentrate on virtue-signalling much harder.
I think that’s highly likely.
But I think that in the case of the US the system is going to be propped up for decades to come by massive immigration. Most people will remain blissfully unaware that there is a demographic crisis.
I also think that American Christianity is likely to become less and less white. Which poses a problem for white nationalist types who think Christianity is going to save the White Race.
I agree with that.