Family Friendly

If science suddenly noticed that birds were laying fewer eggs, they would ring the alarm and warn of a coming bird-pocalypse. The assumption would be that humans were doing soemthing to make the birds unable to reproduce. The same would be true of any species that saw its fertility decline. The starting assumption of biology is that all living things are built primarily to reproduce. That is the biological imperative. With one exception, a drop in an animal’s fertility must be due to some exogenous factor. That exception is humans.

In the West, human fertility rates have steadily fallen for over a half century. This is celebrated by our betters as the hallmark of human progress. Anytime the subject of fertility rates is raised, the knee-jerk response is to start hooting about women being more educated and having more options. The underlying assumption is that stupid people have lots of kids while smart people have few children. The implication of this is that the people who built Western Civilization were stupid, because they had high fertility rates.

The whole “women are more educated” argument is not really an effort to understand why fertility rates, especially white fertility rates, have fallen. Rather, it is an effort to not understand it. It is a deliberate distraction, a way of shifting the focus from a problem that cannot be addressed by the Left, whether it is the materialist Left of Europe or the spiritual Left on America. To even acknowledge that the purpose of women is to have children gnaws at the extreme egalitarianism that animates the Western Left.

To some degree, efforts to level off fertility in Europe make sense. There are lots of people on the Continent who don’t always get along with one another. Generations of warfare pounded home the message that stable societies, respectful of national borders, is the way to keep the peace. Keeping fertility rates at something just above replacement was an understandable goal. In America though, that’s not an issue. The country is mostly empty space with lots of room to expand. Americans should be breeding like Africans.

It really is an odd thing that has happened in America over the last fifty years. Starting in the 1960’s, motherhood became something close to a badge of shame with our cognitive elites. This rather quickly oozed into the the upper classes and then the middle class. As a result, public policy has been altered to discourage childbearing. Just look at the hysterics from Progressive women anytime they don’t get their way. They immediately start howling about how they will not get easy access to abortions and free prophylactics.

This came to mind when I saw a tweet by the left-wing political science professor George Hawley, commenting on the GOP tax bill. He linked to an essay he posted about public policy and fertility rates. For those familiar with this territory, the points he makes and the errors he commits are all familiar. France may have a TFR of 2.08, but the French people do not have that TFR. The invader population has rocket high fertility rates, but the French, well, not so much. Steve Sailer touched on one aspect of this in a Taki post.

A similar pattern, though less pronounced, is seen in the US. White fertility rates are below replacement, while black fertility is still above replacement. Although the homicide rates among blacks probably requires a different definition of “replacement.” Hispanics have the highest fertility rates. In other words, simply looking at TFR for a country that is slowly being overrun by a third world population will lead to errors. In majority white countries, the salient issue is not TFR, but white fertility rates, relative to the whole.

Putting that aside, we return to the original question. Two questions, actually. Is it simply that whites are choosing to die out or have whites simply wandered down a cul-de-sac, in terms of public policy, that is having adverse effects on white fertility? One way to tease this out is something that Steve Sailer did after the 2012 election. He looked at how white women voted, relative to their marriage habits. In places where white women can and do marry, stay married and raise children, whites vote Republican.

Another way of putting this is that where affordable family formation is highest, you get more families. Despite being run by a cult, Utah is a wonderful place to raise a family. It is like the set of Leave It To Beaver, but the size of a European country. At the other end, a state like Massachusetts is wildly expensive and hostile to family formation. Those who do choose to marry and start families, often move to other states. The decades long migration, north to south and east to west, has largely been driven by cost of living.

None of this answers the basic question. Is it crackpot public policy driving down white fertility or is some weird desire for extinction? The latter is impossible to know, so the prudent course is to assume the former is the correct answer. That’s basic logic. This means any movement that is explicitly for preserving the nation’s racial character should promote public policies that are explicitly and overtly pro-family. That is the part of Hawley’s post that is correct. The GOP should be fanatically pro-family, not pro-business.

This especially holds for the dissident right. The alt-right is all over the map on public policy, because they get bogged down squabbling over aesthetics. Oddly, the best thing they could do, in terms of “optics”, is cast themselves as the extreme end of the pro-family spectrum. Redefining pro-women to mean pro-mother would go a long way toward rallying white Americans to their cause. After all, being for something always trumps being against something, even when the thing you oppose is awful. Positive always beats negative.

115 thoughts on “Family Friendly

  1. “A similar pattern, though less pronounced, is seen in the US. White fertility rates are below replacement, while black fertility is still above replacement.”

    Black fertility is not above replacement… last time I checked it was only .1 above white fertility.

  2. The solution to low birth rates is polygamy. High status males sire lots of children with many females. This is the way nature works. It’s the way the natural world works and the way humans worked for tens of thousands of years, and still work in other parts of the world. We just can’t see this because it has become taboo in the West.

    • Maybe polygamy might make a comeback under the guise of polyamory, which has been touted in certain progressive circles. While theoretically polyamory is free love for all involved in a group, I suspect that in practice you would end up with a few men with a bunch of women. Not too different from certain fundamentalist Mormon breakaways.

      • Also, as severe birth defects make their way more prominently into the gene pool of these groups, the polygs tend to retreat from the surrounding society and the situation becomes untenable. Secretive marriage practices among close cousins, related several times over, not notifying medical authorities etc. allow severely disabled children to suffer and die without any “outside” attention. Check out descriptions of the goings-on with the Jeffs families in the outlaw Mormon communities in S Utah and elsewhere. “Staysweet” is what Warren Jeffs would say to a young woman he would take as his ### wife. Young males in these groups are considered disposable competition and are kicked out. Guest comment above says this is how nature works. Well, I think we humans must rise above nature from time to time. Taboos arise because human beings recognize the limits of biology and attempt to establish boundaries to protect society from completely “natural” behavior. Civilization can follow if we’re lucky!

  3. When coyotes were hunted to near extinction in the American west (there were bounties on them), populations recovered almost immediately. Scientists were baffled. They then discovered that, somehow, the females realized the situation and all had bigger litters until the numbers returned to normal. Maybe if we slayed all beta males our wimmin would kick it up a notch.

  4. Hawley is a filcher so I won’t go to the source, but Pew just released a big report on fertility on the old continent. It only separates by Muslim and non-Muslim, but the non-Muslim TFR in EVERY SINGLE EUROPEAN COUNTRY is below the 2.05 needed for replacement.

    There are of course non-Muslim, non-Europeans who have higher TFRs than native Euros as well (like Hindus and animist/Christian Africans) that are being grouped in those ‘native’ numbers and they’re still below replacement.

  5. My life after having children has been devoted to advancing their interests and those of hopefully-to-be-born grandchildren. I survived my first divorce (an American and mother of my children egged on by feminists after our return to the USA) by shamelessly flirting with my attorney (nicknamed the pit bull) and when the case went well, having a fling with her, a pleasant experience to say the least. My son, the younger child, ended up with me after a few years and now lives about 70 yards away with his soon-to-be-29 year old Latina wife (he’s 37) and my two grandsons. N.B.: we live in South America. The wife has a degree, but in order to stay home and raise the boys (now 3 3/4 and two yrs old) began a photography/graphic arts biz that is going great guns a year down the road. I’m (71) right across the lawn to pick up daycare slack when she’s got clients and my son is out on a job (he has a water well drilling biz). My lady friend (52 & local) has an 11 yr old dtr who serves as a “foster grand-dtr”, which makes me happier than the proverbial pig-in-poop, because even here, I suspect that no more natural grandchildren will be forthcoming, save for an accident. The West up north seems to me to be practically beyond redemption, though I hope not.

    Family is still the name of the game folks; ignore this biological reality at your peril. I agree wholeheartedly that ANY effort to restore what was once the heart, soul and greatness of the West MUST begin with an emphasis on and favoritism toward family formation, with extended families playing an important part.

  6. It’s birth control. It all stems from that. Only since birth control have children been a choice unless you chose celibacy. Get rid of the birth control, fertility rates will go up.

    Now of course I have no idea how you get rid of the birth control.

  7. The birth rate hit its current level back in the 1930’s and had been in some degree of decline for more than a century at that point.

    Its hardly new or a crisis, we treat a brief blip in the TFR from 1946 to 1971 or so as something that is supposed to be normal

    This makes zero sense .

    In any case a highly urbanized society where people have other options for recreation than sex or drinking will have smaller families . They should

    Given the state of the ecology and society this is a wonderful thing

    Problem is our “elite” Left and Right want immigration no matter how bad this is for the rest of us and that creates the problems

    As citizens we can manage a steady state economy or even a shrinking one , the pathological elite? Not so much.

    • Another big problem is that our money, food, vaccines, aid is allowing peoples in Africa to double in population every 10-20 years. This is suicidal on our part and must stop. If that money must be spent, we need to sink it all into our best, i.e., most intelligent and talented, children and creating an environment conducive to raising large white families.

  8. Actually, many species of living things self-regulate reproduction based upon environmental feedback. When the environment favors reproduction, fertility in animals increases. Conversely, when the environment changes and resources become more limited, many species have smaller litters. In our human species, government interference (social engineering) is becoming the main environmental driver for reproduction. Our tax and income redistribution system is now subsidizing minority and foreigner reproduction, and funding this by making it prohibitively expensive for the middle class to reproduce.

  9. If the goal is to decrease the cost of raising children, then the policies need to be pro-MARKET, not pro-business, and pro-childbirth/family.

    Businesses have no interest in keeping costs down for parents. Quite the opposite. It is competition which lowers prices. More options = cheaper to raise kids.

    I’ve long believed that any family which has three or greater children ought to operate largely tax-free until the children leave the house at 18 years old. These are the Future Taxpayers of America, and so our society should elevate parents of 3+ children, with added weight/consideration to intact nuclear families with a mom and dad in the house raising 3+ children.

    Because of things like healthcare and college, the costs of raising kids to 18 is enormous. The most expensive things, the things which actually make you stupid for having kids from a purely economic point of view (college and healthcare), have the least amount of competition and therefore the most outrageous prices.

    The most pro-family thing people could support is to crush the price of college by eliminating Stafford loans (make people go to the bank), encouraging trades and apprenticeships over high school and college, and of course just blowing up the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and move to a cash-based health care system for all by the most catastrophic care. Oh, and if you have 3 or more kids, you should be permitted to NOT EVEN FILE a tax return other than proof of the kids’ existence, and no payroll or income tax withdrawals from your paycheck.

    Parents with 3+ kids are raising the future taxpayers of America, and so they ought not have to pay a dime beyond their child rearing costs – which are already TAX in the long-run.

    • The Republicans control The governorship, House and Senate of around 25 of the 50 States. The flow of taxpayer funds to colleges teaching black Lesbian Mexican dwarf tossing sodomite studies is unabated.

      The GOP is a huge piece of the problem. There is not the slightest hint that they may be part of the solution.

    • Yah, we tried that, except we filed, all legal and such. Then we got hit with the Alternative Minimum Tax to the tune of around $10K one year. That was the beginning of the end. BK about 5 years later.

      Wouldn’t change it for the world, though. Every kid was worth it.

    • Again – why is the tax code and the Federal government intervening in one form or another the only path to solving this problem?

      Do you guys pay any attention at all?

      The Federal government IS the problem – not the solution to the problem

  10. One eugenic “affordable family formation” policy I’ve suggested is income averaging over the family.

    Given progressive tax structure, a Family of five making $200K should be taxed as five people each making $40K. It is implicitly fair and just since that income is supporting five people. Encourages successful, high income people to have more kids. Doesn’t reward losers for procreating.

  11. Once you understand the (((Jaffe Memo, 1969))) many of the pieces of White Genocide fall into place.

    • US Jews have even lower fertility and the majority are mixed with gentiles.

      If there was such a plan it backfired terribly

  12. “Despite being run by a cult, Utah is a wonderful place to raise a family. It is like the set of Leave It To Beaver, but the size of a European country.”

    Problem and answer in a nutshell. People who don’t believe that there is a higher purpose to life would rather have stuff, experiences, and cash to keep pursuing those than messy, expensive, and troublesome kids.

    A friend of mine summed it up with this window decal.×330.jpg

    The muzzies are doing it for Allah with their four wives apiece and the innumerable babies.

    The Catholics used to do the same thing until the Pope started waffling on birth control and finally just stopped talking about it. Now he’s on about too many people and climate change.

    I don’t know about Jews, but the one child policy that the Chinese government issued – and enforced with mandatory abortion – can only have force among a people who believe that life is primarily about the here and now, only.

    We are dying because we don’t want to live.

    I still maintain that one of the primary unacknowleged reasons for the immigration policy we see expressed in the actions of the Europeans, and our own government under Obama and predecessors, is to provide the replacement labor for the aborted and unconceived generation that the white women of today never gave birth to.

    It’s a stupid way to create a generation of taxpayers for many reasons, and it won’t work, but economists are pretty dumb about this stuff. They believe in magic dirt theory, and under that all the Latin Americans, Africans, and Muslims are going to grow up to be productive citizens who will keep aggregate demand stable, keep the economy humming along, and pay taxes.

    Yeah. I know. AI. Robots. And racial IQ. Not to mention the magic dirt theory has been empirically proven time and time again to be invalid.

    They’re shortsighted like that, and we and Europe are going to keep getting these immigrants because our women preferred riding the cock carousel and being career gals to having babies, if I may be so crude as to express this in the vernacular popular among certain despised elements of the younger right.

    • The idea that the US and Europe can be turned into comfortable retirement homes staffed and paid for by pleasant and obeisant, productive and well-assimilated pig ignorant violent fleeing peasants is astonishing, yet that’s what we are asked to believe.

      Societies succeed because they’ve built up, usually over centuries, a widely accepted and practiced set of behaviors; social capital built up of predictable actions and attitudes and beliefs: The core of the culture.

      Immigrants; who do not have that ingrained culture are likely to be destructive of social capital and destructive to the host society. Despite the gibberish of the lunatic left most people recognize this and quite rightly reject the attempt to destroy their society in pursuit of a crazed political fantasy.

  13. Materialism is driving this train. Women waiting longer and having less kids is partially about wanting careers, but also about accumulating wealth they don’t need. Men have the same issue. Plus the free sex they can now get from “liberated” women gives them little incentive for children. Two of my favorite quotes:

    “Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don’t need.” – Tyler Durden (Fight Club)

    “But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.” – 1 Timothy 6:6-10

    • Women compete with each other thru wealth. When their man isn’t supplying it – apparently the female psyche combined with feminism leads them to accumulate it themselves. I seem to recall reading literature from the 1800’s and early 1900’s – where female competition would be centered much more around how many kids they had and how much stature their family had. Those times are long gone.

      Feminism has been actively beating down motherhood and any significance it might have for quite some time though. So what you’re left with is female competition in the hierarchy based on job title and prestige and wealth.

    • Perhaps. Just maybe. No, it can’t be. But maybe a spiritual and moral bankruptcy precedes a financial bankruptcy and social collapse? Eh, forget I ever said anything.

  14. Trying to pin down the lack of white family formation and breeding to just one thing is going to be hard I think – unless you want to pin it broadly on progressivism.

    “Society” has been telling women for quite some time to get educated. Going to school takes out at least 4 good reproducing years. It likely takes out much more because once you get the education – you need to pay it back (means need a job) – and you also get an attitude in your head of “I need to take advantage of my education” Which very easily translates into putting off family formation.

    Until it’s too late.

    Watch the mainstream media and it is (or at least used to be) full of all sorts of articles about how hard it is to get pregnant. Those articles would be chock full of mid 30’s women. Competing for print space would be all sorts of “where are all the good men” articles and “you’re more likely to get killed by a terrorist than get married if you’re over 35” articles.

    I’ve seen this covered before in print – but I have also seen firsthand how this plays out in reality land. Multiple women I know have had trouble conceiving a child. Often paying thru the nose for fertility treatments to get pregnant. Take the cost of living in a place like MA – add in the cost of just having a child – and what you’re ending up with is single child families simply because of financial restraints or biological restraints.

    My wife has two sisters. One of them got pregnant when she was like 17 years old and a stupid high school kid (the kid is a moron too) – and the other sister needed a lot of help to get pregnant – and it took YEARS when she was in her 20’s. My wife has the same issues and has diagnosed fertility problems and “female” problems. So two out of the three of them likely missed their reproduction window because they wanted to get ahead financially – and also because of the stigma of teenage pregnancy.

    Most people are pretty healthy as teenagers. Get into your 20’s and you start to see people having health issues from their underlying problems. Maybe there’s an environmental issue here too – pollution or something like that. I don’t know

    So – I’ve seen it pointed out that women are in their peak childbearing years in their teens and early 20’s. What we have now is a society that sucks up all those fertile years just trying to get “educated” enough to survive in it financially.

    So I think I’d vote for the societal cause hands down over the suicide wish theory.

    I suppose you can argue that a white couple that wants to form a family could always flee the urban population centers and go live out in the boondocks – and I have read of a few cases of this happening. But the vast majority of people are going to jump on the hamster wheel and start running and not realize they just ran past their peak family formation years until it’s too damn late.

    If you want to boil it down even further – I’d call it a cost issue. My wife is one of eight. Her family did not have much money. When they had to go somewhere everybody would get loaded into the station wagon and hauled around . Kids would be lined up on the back seat and the boys would be sitting in the rear cargo area..

    Think of how much that simple trip would cost these days. First off any kid under a certain age would need to be in a child seat. That costs money. It also reduces available seating space. Instead of maybe 4 or 5 kids across the back seat of a large vehicle – you’re only getting two or three. So now you’re talking about larger and larger vehicles needed just to have a large family. Increased expense just to stay out of the sights of the busybodies and their DCS enforcers.

    I’m old enough to remember how life was lived in the 1960’s and 1970’s before the government started regulating the shit out of everything. There are costs to all of this “safety” – and one of those costs is being able to afford actual reproduction.

    Long story short – society and costs is where I would place the blame. Too many impediments and too many distractions and too many costs.

    Why do the immigrants breed? Because they are subsidized (which gets funded by those who work and therefore can’t afford to breed) – and also because they’re not yet “American” in culture and mindset. They breed because they don’t any better – yet.

    Progressive society is a suicide cult as Zman has pointed out previously. The problem is that all of the people in the cult don’t realize until it’s too late that they’ve been slitting their own wrists all along.

    • I summed it up pretty well over a thanksgiving dinner:

      A society which classifies men attracted to 16 year old girls as pedophiles and celebrates anal sex, homosexuality, and transgenderism is fundamentally a culture of suicide.

      • Did anyone at the dinner table know how to perform the Heimlich maneuver? Did you “sum” this up before or after dessert? What topics!! Conversational dynamite, I would say. (You have cojones of steel;-)

  15. Women are social creatures. They look to the herd for their standards of morality & status. In the West, universities & mass media set the moral & status standards for the herd.

    Universities & the media have been run by irreligious leftist ashkenazi Jews since the 1960s.

    Young motherhood is low-status because these universities & media outlets declare it to be so.

    Communities that keep Jewish media out of their homes & their girls out of mainstream, Jew-led colleges still have children. This includes mormons, crazy evangelicals, Muslims & even Orthodox Jews.

    Family friendly tax & work policies will not raise fertility with females if our status-granting institutions continue to tell these females that being a young mother makes them a stupid loser. If you ask young women to choose Instagram “likes” over a lower tax rate they will take the Instagram likes every time.

    As in all the issues facing White Americans, the solution is a simple 3 step process.

    Step 1) Acknowlege that there is still a tribal & ethnic component to power dynamics in America.
    Step 2) Notice which tribes do what. And who wins & loses when they do that.
    Step 3) Take our own tribe’s side & act.

    In simple terms, White people need to build parallel cultures & institutions that grant morality & status gains to pro-white behavior, including having a large healthy family at a young age.
    Then we need to collapse & replace the anti-White institutions.

  16. The lowest of the low birth rates in the U.S. are in urban white-topias like Manhattan and San Fran. Economically and culturally, they are terrible places to have children.

    When this thing (I really don’t have a name for it anymore… maybe I should just start calling it the Abomination of Desolation) collapses, and assuming that we still have something that looks like an industrial civilization, bulldoze the cities and salt the earth they stood on. We really haven’t needed them since the Interstate system was completed, and we need them even less when the Internet lets you put your factory anywhere and still be connected to the global supply chain at very low costs.

    The cities are sinks for human and economic capital. They are sources of bad thinking and bad culture. I’m not quite ready to go back to the neolithic period, but I am ready to leave the age of cities behind.

    • El B;
      On a purely logistical note, it simply won’t do to scrap (most of) the cities in America. Sure the interstates go around them, but water transport (mostly barge) is *still* the lowest cost of shipment per ton-mile by far, followed by pipeline (fluid goods only), followed by rail, only then truck. Most cities in the world, other than elite vanity projects (e.g. Brasilia), are where they are on account of logistics, aka convenient trade routes. And for the military control over those trade routes that is provided by controlling those locations.

      Usually, their raison d’être was that they were an economic intermodal transfer point. For example: NYC was where inland shipping on the large inland Hudson River system could conveniently transfer to and from ocean shipping; Chicago was the most convenient portage/transfer point between the Great Lakes shipping system and the large Mississippi River shipping system, etc. Most of them are reasonably easy to defend due to their military geography.

      Interestingly, New Orleans is the single most important port city in the entire US for these logistical reasons. The British in the age of Napoleon certainly recognized this. Hence The Battle of New Orleans, which (completely justifiably) made Andrew Jackson.

      We will always need defendable intermodal logistical transfer points. These even existed in the Bronze Age. The question of how they are to be populated and governed, however, is different.

      • Why is so much of the waterfront in our deep water ports unused? In San Francisco, there are rotting piers, quay walls, and warehouses everywhere.

        • Because container shipping and an efficient rail system (once the government regulations were curtailed) – has led to larger container ports and left behind a lot of the “traditional” ports. So far – nobody has come up with a good industrial use for all of those ports – so they’re getting replaced with fancy waterfront residences for high-earning progressive city dwellers.

  17. Only problem in Western Europe (aside from the Muslim invasion) is that if you left population decline to run its course then the welfare state would collapse in short order. Then who might arise from those ashes? Any guesses?

    • Population isn’t going to decline, but the social welfare schemes will collapse. Our wonderful rulling class will pretend bringing in low Iq, net negative migrants with no skills will pay to save grandma’s social security.

    • Even Muslim populations in Germany don’t have many kids after a generation. Gastarbiters (guest workers) have about the same fertility as natives

      Most of the people in Germany that are foreign are other Europeans, Bosnians and the like with a mix of others, none of whom are functionally German

      That said even if you deported all “foreigners” from Europe it won’t help. Automation makes filling the actual demand for goods need little labor and given labor is how people make a living…

      Machines mean less babies, Its been that way since the 70’s with it just starting in the 30’s though WW2 threw a wrench into it

      The solution is basically lower work weeks, trade controls which BTW will gut net exporters like Germany and a mixed in welfare state aimed at working people.

      You’ll still have a seniors issue but its not one you can ignore, take away pensions and they’ll save so much more money and have fewer kids, You lose growth

      Or we could keep borders tight and let the population decline to its natural level. Germany with 40 million would be fine as would as US at 150

      In time we might still have to deal with low fertility, it could be automation is a great filter that results in species wide extinction or a collapse or the labor surplus will decline enough that jobs pay enough and people get a more stable population

      A collapse though won’t get what you want. It will end up with a vastly reduced population anway.

  18. Part of this has to do with so many kids being brought up in broken homes or in homes where both parents worked – they simply don’t want that to happen to their kids. The millennials are the best example and my heart goes out to them.

    The majority of these kids have been “raised” by two working parents who tossed them into daycare before they turned 1-year old and they quickly became secondary to everything else their parents wanted or cared about.

    They were rewarded for everything, held responsible for nothing, and raised to believe everyone owed them something. And guess where that came from? Parents full of guilt for the neglect they heaped on their kids because they themselves were so selfish they put their own children last in everything.

    So Mom and Dad, got that new home? “Yep!” Two cars in the garage? “Of course!”, Big screen TV? “Yep”, Great careers? Yes and yes again! Kids? “Yeah, we’ve got those too. Thank goodness we can afford a nanny!”

    Kids understand divorce rates. They understand what it is to be unwanted, unloved and un-cared for. They understand the latch-key concept, they know teen homelessness and chemical abuse and a dim, jobless, unemployed future in world that they didn’t create.

    And you really wonder why they don’t want kids?

    • It’s all sounds reasonable, but: how humanity managed to survived wars, with all the war widows? Six out of every ten men died between 1917 and 1945 in Russia. The country is still there. The fertility rate in the 1950s was at about three children per mother.

      I have a little psychological theory in place. Women are worriers. They are incredibly anxious, because, well, the world is a very harsh place for women to live, especially if she’s pregnant or caring for an infant (which was a normal part of the female condition through the history).

      Gladly, there is a natural antidote to female anxiety. It is male over-confidence.

      Our culture stopped producing it in required numbers long ago. We have women, who are overwhelmed with anxiety all the way to psychopathic panic attacks. And we have men, who don’t have a clue on how to properly pacify them.

  19. People rarely discuss the other side of this equation. Men are checking out of society rapidly, especially from having families. There are few incentives to buy into a commitment of providing resources to western chicks that turn around and start 90 percent of the divorce proceedings. The legal problems are compounded by the feminist societal attitudes and constantly lecturing of the worthlessness of men.

    The other part not mentioned when it comes to female education: chicks don’t marry down. My sister wouldn’t dream of it as a grad student, nether did the women I met in grad school. And now that they represent the majority of college students and especially grad students while men increasingly check out of Marxist lala land means tons of chicks with nowhere to go. These are the lovely ladies that write daily mail and guardian articles about the lack of good men. Thats all code for refusal to marry down, ending up at 40 with cats. This is a big part of why female education is cancer to fertility rates.

    Forgive these typos, on phone

    • A thousand times this. Don’t forget all the tv shows and movies that go out of their way to make childrearing look like torture. Thanks Hollywood.

    • Dalrock explains it the best – marriage has been replaced by child support quotas in practice. The facade of marriage is still there, but under the hood, it’s all been swapped out. Anyway, the current system is high on coercion and low on incentives. Incentives always work better than coercion (see: Soviet Union) and the declining productivity of men is a direct result of this switch from the carrot to the stick.

      I’d also mention Roosh’s article about the single male minimum wager too:

    • Which, paradoxically, harms them more than the men they’ve spurned. It’s quite typical for a man to find his stride in career mid-30s and then marry a woman a decade or more his junior. Such a union can still form a large and healthy family. Conversely, a woman who hits 35 childless is overwhelmingly likely to remain childless into her menopausal sterility. The women who have checked out are simply re-instantiating the patriarchal system by which older men are inclined to (now, more forced to) seek out younger women in a state of better reproductive health.

      Men with the propensity toward incremental self-improvement and some sort of income have time to repair their situation and find a younger mate. I encourage any man in his twenties to consider this and abate his existential dread.

  20. Yeah, but then the Left starts screaming about Silly Mustache Guy and his Order of German Motherhood (or whatever it was) where they gave you a medal for having more kids, Lebensborn, and all the rest. Forget the war’s physical damage; SMG destroyed whatever part of Western intellectual life survived the trenches. SMG was the true face of their beloved collectivism; they knew it; and so Western “intellectuals” have devoted themselves to being against whatever he was for and vice versa. With the result, as Orwell (?) predicted, that when Fascism comes to America, it will call itself antifascism. As Derb said, better dead than rude. Throw in the fact that the one party that should be pro-mother is just Leftism lite, and, well, I’m not optimistic. Here’s hoping, though.

  21. Here’s a proposal for a tax policy – 50% tax rate for singles, going up to 75% if you’re over 30 and single. 15% tax rate if you stay married for more than 5 years, 30% tax rate until then.

    I would be curious to see who would come out of the woodwork to REEEEEEE over it. Curious and amused.

    • Silly Mustache Guy actually did have, or at least propose, a tax on being single IIRC. There certainly were lots of tax breaks for children, with benefits proportional to family size. He was right about that, at least. And dogs. The guy loved dogs. No wonder Leftists are all crazy cat ladies…

      • Funny how nobody ever bothers to read the policy white papers of anyone these days. For example, Roy Moore’s white paper policies are almost word for word identical to Trump’s. Now I’m kinda curious what the NSDAP white paper policies were. I don’t see it in their so-called “25 point plan”. Except for their anti-Jew policies most of their other policies wouldn’t bother a mention in today’s era. Old age pensions? Strong borders? Help small business?

        Can you point out where the NSDAP had a tax proposal on singles?

        • It wasn’t in the 25 points, which I don’t think anybody remembered for more than 25 seconds after they were written, Hitler included. Says here they encouraged childless couples to divorce, not that they taxed bachelorhood, but it confirms the other stuff (tax breaks, marriage loans, etc.). I seem to recall it being discussed, but evidently never passed.

          • A civilization not advancing is in decline, and populations generally follow along that path. First century Greece was depopulated. But subsidizing incompetent people for reproduction has never been done before and will compress timelines exponentially. Perhaps that is not entirely a bad thing.

        • Himmler’s SS. Single men paid more taxes as an incentive for his racial elite to start cranking out more aryans.

          Families were also given tax breaks as well as first dibs on consumer goods and modern housing. They even gave prolific mothers a medal.

          See Evans “The Third Reich in Power” for a look at the positive incentive program for increasing “racially valuable” stock.

          • That didn’t help.

            When Romania tried the same thing, going so far as to have soldiers rape women to get babies , they couldn’t make people parent

            20 years later, Ceausecu ended up executed

            You can’t make people want to parent.


    • I think it goes beyond money. No fault divorce created a huge risk for women. They do the right thing, get married, have children and then their man trades them in for a younger women. No amount of tax credits and family court laws will mitigate that risk. What we need is for men to feel great shame at getting divorced, as well as an incentive to get married. I’m not sure how you can do that with public policy, but it is worth discussing.

      • Considering they commence the divorce proceedings nearly 90 percent of the time, I think it’s a far bigger risk for dudes, Z.

        And while no legal system can make you completely emotionally whole again, talking half the assets, child support to 18 and alimony potentially for life gets pretty damn close.

        • I’ve always been a bit skeptical about the Rosenfeld study. Previous studies since the 40’s showed that men were much more likely to initiate divorce. That relatively recent study shows the opposite, which could be true, but that leads to the question, why? It is entirely possible that punitive laws aimed at men have backfired. It encourage women to do stupid things like seek divorce or maybe it simply discourage men from initiating the legal process, fearful of what happens in court.

          This has always been the huge flaw in the men’s rights movement. They should be arguing against easy divorce. Instead, they argue for cheaper divorce.

          • This obviously isn’t a scientific study – but in my experience women initiate divorce probably 8 times out of 10. Living in MA – I would be willing to bet that the punitive laws against men have a LARGE amount to do with it.

            RE: Encourage women to do stupid things.

            I worked with a woman who had divorced her husband. This was the prototypical prom queen / HS quarterback couple. In their late 30’s – she decided that the grass would be greener somewhere on the other side of the fence – and divorced her husband. The interesting part about this was – she fully admitted it was the biggest mistake of her life. A number of years down the road from the divorce (she was in her mid to later 40’s when I knew her if I remember correctly) – and she found the grass was definitely not greener. Her ex-husband had gotten married again to a younger version of her. She had found 10 years in the dating scene to not be anywhere near what it was cracked up to be. She had to work just to put a roof over her head (the husband had made a good living if I remember correctly). This woman was not unattractive either. Even in her mid 40’s she still had “it” – and you could tell she was probably a smoke-show when she was younger.

            But you could also tell she was definitely high maintenance. Which most men in their mid 40’s have started to clue into – and avoid.

          • Pretty sure Rosenfeld found 69% initiated by women, nowhere near 90%. Some fraction of that 69% is obviously in reaction to male infidelity. Men usually just want something on the side, not the end of their marriage. Women are more likely to decide they want out altogether. It seems likely to me that regardless of who files for divorce, relationships are destroyed by men and women in roughly equal measure.

            I’m sure men were far more likely to be the one to initiate a divorce in the 40s, but it’s a different world now. Women didn’t have iPhones back then.

          • The difference between the 40’s and now is that the whole social and economic climate has changed with respect to women especially with regard to financial independence and partner count. In the 40’s there was shame at having a high N, at being a divorcee and there was active financial discrimination of women in the workplace. This meant that there was a lot of social and economic pressure on women not to divorce. That all evaporated in the 60’s–but the trends were there much earlier–and now being a single mother with two kids to two different fathers, living on welfare is no big deal

        • I have a female friend, who works as a post-divorce counsel for women.

          Her opinion is: women initiate the majority of the divorces – correct. The reason? By far the main reason is male infidelity. It’s his fault, but he does not file asWestern divorce terms are punitive for men. Instead, he acts in a “let’s just forget it happened” manner. So she files.

          The problem with our society is the immense number of single women all the way into the late forties. We were supposed to mate in our teens and be surrounded by couples through the rest of our lives. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” is hard enough to manage. What about desperate mid-30s women all around you that broadcast their sexual availability in every manner possible? It exploits the male inclination to sexual novelty, especially given the state of the modern family: husband often being treated with contempt, or “equality” (not much better), both spouses working, so only seeing each other after stressful and tiresome day, etc. She is never submissive, you are never dominant and protective – but that girl in the office eyeing you out, and is desperate enough to put you on the hook to play along with the lines you like.

          There is not much bonding happening inside the family. There’s too much temptation outside. Men stray. Women file.

          • Women are very forward nowadays and don’t seem to have much respect for a wedding ring. If anything, a wedding ring and kids hanging off of you are catnip to them. I suspect that this is because there are so few quality men around that they think they have to steal a man. In fact, I’ve heard women say this. Often they don’t respect the husband they have either, usually because he isn’t worthy of respect.

      • >I think it goes beyond money.

        In Europe parenthood is even better on fun-employment!
        Minimum wage can’t match what social services will provide.

        I always bring up a gypsy family who got to stay at a villa here.
        It would take several minimum wages to match that lifestyle.

        If any alt right woman want to try that scam, msg me!
        A few little ones and we are covered for two decades.

        But i guess we are too proud for that.

        You can even hire lawyers who will fill, and keep refilling, all social services paper work for you, and they will then get paid by the state as well, because you are entitled to free legal help, it’s the perfect scam, and the bigger the family, the more money you get, the more square space… Kindergarten almost matches rent when you are employed, but it’s free when you are not.

      • You could – get rid of no-fault divorce and bring back needing a fault? Goal is not to make people happy in blissful matrimony, but to just glue people together and make coming unglued painful enough that both sides think long and hard about it before they do it.

        • Its not 1930. Values have changed enough that people commonly live together unmarried without a fuss and even have kids together.

          Most people still marry because they want to and they assume its expected of them but they don’t have too.

          Anyway if you want to deal with divorce and single moms in one fell swoop just make default custody fall to the father

          Unless there is a court finding of adultery, abuse, neglect or desertion the kids belong to the Father even for single moms

          Men will be a hell of a lot more careful as will women who will want to get married and stay married if they want a child

          It might backfire making a lot more 30’s something kareerfrau types celibate but oh well.

      • That might be a potential problem – but that’s not how I’ve seen it play out in reality. Much more often I have seen the no-fault divorce laws used by women to screw over men – and then they use the pro-women pro-child laws to completely financially screw over their ex-husbands.

        The “man trading up to a younger woman” is something akin to an urban myth IMHO. It doesn’t happen nearly as often as women screwing over men using the family court system. If there is any trading up to a younger woman going on – there is also a HUGE wealth level component. The average 40-50 year old guy who is paying thru the nose to his ex-wife and kids is VERY unlikely to be the target of a younger woman looking to get ahead, because he simply doesn’t have any money left over.

        It’s a different story however if you’re talking about a high earning man who can afford to pay off the ex-wife and still have a substantial amount of money left over to support a new younger wife in the lifestyle she would like to become accustomed to.

        If you’re going to discuss social and tax policy and family formation – you need to discuss that which affect the largest amount of people – and that’s not going to be people on the upper levels of income.

        • The reality is that we need to severely curtail alimony to solve the divorce problem. Alimony should be statutorily capped at something like $50k a year. The whole “standard of living to which she has become accustomed” rule is horseshit. You get access to that standard of living in exchange for household labor and access to your pussy. If you decide to end it, you get a bit to get back on your feet and then you start your own life. Women have careers now, it’s not 1870 anymore.

          It should also be temporary—5 years at the most. Finally, it should end immediately upon the divorcée entering another serious relationship. Let the next man pay her.

      • No fault divorce created a huge risk for MEN. Women initiate 70%+ of divorces and divorce is frequently ruinous for men while women get cash and prizes.

        If you want marriage, you must make it attractive for men.

      • > No fault divorce created a huge risk for women.


        Women can no longer trust men (and they’re right – I wouldn’t). So they need a backup. An income source. A career. That means a higher education and at least ten years of continuous employment (and a lot of debt). That means her fertile years wasted.

        Worse, once the majority of women of a certain social strata start doing it, men change their behaviour as well, because – well, you can’t change just one sex. They begin to expect from her to pull her weight. So getting pregnant to stay at home no longer works. “Drop the kid to daycare and go back to the cubicle, dear”.

        Of course, a lot of women hate it. But what choice do they have? A blind leap of faith? A happy traditional family is an exception in such a system.

        And we can’t get out of it except by working in unison. Both men and women should change. Men should start shouldering the responsibility, while women should lose their “Go grrrl” attitude and “embrace the housewife”.

        I am optimistic because this is what happened (to some extent) in Russia in the late 90s, after the Soviet collapse. Social engineering failed and gave way to biology. There were 2750 abortions per 1000 living births in USSR in 1966 (Commies legalised them in 1917). There were 2250 in 1995. It’s ~300 now.

        But then it required a total economic, social and ideological collapse.

      • Z Man;
        As a point in evidence that you’re right about no-fault divorce being dys-civic, I am old enough to remember Playboy Magazine* in the early ’60s. Degenerate Hugh Hefner was constantly banging on about how divorce should be ‘no-fault’ in his half-assed Playboy Philosophy essays. (Divorce in my state wasn’t ‘no-fault’ at the time.) His interests in no-consequence sex for men were shamelessly obvious in retrospect. By no coincidence, he was also in the vanguard in recommending indiscriminant use of birth control meds.

        Being just a hormone-impared teenager, his agitating for easy divorce made little sense to me at the time. But I *was* smart enough not to ask my parents what this was about.

        *Of course I read it for just the articles.

      • 70%-80% of divorces are initiated by women these days and only a handful for needed reasons.

        Of the ones initiated by men, more of them are likely to for needed reasons that would have been allowed under “fault” systems

        That said, marriage has changed. Women don’t need men to support them since they have jobs and family formation is hardly assumed or mandatory

        Our society , the “West” simply is sclerotic and hidebound an unable to adapt to urbanization, automation and birth control

        Societies that can’t adapt deserve what’s coming to them and from where I sit we’ve had many decades to formulate policies but are unable to form them and so we reap what we sow

    • Seriously – WTF. Haven’t we had enough of the government manipulating society?

      Here’s an idea: absolutely NO government welfare of ANY kind. That way we won’t be taking money from people who work and might want to have a family – and dumping it into the pockets of people who sit around and do nothing and inevitably outbreed the workers. (substitute white for workers if you must)

      Don’t you pay any attention? What is the likelihood that the government – given it’s infestation with progressive thinkers – is ever going to impliment what you’re talking about?

      How the hell is a single man going to afford to have a family when he is young – if you take away 50% of what he makes – and dumps it into the pockets of tax feeders?

      How the hell is that supposed to work?

      • You some kind of libertarian wacko?

        Just kidding, I agree. Way too many social engineers in these comments.

    • S.C.
      Something like this based on having dependents (i.e. kids) drive your income tax *rate* is a better suggestion than most for saving social security and medicare. For example, no kids *at home* = no refundable tax credits (stealth welfare via the IRS). 2 kids = neutral tax rate. Over 35 with no kids = tax surcharge %

      Simple rhetorical sell: Since SS & MC are paid by current workers, why should anybody drawing benefits while childless get to free-ride by not replacing the current workers they are drawing from_?

      • Why the hell is every suggestion here a recommendation to screw around with the tax code?

        Fer Kryste’s sake: Look back thru history – white people were having nice big families when there was NO income tax – and the Federal government at least was small enough that I’ve heard it said that the average US citizen only came into contact with the Feds when the Post Office delivered their mail.

        The fact that the only solution to the problem that anybody seems to come up with relies on the Federal government and the tax code – sounds like an admission of failure.

        Put a fork in it – you’re all done.

        • Cal;
          Absolutely true. But you head for the future with the sorry-assed government you have and not with the night watchman government you wish you had

          • Exactly.

            Which is why any solution that involves the government is never going to work and is utopian (progressive type) thinking in the extreme.

            If you want to fix the future you’re going to have to deal with reality. And the reality is that government is the problem – not the solution.

    • Make the per child tax credit very generous and deductible against income tax only but not payroll taxes. That way you aren’t paying net outflows of money to people who already don’t pay income tax. Some Leftist federal judge would probably rule it unconstitutional.

    • I know its a modest proposal in the Swift sense but taken seriously this would cripple early family formation, people could not save to get married.

      On top of that you’ve just ruined a lot of lives most of whom are young. Young people do violent revolt not old people.

      Guns are cheap too.

      Of course a complete purge of the ruling class might prove to be a good thing for all concerned . I’d rather do it with elections. I’m too old for the other option

  22. Anywhere the Mormons are in large numbers, it is a nice place to live. Not despite them, but because of them.

    • They’re annoying, but they won’t break or steal your stuff. You can live next to one and relax.

      • Flew with them, bunked with them, neighbors many times in several states. Now in the twilight years, they live across the street and over the back fence years. Best people ever, just can’t accept some of their beliefs. But, that’s never presented a problem in all these years.

      • It very well might be true. Or it might be all the Californians moving into Utah. Or both. It doesn’t differentiate.

        Also, reading those comments, nobody picked up that it was US fertility going down, not world fertility. They don’t seem to notice that the Spanish population in the US is growing rapidly and the white population is shrinking. Or that the African population is exploding and the European population is disappearing.

    • The TFR in Utah which has the highest rate in the USA is only a tiny bit above replacement, 2.2 and retention among Mormons and Evangelicals is quite low.

      Despite a massive influx of non Whites and vast domestic efforts, the LDS church is not growing very much.

      Evangelicals after a generation aren’t all that fertile either with low retention

      That said if you had well paid work for the working and middle classes with decently paid housing and no Cultural Marxism , err College degree required the TFR would edge up a bit

      To do that though will require mass deportation and huge control over imports, make it here, buy it here, sell it here,

      That’s going to require a populist revolution, probably the shooting kind.

  23. When the West gave up on listening to the One who said, “Be fruitful and multiply,” it started giving up on the being fruitful and multiplying part. Nihilism leads to nothing, including no future.

  24. If corporations start having children, the Republicans will adopt a pro family posture immediately.

    • If George Soros starts throwing millions around in support of leftist destruction, lazy useless Internet trolls will heed the higher calling to copy and paste talking points.

  25. Women ARE having fewer children because they are “more educated”. A woman’s prime fertile years are spent in college studying bullshit and having pointless, promiscuous sex while on the pill. Going to college lowers female fertility.

    • I live in what Charles Murray calls a “super zip” (I’m in the poor part of town, FYI) and I can tell you firsthand that the place is LOADED with women who wasted their prime child-bearing years “studying bullshit and having pointless, promiscuous sex while on the pill”, as you so succinctly put it. And always chasing the “thrilling” career.

      They then had to over-correct, scrambling to marry somebody (anybody) since the expiration date on the old ova was fast approaching, found themselves hip deep in both trying to work to keep the big expensive life going and provide some semblance of actual parenting, were guilted relentlessly by their children for “never being there”, missed the boat on the birthday parties and the play-dates, etc. and now that the spoiled shitless kids have moved on, find themselves still working a job that they’ve come to completely loathe while their marriages hit the wall.

      This is what’s known as “having everything”, right?

      Seems the Elders had a better system.

      • Chief;
        Have to agree. Once again, in Cloud Land, what’s catnip for the rich and connected is destruction and impoverishment for the working classes. Also Charles Murray.

        Under the elders, American society was run for the benefit of the middle classes. Now it’s run for the benefit of the elite. Hence Trump.

        • No, I don’t think American society was ever run for the middle class—the elite have always looked out for themselves first (mass voluntary WASP cucking in the late 20th century notwithstanding).

          But the elite were more connected with and concerned about the general public in earlier times because the U.S. was ~90% white with a shared culture. The cost of living point is an important one: why is it so hard to make a decent living these days?

          1. Mass immigration artificially inflates the population and increases demand for housing, raising prices. This is especially true of the big cities (which are immigrant magnets)—there’s no more land, but more and more people want to live there.

          2. The diversity Danegeld. To have a decent life for you and your kids, it’s paramount to live in a white neighborhood. As those become increasingly rare, the price goes up to live in one. A working class neighborhood in 1947 America is eminently livable. A working class neighborhood today resembles a third-world country,

          3. The rise of the two income family. This has essentially bid up the cost of everything in urban areas. All the benefits are pretty much swamped by that factor, while we know the large costs to not having a mother at home with the kids.

          • I wouldn’t say they were ‘more connected’, they just knew which side their bread was buttered on.

            Travel has become too easy. They are convinced when they finish draining this country, they can move on to the next.

          • Most importantly, and the main reason they’re here, mass immigration artificially suppresses wages. That’s happened in almost all fields in the U.S. Wish they’d replace the talking heads on cable with underpaid immigrants, would be amusing and serve them right. May have unintended consequence of higher ratings.

      • Live in one of those same zips right outside of NYC. Watch it happen all the time. We made the opposite decision between #3 and #4. Was prescient. When two ended having LD my wife was able to intervene and turn what generally ends up as shit show into amazing successes. On the other hand we’ve watched people who can’t be bothered to deal with the same situations because they need to upgrade the house in the Hamptons have very, very different and sometime tragic outcomes. Gotta decide what is important.

  26. From what I know, the fertility rate would reach replacement level if the women who have zero children had one child each. It’s not like we have to have a lot of people having 5+ children.

    • As I understand it, it takes two people to create one offspring. Therefore replacement level would be two per woman. Assuming no polygamy.

    • But maybe we should encourage whites to have 5 children each… and then go and conquer Africa. Battle the Africans, defeat them and let the remainder succumb under their own failed governance while whites breed like rabbits and make Africa our own… I like this fantasy of mine… We whites need to lose our passivity! The world would be better for it.

  27. “It’s OK to be White and have kids” is probably something almost everyone on the Right could agree with, except possible Milo and Jason Lee Steorts…

  28. The right can be *BOTH* pro-family and pro-jobs. Since business gives us the jobs that means pro-business. The challenge is to do a much better job making the case they are about both.

    This is where the Senate is wrong about waiting a year for tax cuts for business. They don’t have a year to give. They need results to crow about this coming summer & fall.

    • Yes. They aren’t mutually exclusive. And, if real businesses (not just high-tech and finance) start to grow, they’ll probably look for the less expensive parts of the country to do it in.

    • Oh, I dunno. You can cut the unemployment rate in HALF if all women are required to be homemakers. Boom, all women, automatically are now employed.

      Let the REEEEEEE-ing commence though. The whining and the bitching and the moaning….

      • Absolutely, but you can’t REQUIRE women to do anything.

        They do what they want, and what they want is to be free…… to act like men and chase lots of sex partners and have “careers” – after a fashion, because as most of us know when they get into the work place they generally spend as much time causing problems and working to change the organization’s goals to include being the kind of place women want to work. to paraphrase some other Z blog contributor.

        None of that is going to change. I believe that we are in an interlude now between Democrat, non-white and/or non-female administrations. The next president will be female, black if humanly possible, and progressive as the day is long.

        Madame President will be youthful and charismatic, everything that Hillary was not, and she will enact the agenda Hillary would have labored with in record time.

        Kamala Harris or someone like her is going to lead this country 3 years from now barring some radical change in this society.

        There will be no REEEing. It is all over for us but the crying.

        • Can’t put the genie back in the bottle, I agree. Salvation lies in collapse. If somehow, the Establishment manages a soft landing, thinking people will be facing a steady-state Hell from which there is no escape.

          To me it seems obvious that system failure is at hand, but I was certain that the white uprising would have happened by 1995 as well. I hope I’m wrong, but it seems as if the white man is going to go quietly, without causing a fuss, in the finest tradition of Midwestern manners.

    • The businesses that the GOP if “Pro” has destroyed more American jobs in the past couple of decades than they have created.
      Job creation is primarily a function of small businesses not the globalist corporations that own the political filth.

Comments are closed.