The new birth rate numbers are out, and they're a disaster. There are now only 59.6 births per 1,000 women, the lowest rate ever recorded in the United States. Some of the decrease is due to good news, which is the continuing decline of teen pregnancies, but most of it is due to people getting married later and choosing to have fewer children. And the worst part is, everyone is treating this news with a shrug.A society doesn't need female doctors, or lawyers, or scientists. It needs women to be wives and mothers. And any society that doesn't prioritize the latter at the expense of the former is going to fade into the dust of history over time.
It wasn't always this way. It used to be taken for granted that the best indicator of a nation's health was its citizens' desire and capacity to reproduce. And it should still seem self-evident that people's willingness to have children is not only a sign of confidence in the future, but a sign of cultural health. It's a signal that people are willing to commit to the most enduring responsibility on Earth, which is raising a child.
But reproduction is also a sign of national health in a more dollars-and-cents way. The more productive people you have in your society, the healthier your country's economy. It's an idea that was obvious back in the 17th century, when economist Jean Bodin wrote "the only wealth is people."
Today we see the problems wrought by the decline in productive populations all over the industrialized world, where polities are ripping each other to shreds over how to pay for various forms of entitlements, especially for old people. The debates play out in different ways in different countries, but in other ways they are exactly the same. That's because they are ruled by the same ruthless math: The fewer young, productive people you have to pay for entitlements for old, unproductive people, the steeper the bill for the entire society becomes. This basic problem is strangling Europe's economies. And while the United States is among the least bad of the bunch, it is still headed in the wrong direction.
It doesn't have to be this way. While the evidence for government programs that encourage people to have more children is mixed, the fact of the matter is that in contemporary America, 40 percent of women have fewer children than they want to.
Saturday, August 13, 2016
They had ONE job
And too many American women aren't doing it:
33 comments:
Modernity has destroyed our souls. Just like animals won't breed in captivity, neither will we.
The sad fact is that there could be female doctors, lawyers, and scientists if 50% of women were having 3-4 children on average.
But they can't even be bothered to do that. Instead, they'd rather murder their own unborn and adopt foreign babies when their eggs are all dried up.
But if they were to have 4 children between 19 and 25 years old, those children would be all grown up and moved out by the time they are in their forties, which would leave a lot of time to do other things before your health goes to shit.
Of course math is not a subject most people apply to their own lifestyles.
It used to be taken for granted that the best indicator of a nation's health was its citizens' desire and capacity to reproduce.
Say what?! Third World shitholes have birth rates far higher than ours.
A society doesn't need female doctors, or lawyers, or scientists. It needs women to be wives and mothers.
Depends on the society, and what it's short of. Sure, ours could use more mothers. But the average African nation would probably be better off if some of the women who are popping out babies were instead training to be doctors or scientists (lawyers, not so much).
In any case, it doesn't have to be either/or. I know a woman OB/GYN who bore and raised four kids, all well-adjusted as far as I know. And my sister-in-law, also with four kids, runs my brother's medical practice.
(Yes, I know that any society needs mothers in the sense that it will perish if there are none at all, and doesn't, in that sense, need women to do anything else. But that's a pedantic and useless definition of "need".)
When women are emancipated from male control, they still *want* to have children, but it doesn't happen, for reasons that Jim Donald explains here:
http://blog.jim.com/culture/emancipation-of-women-was-a-fitness-test-that-we-failed/
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=vasalgel
Say what?! Third World shitholes have birth rates far higher than ours.
An absurdly high birth rate is bad for a nation (but many also have sky-high infant and child mortality rates), but a rate lower than replacement, even if it's greater than zero, is an profoundly greater disaster. That's an accurate use of the word 'need', and your anecdotes mean exactly squat in the stark demographic picture.
I'm also sure that those African women would all be doctors and astronauts if only they weren't being forced to have so many babies.
But if they were to have 4 children between 19 and 25 years old, those children would be all grown up and moved out by the time they are in their forties, which would leave a lot of time to do other things before your health goes to shit.
"Are you trying tell me I can't have everything I want right now? I mean, people in their forties are, like, almost dead. Fuck that, I'm going to live a fabulous life right now!"
Good luck getting women out of college and into the maternity wards with reason and logic. Almost every law of the land has been re-arranged to prevent it from happening. Trump or Hillary, the ratchet can't be turned back. Not in this political culture. A disruption is needed if things are to change.
War against non-whites is not much of a disruption. It's a dead end strategy: it won't send white women back to the farm not even for their 2.4 save-the-race baby quota. Even the horror of dead men on every street corner won't dislodge the idea from the working herd that the milch-cow is a drudge.
Sharia Law is a disruption. It's doing in other countries what the Amerikan system has been engineered not to do. At the moment it's the only effective strategy on the international table. I'm pretty sure the herd instinctively knows it works, which is probably why the doors are open and the lights are on. It's not that white women want Sharia Law, it's that they need something hard to push against and Sharia is as hard as it gets.
Say what?! Third World shitholes have birth rates far higher than ours.
It's possible, material wealth notwithstanding, their cultures are more healthy than ours.
Somewhat tangential, but I have a nephew heading off to college (I know I know), and he comes from a solid Christian family, going to a Christian school, and I want to give him a (gentle) red-pill care package. I'm already planning on gifting him SJWAL, TIA, and Cuckservatives, but I'm struggling to find a book on Game/SMV from a Christian (or at least a Christian-friendly) perspective. Any recommendations?
It's an older one, but "For Men Only" is good, and of course "Wild at Heart".
Game is game. The use is up to the individual. He will tailor it to his life style. If it is from a Christian perspective, it may less offensive but also much less effective. If he is a Christian, trust the holy spirit to shield him through the harsh realities.
Reality is a messy affair, just get him the truth.
Reality is a messy affair, just get him the truth.
Game is game. The use is up to the individual. He will tailor it to his life style. If it is from a Christian perspective, it may less offensive but also much less effective. If he is a Christian, trust the holy spirit to shield him through the harsh realities.
"It doesn't have to be this way. While the evidence for government programs that encourage people to have more children is mixed, the fact of the matter is that in contemporary America, 40 percent of women have fewer children than they want to."
I keep seeing this $hit in comments about not enough white women or even women, having enough children.
What is it with the reflexive "government program" or "government incentive" or "tax break" response of people? Are we so incredibly programmed that even red-pill sites can't avoid thinking of a fix without turning to a government program?
"much less effective"
You're doing it wrong.
Women have rendered themselves useless. If they cannot be bothered to breed and nurture offspring, the one function for which they were specifically created, then there is no point in letting them consume limited resources that can be better allocated to more productive organisms.
Van Creveld points out in his latest book that one of the side effects of prolonging childhood into the twenties is to decrease the birthrate. All those minimum wage jobs that used to require a High School diploma are now pushing up the fertility rate in foreign countries while young Americans are racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans in order to obtain degrees that prepare them for a job as a barrista at Starbucks.
.
But it doesn't have to be this way.
.
The higher education lobby can't control online education and at least one Western power (Israel) has seen it's fertility rate rise significantly as a result of government policy to address a widely perceived and acknowledged need. Women make a conscious CHOICE to have children, it's not a complicated an unfathomable phenomena like the weather. Women can choose to abort their babies OR they can choose to have more.
http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2013/02/28/israel-demographic-miracle/
Van Creveld points out in his latest book that one of the side effects of prolonging childhood into the twenties is to decrease the birthrate. All those minimum wage jobs that used to require a High School diploma are now pushing up the fertility rate in foreign countries while young Americans are racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans in order to obtain degrees that prepare them for a job as a barrista at Starbucks.
.
But it doesn't have to be this way.
.
The higher education lobby can't control online education and at least one Western power (Israel) has seen it's fertility rate rise significantly as a result of government policy to address a widely perceived and acknowledged need. Women make a conscious CHOICE to have children, it's not a complicated an unfathomable phenomena like the weather. Women can choose to abort their babies OR they can choose to have more.
http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2013/02/28/israel-demographic-miracle/
Russia also managed to raise it's birthrate:
http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/08/how-putin-raised-national-birth-rate.html
The way the American system works. An 18 year old girl spends 4 years in College racking up a $300 000 debt which will take 10 years to pay off and break even at which point she expects to marry and be a stay at home mother? She has given 10 (of her best) years into a venture where she does not profit, all she does is break even, and the men in her orbit are expected to marry her at her depreciated older age instead of her younger age without any sort of gain to such a compromise?
Older educated successful men in their late 20's and 30's should just skip these women and marry the 18 year olds before they hit college. If the enculturation into these women is too entrenched to find one that will marry and bear children at 18, then go overseas to Eastern Europe or Asia to find an 18 year old there (the cultures are would have less such feminist enculturation). If this isn't to your taste and you want a family then go the surrogate route and spend your money on 18 year old escorts for sex. Still a better deal than marrying a woman in her late twenties her wasted her best years working and fucking players only to expect you to put a ring on the aged left-overs.
Somewhat tangential, but I have a nephew heading off to college (I know I know), and he comes from a solid Christian family, going to a Christian school, and I want to give him a (gentle) red-pill care package. I'm already planning on gifting him SJWAL, TIA, and Cuckservatives, but I'm struggling to find a book on Game/SMV from a Christian (or at least a Christian-friendly) perspective. Any recommendations?
If you haven't raised him right he's going to lose his faith at college regardless.
There's no replacement for Heartiste, just tell him ahead of time that it's a warped perspective for a warped world and he'll have to figure out the morality on his own.
If you're mom and this is too much, then Dalrock.
Whoops, I mean if you're auntie.
I haven't seen any game books from a Christian perspective, but the marriedredpill subreddit on reddit is a remarkably good resource for understanding game in the context of long-term relationships.
Well, now we know how planetary depopulation is going to be carried out.
Interesting possible implications from this study.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/aug/02/less-sex-please-were-millennials-study
https://web.archive.org/web/20160812083759/https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/aug/02/less-sex-please-were-millennials-study
1) The research, conducted in the US, found that the percentage of young adults aged between 20 and 24 who reported having no sexual partner after the age of 18 increased from 6% among those born in the 1960s, to 15% of young adults born in the 1990s.
2) The trend was also greater for women than for men: the authors found that 2.3% of women born in the 1960s are sexually inactive, compared to 5.4% of those born in the 1990s. That, the authors suggest, could in part be down to a rise in so-called virginity pledges as well as concerns about social stigma.
(5.4 +x)/2=15
x=(15*2)-5.4
x=24.6
24.6 % of male adults aged between 20 and 24 report having no sexual partner, compared with 5.4% for female adults aged between 20 and 24.
Either:
1) This is evidence that younger women are having sex with men outside their age group.
OR
2) This is evidence that women within their age group are fucking just a few men.
Neither is good for the feminist narrative.
Obviously though, someone should go through and try and find the data for this study because this category
"the percentage of young adults aged between 20 and 24 who reported having no sexual partner after the age of 18"
does not necessarily equal this category
"women born in the 1960s are sexually inactive,"
They're quite useless. I've been meeting a lot of single, childless women 20s-40s over the last several years. While they can be fun in bed, they serve no other purpose as far as I can tell than serving as useful consumer units, bolshevik voters, and giant digestive bags.
"Well, now we know how planetary depopulation is going to be carried out."
"Planetary"? No, this is aimed at predominantly White countries (and Japan - collateral damage).
True, Laguna Beach Fogey. And many if not most are willing or enthusiastic about being outright prostitutes. Even if they have boyfriends.
"Planetary"? No, this is aimed at predominantly White countries (and Japan - collateral damage).
It appears to have been broadened to all countries other than Sub-Saharan African and Muslim ones. Brazil is below replacement, China has of course been for a while, and India and Mexico are about to be. (India's Hindu population may be there already.)
You can only fix yourself. My sons sought out, found and married girls predisposed to join them in the life they consciously desired. It was the life they watched their mom & me live.
Lead by example or go away.
Bên đây http://taiphanmem.com.vn miễn phí
I found this ebook over at Donal Graeme's site, and I think this might be the Christian red-pill SMV primer I was wanting:
A Christian Man's Guide to Love and Marriage
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.