There is a solution. It just won't be implemented because we'd rather destroy human civilization than allow a single woman to be inconvenienced. Controlling women's Chad chasing like all functioning civilizations in history did would make the birth rate problem disappear. It's not the utopia that a lot of men imagine (women resented the fuck out of their betabux husbands and dead bedroomed them in old times too) but at least it was functional, which is more than can be said about the current clown show.
the right especially they pretend to be friends of men but they are very much on side with the TERF attitude towards men and constantly treat men as if they're the bad guys. Then they wonder why men want nothing to do with women and won't side with them generally.
That is because all civilizations despise weak men. The fact that the institutions cultivate weak men, and incentivize weak men, changes nothing.
This is basically the problem with Men's Liberation. You are never going to get the equality, and you are never going to get the sympathy. Men, literally, just have to become stronger and more stoic. Society acted like an abusive wife and berated men into becoming snake-bitten, thus proving the shit test true. Men just have to push right past it, and build the anti-parallel civilization that needs to be built from scratch.
Fascism and Monarchism can still, very much, promote weak men, and often do. This is because they are highly authoritarian, and authoritarianism promotes emotional incontinence as well as submission to the ruling orthodoxy or intuitions.
Nah. 100% wrong. They're aren't good women and bad women and there is no real filtering effect. There are good environments and bad environments. Women are whores in bad environments and they settle down and have children in good environments.
The fix is simple: no university, no career, no political office. no voting. why are they doing all of those things anyway instead of having children? Bring their options back in line with sane reality and build a healthy, positive environment around large families with both mother and father.
I agree with the general direction here but there's definitely a difference between bad women and less-bad women, and implying that they're merely a product of their environment just sounds like another way to spare them from accountability for their actions. If you're looking for a wife, you should be a little more selective than just "she wants to be a stay-at-home mom and have kids so she's perfect".
women are not having children because they have other options. they like those options: enslave men to the state and be a whore. get a job. go to university. obviously you have to remove their right to vote or hold office first and foremost, to get any of this done.
to fix the birth rate catastrophe, remove their options. No university. No career. No welfare. Submit to a man and begin having children.
when we're somewhere back to 4-5 children per family we can re-evaluate. maybe.
In an agrarian society children were assets, because they provided a workforce for the family once they got old enough. As the makeup of our society changed in the 20th century they shifted from an asset to a liability, with the only "return on investment" being that they will potentially care for their parents in old age, which is not guaranteed because our society doesn't place a heavy stigma on stashing your parents in an old folks home to die.
Faced with that reality, the only people having children are those that really want them for the sake of having a child in and of itself, and poor scumbags who don't practice birth control (see Idiocracy).
If any researcher dared to check, they would quickly discover that collapsing birthrates correlate virtually 1 to 1 with feminism. When your society encourages rampant promiscuity (under birth control) as well as careerism among women during their most fertile years, there is no avoiding a birth rate collapse. The dysgenics of middle-aged baby-making only accelerate this process; 40+ year old boss bitches are cranking out disabled babies that go on to burden society even further.
Feminism is literally a civilization-wide death cult, and I don’t think it can be reversed. Can you fathom enlightened and compassionate white peoples just casually reversing “muh women’s rights”? Of course not. The whites who have been infected by the feminist mind virus will simply die out, having been replaced mostly by non-whites who adhere to superior cultural beliefs - like procreating in order to sustain your culture.
The most important thing to understand in all of this is how it happened. Dysgenic behaviors are not evolved organically. They are learned. So who taught white people to hate themselves? Who was in a position to indoctrinate white youth into suicidal ideologies? Who financially and socially enforced anti-white cultural norms? Who successfully attacked white peoples, cultures, and nations without triggering their natural self defenses?
Absolutely, could you imagine if someone discovered in the construction that you can’t vote if you take in more from welfare than you pay out in income taxes? The raging wouldn’t end until an amendment was passed that changed that. And that’s just preventing leaches from voting.
America and the west have Sovietized. Only a complete collapse of the system will fix the problem.
Can you fathom enlightened and compassionate white peoples just casually reversing “muh women’s rights”?
Not the enlightened ones, but I can definitely see churches reining women in as the continue to build toward independence. I think Doug Wilson just put out a video about the Biblical case for why women shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Church messaging works on the midwit curve. In this case, the 85 IQ message is "vote how your husband tells you." The 115 IQ message is "vote how your husband tells you to strengthen his household, because you shouldn't be voting at all."
The message isn't "God-fearing women stop voting."
Feminism is literally a civilization-wide death cult,
I haven't gotten around to reading the second sex by Simone de buvoir but wasn't that the point from the original creators of feminism?
They were very open about wanting to destroy western white Christian patriarchal civilization, but they also incorrectly believed they could replace it with their own feminist utopia.
Climate Change for the right. They can't scare you with the weather, so they'll claim there's "no babies".
The real problem is just "no white babies", or more succinctly, not enough babies that aren't going to turn out to be total retards and civilizational invalids.
It also doesn't help when your shit-tard of a husband dumps you with three little kids and you get lumped into the "nasty single mother" category, as if it's always a choice.
Fucktards forget that wars made LOTS of single moms.
I've never objected to that. My issue has always been that the White Nationalist narrative towards whites and a Pan-European concept has never made sense, particularly in a Liberal Civic National Republic like the US.
Ireland, Scotland, England, and Wales? Those are Ethno-monarchies. Of course the indigenous people have a right to collectivize and defend their land.
Americans are American. That is first a Civic identity formed along our Lockean Liberal values. In time, American will be recognized as a separate ethnic group as the populations settle, but it is not merely a white ethnic group because it is American. Or, as you might call it, Amerimutt. The "White Nationalism" being preached is a bastardization of German National Socialism fist-fucked into a country that never accepted it, and saw it as an enemy ideology within it's own borders; because it is.
Americans are American. That is first a Civic identity formed along our Lockean Liberal values. In time, American will be recognized as a separate ethnic group as the populations settle, but it is not merely a white ethnic group because it is American. Or, as you might call it, Amerimutt. The "White Nationalism" being preached is a bastardization of German National Socialism fist-fucked into a country that never accepted it, and saw it as an enemy ideology within it's own borders; because it is.
This is probably your most retarded comment ever. It completely betrays every subversive idea informing and animating your posts on this forum. It’s not even worth our time dissecting it. You spelled it all out.
Lmao you sound like black supremacist arguing that nobody should question the degenerate behavior of black communities. Yes western society has become toxic and self destructive
You're not hearing me. No race in the west has increasing birth rates because our culture is a black-hole of depopulation demographics.
As for the rest of the world, Neo-Liberal cultural morays are basically causing decreasing birth rates everywhere on Earth, including in the not-west. Even in Africa, even in Israel. Everywhere.
I'm well aware that you'll be hunting "counter-revolutionary whites". You are always the first race traitors: betraying your kind for an ideology designed to cover-over your insecurities and satiate your passions with impotent rage.
You wouldn't need a resentment-mongering historical dialectic if you just took care of yourself.
You don't have to be that old to remember that in the not-too-distant past we were told by "experts" (the usual gaggle of clueless assholes) that we were doomed because of a population explosion headed our way. The Malthusian paradigm was based on some mathematical calculation that I forget, demonstrating to the "experts" and the gullible and paranoid that we would soon multiply our asses into the sea. The 1968 book "The Population Bomb" by Paul Erlich was seized upon by the the "environmental movement" ("mental" is about right) and advanced this lie that most people believed until the facts proved it wrong. To this day, some still believe it.
It was a colossal hoax similar to the global warming/"climate change" horse manure we are currently trying to shake off (with some small recent success).
White birth rates fell below replacement in nearly all White countries between 1970 and 1990.
With abysmal fertility index hoovering between 1.2 to 1.8 children per White couple, effectively shrinking each next cohort by ~30 % - 40%.
If White ethnicities were evaluated like we view the importance of protecting biodiversity, we would all be classified as in danger of extinction for having a generational decrease of 30% or more, with introduction of other subspecies causing additional pressure and genetic pollution.
The elites : ''Lol let's just import invasive subspecies''.
The funny thing is that the illegals they expect to be the new serf class will fuck off home than stay when not enough educated natives to keep the systems and infrastructure going exist leaving these ivory tower narcissists alone in the dark with their cats.
I feel sorry for those cats...I'm just glad it's them than dogs though...
We do need to focus on homeschooling though as you know they'll target the ones that still have multiple kids, the religious class so Catholics, Protestants etc and try to indoctrinate them. That will be the start not the end game though as look how much the US government currently targets the Amish.
There is no birth rate crisis. There is a population correction. It ebbs and flows.
Lower population = better conditions = birth rates go back up. It's a cycle.
Megacorps don't want this. They want infinitely growing labor (hence why immigrants and women are now flooding the workplace) so they don't have to pay wages, and they want infinite economic growth so their 1 number they worship (share price) goes up - forever.
They only want the peaks and not the pits, and are attempting to pour garbage into the pits to fill them up. But that garbage has no business being in the labor supply.
Lower population = better conditions = birth rates go back up. It's a cycle.
First, we don't know this, no society has ever reached this stage of the demographic transition model. We're barely entering stage 5 (declining), which wasn't even a thing 20 years ago.
The reason natality originally went down, is actually because of better conditions and healthcare (Stage 2 and 3), so what you're saying is wrong according to the history of all societies.
Imagine believing countries would go down to 0 population solely because birth rates are low right now, without any kind of ebb and flow.
You can't refer to history since no country-size population has ever died out due to low birth rates.
Finally, the perpetrators of the mass replacement admit their objectives: economic growth. It's that simple. They literally say: "but how will we drive the economy?"
They aren't just "low" though. A good chunk of developed countries have 1.5 children per woman, that means we're losing 1 people over 4 every generation. Canada is at 1.3, so it's 1 people over 3. The worst one, South Korea, is at 0.68 children per woman, that means that every generation, they will lose 2 out of 3 people.
So far, the birth-rates are still decreasing steadily year after year, and there's no sign it's going to stop soon.
And yes, if you have less and less people every generation, it will eventually
You can't refer to history since no country-size population has ever died out due to low birth rates.
My point was addressing your "Better conditions = birth rates go back up". The first and main reason birth rates started to decrease massively, is because of better health care and conditions (people live longer, and children mortality has massively decreased). All developed countries have very low birth rates, while they all have good if not very good living conditions. Almost all poor countries have very high birth rates, in the contrary.
Finally, the perpetrators of the mass replacement admit their objectives: economic growth. It's that simple. They literally say: "but how will we drive the economy?"
Do you think they are perfect and everything? Do you think they can predict absolutely everything and understand the consequences of each action they take? No, I don't think so. They want money, and chose the short term goal to max their money without care for humanity in the next 50 years.
They pushed feminism so that women enter the job market and reduce wages while increasing the number of consumers (so both reducing cost, and increasing profits), and they probably never thought nor cared if it would collapse birthrates even further.
judeo-commies subvert society into falling birthrates by destroying the family unit, then gaslights us on the cause and how to "fix" it through mass immigration.
The disaster would be that modern economy / logistics / etc. are made for current population. Any society made for X number of people, but suddenly losing 80% of it in a few generations, would collapse. If you could scale everything down, it could be feasible, but with companies focused on growth and making more money year after year, they would drop your country and focus on countries with still on-going growth (further escalating things further).
Robotics and AI research are quickly adding in the billions of dollars, and that's not even talking about implementing it in businesses, how are you supposed to find that much personal, money and resources, if you have 20% of today's population?
Didn't say the contrary, but if the economy is adapted toward 100 people, then suddenly you have 10k, the economy won't be able to follow and a crisis is inevitable. Same if go you from 10k to 100 people. Also, big companies don't care about the people, they care about their money. People, to them, are just a way to get more money.
The disaster lies in the demographic shift. You can’t “lead the charge” to reduce the population without suiciding your own peoples, cultures, and nations first. If imported/invading demographics are cranking out 5+ kids per household while your own demographic is voluntarily going below replacement, then the population of your county will shift drastically towards the foreigners. And as they gain the power of the majority, why would they change course? You’ve surrendered your political and cultural power to them while hoping for reciprocity, and they are laughing at you for being conquered without firing a single shot.
It’s basically the mirror image of immigration before and after Hart Cellar. When immigration was proportional to existing demographics, it did not impact the political or cultural landscape. That was a problem for people who wanted the political and cultural landscape to change. So they passed a bill to lift the proportional requirements, and lo and behold! Immigration became the political and cultural weapon they needed.
Whites have been duped into fatal self-sacrifice under the guise of “leading by example”. This is why I fucking hate it when someone “cleverly” tells a white leftist to “go first”. Leftist whites are absolutely walking the walk with respect to the elimination of white peoples, cultures, and nations.
The Guardian is right in that, it is inevitable. Feminism has done this and there is no recovering until women suffer the consequences of their actions. The only hope is that the next society that arises from the ashes of this one learn from us.
I don't think there's a crisis. It's like a forest gets big and old and every so often there's a fire and it mostly burns down and then new trees spring up.
The US population in 1980 was 220ish million people. We're at 330M as of 2020. So forty years later it increased by 50%.
Id wager most people society can function just fine without. And I don't mean kids or elderly. I mean income earning aged adults.
Been to a restaurant and seen ten people on the floor when 3 could run the whole place? We have a LOT of dead weight population just existing, using infrastructure, sucking the government tit, producing little of value.
Remove the welfare state and population growth would be contained to only productive people raising eventual productive children.
Instead we get welfare queens popping out half a dozen gremlins who commit crime. We can manage with half our current population of it's the functional half.
I don't think there's a crisis. It's like a forest gets big and old and every so often there's a fire and it mostly burns down and then new trees spring up.
If all of the new trees are members of an invasive species, then no, the “cleansing fire” wasn’t good for that forest.
As somewhat of an ecologist here, yeah, that’s basically what happens.
Or, somewhat more broadly, if the fire is intense enough, you go from a climax community (say, a rainforest) right back to early-stage succession, with things like weeds and/or native small shrubs.
It takes centuries for that rainforest to return, if ever…
Exceptions for the dry schlerophyll forests of places like Australia, but that’s almost certainly because the Abos burned the place so thoroughly, 10s of thousands of years ago, and it was already so dry anyway, that it was never able to recover to the vegetation levels it likely had beforehand…
To take a human metaphor, let’s go with somewhere like Japan, or alternatively Iceland. You have a largely homogenous society (excluding the Ainu here, for Japan, but still), built up over centuries, that is reasonable stable and successful (again, excluding the issue of birth rates). Then a crisis happens (WW2), and you end up with “disruption” to that society, and the large-scale arrival of foreigners.
Unlikely that it can ever return to its original “base” situation. Once they’re in, they’re in.
Unfortunately many countries created the circumstances that led to this situation by themselves, with the whole… Marriage and birth rates thing.
There is a solution. It just won't be implemented because we'd rather destroy human civilization than allow a single woman to be inconvenienced. Controlling women's Chad chasing like all functioning civilizations in history did would make the birth rate problem disappear. It's not the utopia that a lot of men imagine (women resented the fuck out of their betabux husbands and dead bedroomed them in old times too) but at least it was functional, which is more than can be said about the current clown show.
Pajeet, is that you?
Comment Reported for: Rule 15 - Slurs
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Do not tell users to kill themselves.
That is because all civilizations despise weak men. The fact that the institutions cultivate weak men, and incentivize weak men, changes nothing.
This is basically the problem with Men's Liberation. You are never going to get the equality, and you are never going to get the sympathy. Men, literally, just have to become stronger and more stoic. Society acted like an abusive wife and berated men into becoming snake-bitten, thus proving the shit test true. Men just have to push right past it, and build the anti-parallel civilization that needs to be built from scratch.
Fascism and Monarchism can still, very much, promote weak men, and often do. This is because they are highly authoritarian, and authoritarianism promotes emotional incontinence as well as submission to the ruling orthodoxy or intuitions.
Nah. 100% wrong. They're aren't good women and bad women and there is no real filtering effect. There are good environments and bad environments. Women are whores in bad environments and they settle down and have children in good environments.
The fix is simple: no university, no career, no political office. no voting. why are they doing all of those things anyway instead of having children? Bring their options back in line with sane reality and build a healthy, positive environment around large families with both mother and father.
I agree with the general direction here but there's definitely a difference between bad women and less-bad women, and implying that they're merely a product of their environment just sounds like another way to spare them from accountability for their actions. If you're looking for a wife, you should be a little more selective than just "she wants to be a stay-at-home mom and have kids so she's perfect".
OK, correct, but be explicit.
women are not having children because they have other options. they like those options: enslave men to the state and be a whore. get a job. go to university. obviously you have to remove their right to vote or hold office first and foremost, to get any of this done.
to fix the birth rate catastrophe, remove their options. No university. No career. No welfare. Submit to a man and begin having children.
when we're somewhere back to 4-5 children per family we can re-evaluate. maybe.
It's more than just that. The cost to raise a child from birth through college is now astronomical. This article says the per-year cost is 41% more in 2024 than it was eight years ago: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-kids-cost-raising-child-inflation-childcare-tax-exemptions-2024-1
In an agrarian society children were assets, because they provided a workforce for the family once they got old enough. As the makeup of our society changed in the 20th century they shifted from an asset to a liability, with the only "return on investment" being that they will potentially care for their parents in old age, which is not guaranteed because our society doesn't place a heavy stigma on stashing your parents in an old folks home to die.
Faced with that reality, the only people having children are those that really want them for the sake of having a child in and of itself, and poor scumbags who don't practice birth control (see Idiocracy).
This sounds like a bullshit number they made up to demoralize people from having kids.
We talking total cost or per year, because if that's total then that sounds really fucking affordable.
This and just making the economy and future prospects not shit. Rent culture and debt dont inspire people to make families either.
If any researcher dared to check, they would quickly discover that collapsing birthrates correlate virtually 1 to 1 with feminism. When your society encourages rampant promiscuity (under birth control) as well as careerism among women during their most fertile years, there is no avoiding a birth rate collapse. The dysgenics of middle-aged baby-making only accelerate this process; 40+ year old boss bitches are cranking out disabled babies that go on to burden society even further.
Feminism is literally a civilization-wide death cult, and I don’t think it can be reversed. Can you fathom enlightened and compassionate white peoples just casually reversing “muh women’s rights”? Of course not. The whites who have been infected by the feminist mind virus will simply die out, having been replaced mostly by non-whites who adhere to superior cultural beliefs - like procreating in order to sustain your culture.
The most important thing to understand in all of this is how it happened. Dysgenic behaviors are not evolved organically. They are learned. So who taught white people to hate themselves? Who was in a position to indoctrinate white youth into suicidal ideologies? Who financially and socially enforced anti-white cultural norms? Who successfully attacked white peoples, cultures, and nations without triggering their natural self defenses?
Absolutely, could you imagine if someone discovered in the construction that you can’t vote if you take in more from welfare than you pay out in income taxes? The raging wouldn’t end until an amendment was passed that changed that. And that’s just preventing leaches from voting.
America and the west have Sovietized. Only a complete collapse of the system will fix the problem.
Not the enlightened ones, but I can definitely see churches reining women in as the continue to build toward independence. I think Doug Wilson just put out a video about the Biblical case for why women shouldn't be allowed to vote.
It makes no sense for a church to dissuade women from voting. If any women are voting, then you definitely want all religious women voting.
Church messaging works on the midwit curve. In this case, the 85 IQ message is "vote how your husband tells you." The 115 IQ message is "vote how your husband tells you to strengthen his household, because you shouldn't be voting at all."
The message isn't "God-fearing women stop voting."
They were very open about wanting to destroy western white Christian patriarchal civilization, but they also incorrectly believed they could replace it with their own feminist utopia.
Climate Change for the right. They can't scare you with the weather, so they'll claim there's "no babies".
The real problem is just "no white babies", or more succinctly, not enough babies that aren't going to turn out to be total retards and civilizational invalids.
"Don't have kids if you can't afford them!"
"Okay."
(surprised Pikachu when people take responsibility and choose not to have kids if it'll send them into poverty)
Gee maybe killing off the middle class was a mistake?
It also doesn't help when your shit-tard of a husband dumps you with three little kids and you get lumped into the "nasty single mother" category, as if it's always a choice.
Fucktards forget that wars made LOTS of single moms.
This comment is retarded. Military widows are obviously not the “single moms” contributing to the epidemic of antisocial feral children.
And you missed my point that once you're a single mom, you get lumped into the "you chose it" or "it's your fault, bitch" category no matter what.
No, it's literally "no babies". Even immigrant demographics are having less children.
Western society is so toxic it is a self-destroying black hole of demographics. The population of all birth-rates in the west is falling off a cliff.
"in the west"
Which means the scum countries are having lots. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
The world was actually a better place 4 billion humans ago.
Ignore him, he's anti-white.
Bullshit, and you know it. Show me once where I have not explicitly attacked anti-white rhetoric.
You have a long history of coming into threads and arguing against whites who start to develop a sense of self preservation.
You're lying and you know it.
I've never objected to that. My issue has always been that the White Nationalist narrative towards whites and a Pan-European concept has never made sense, particularly in a Liberal Civic National Republic like the US.
Ireland, Scotland, England, and Wales? Those are Ethno-monarchies. Of course the indigenous people have a right to collectivize and defend their land.
Americans are American. That is first a Civic identity formed along our Lockean Liberal values. In time, American will be recognized as a separate ethnic group as the populations settle, but it is not merely a white ethnic group because it is American. Or, as you might call it, Amerimutt. The "White Nationalism" being preached is a bastardization of German National Socialism fist-fucked into a country that never accepted it, and saw it as an enemy ideology within it's own borders; because it is.
"You're lying" > Proceeds to provide an example of my assertion.
Get the fuck out of here you word wall snake.
This is probably your most retarded comment ever. It completely betrays every subversive idea informing and animating your posts on this forum. It’s not even worth our time dissecting it. You spelled it all out.
Lmao you sound like black supremacist arguing that nobody should question the degenerate behavior of black communities. Yes western society has become toxic and self destructive
You're not hearing me. No race in the west has increasing birth rates because our culture is a black-hole of depopulation demographics.
As for the rest of the world, Neo-Liberal cultural morays are basically causing decreasing birth rates everywhere on Earth, including in the not-west. Even in Africa, even in Israel. Everywhere.
GOOD.
I don't see that as a bad thing.
THE WORLD WAS A BETTER PLACE FOUR BILLION RETARDS AGO.
Didn't you just whine about being anti white. Why are you so happy white people aren't having kids if you care so much about being pro white
Okay cool, then you admit that you are wrong.
And please, if you're going to push for depopulation, you need to volunteer.
Fuck you, I'll be hunting your kind.
I'm well aware that you'll be hunting "counter-revolutionary whites". You are always the first race traitors: betraying your kind for an ideology designed to cover-over your insecurities and satiate your passions with impotent rage.
You wouldn't need a resentment-mongering historical dialectic if you just took care of yourself.
You don't have to be that old to remember that in the not-too-distant past we were told by "experts" (the usual gaggle of clueless assholes) that we were doomed because of a population explosion headed our way. The Malthusian paradigm was based on some mathematical calculation that I forget, demonstrating to the "experts" and the gullible and paranoid that we would soon multiply our asses into the sea. The 1968 book "The Population Bomb" by Paul Erlich was seized upon by the the "environmental movement" ("mental" is about right) and advanced this lie that most people believed until the facts proved it wrong. To this day, some still believe it.
It was a colossal hoax similar to the global warming/"climate change" horse manure we are currently trying to shake off (with some small recent success).
White birth rates fell below replacement in nearly all White countries between 1970 and 1990.
With abysmal fertility index hoovering between 1.2 to 1.8 children per White couple, effectively shrinking each next cohort by ~30 % - 40%.
If White ethnicities were evaluated like we view the importance of protecting biodiversity, we would all be classified as in danger of extinction for having a generational decrease of 30% or more, with introduction of other subspecies causing additional pressure and genetic pollution.
The elites : ''Lol let's just import invasive subspecies''.
Feminism.
This was done to us.
Whodunnit?
The funny thing is that the illegals they expect to be the new serf class will fuck off home than stay when not enough educated natives to keep the systems and infrastructure going exist leaving these ivory tower narcissists alone in the dark with their cats.
I feel sorry for those cats...I'm just glad it's them than dogs though...
We do need to focus on homeschooling though as you know they'll target the ones that still have multiple kids, the religious class so Catholics, Protestants etc and try to indoctrinate them. That will be the start not the end game though as look how much the US government currently targets the Amish.
Cats will just eat the corpse if they're hungry enough.
If you think it's still "cat ladies" you're very out of date. Designer breeds has made doodle dogs insanely popular with dried up lonely women.
I just don't want dogs near lonely women, you know Dev is working on a 'dog pill 2' video and I'm going "THERE'S ENOUGH CONTENT FOR A SECOND VIDEO!!!"
I have no idea what that is but I have a feeling that's a good thing and the less I know, the better.
Sometimes, ignorance is bliss...
There is no birth rate crisis. There is a population correction. It ebbs and flows.
Lower population = better conditions = birth rates go back up. It's a cycle.
Megacorps don't want this. They want infinitely growing labor (hence why immigrants and women are now flooding the workplace) so they don't have to pay wages, and they want infinite economic growth so their 1 number they worship (share price) goes up - forever.
They only want the peaks and not the pits, and are attempting to pour garbage into the pits to fill them up. But that garbage has no business being in the labor supply.
First, we don't know this, no society has ever reached this stage of the demographic transition model. We're barely entering stage 5 (declining), which wasn't even a thing 20 years ago.
The reason natality originally went down, is actually because of better conditions and healthcare (Stage 2 and 3), so what you're saying is wrong according to the history of all societies.
Imagine believing countries would go down to 0 population solely because birth rates are low right now, without any kind of ebb and flow.
You can't refer to history since no country-size population has ever died out due to low birth rates.
Finally, the perpetrators of the mass replacement admit their objectives: economic growth. It's that simple. They literally say: "but how will we drive the economy?"
They aren't just "low" though. A good chunk of developed countries have 1.5 children per woman, that means we're losing 1 people over 4 every generation. Canada is at 1.3, so it's 1 people over 3. The worst one, South Korea, is at 0.68 children per woman, that means that every generation, they will lose 2 out of 3 people.
So far, the birth-rates are still decreasing steadily year after year, and there's no sign it's going to stop soon.
And yes, if you have less and less people every generation, it will eventually
My point was addressing your "Better conditions = birth rates go back up". The first and main reason birth rates started to decrease massively, is because of better health care and conditions (people live longer, and children mortality has massively decreased). All developed countries have very low birth rates, while they all have good if not very good living conditions. Almost all poor countries have very high birth rates, in the contrary.
Do you think they are perfect and everything? Do you think they can predict absolutely everything and understand the consequences of each action they take? No, I don't think so. They want money, and chose the short term goal to max their money without care for humanity in the next 50 years.
They pushed feminism so that women enter the job market and reduce wages while increasing the number of consumers (so both reducing cost, and increasing profits), and they probably never thought nor cared if it would collapse birthrates even further.
judeo-commies subvert society into falling birthrates by destroying the family unit, then gaslights us on the cause and how to "fix" it through mass immigration.
just another day in clown world
I don't understand why it would be a disaster to go back to 1900s population levels. Especially with automation and robotics picking up the slack.
The disaster would be that modern economy / logistics / etc. are made for current population. Any society made for X number of people, but suddenly losing 80% of it in a few generations, would collapse. If you could scale everything down, it could be feasible, but with companies focused on growth and making more money year after year, they would drop your country and focus on countries with still on-going growth (further escalating things further).
Robotics and AI research are quickly adding in the billions of dollars, and that's not even talking about implementing it in businesses, how are you supposed to find that much personal, money and resources, if you have 20% of today's population?
Economies should be made for the people, and not people for the economies.
Didn't say the contrary, but if the economy is adapted toward 100 people, then suddenly you have 10k, the economy won't be able to follow and a crisis is inevitable. Same if go you from 10k to 100 people. Also, big companies don't care about the people, they care about their money. People, to them, are just a way to get more money.
The disaster lies in the demographic shift. You can’t “lead the charge” to reduce the population without suiciding your own peoples, cultures, and nations first. If imported/invading demographics are cranking out 5+ kids per household while your own demographic is voluntarily going below replacement, then the population of your county will shift drastically towards the foreigners. And as they gain the power of the majority, why would they change course? You’ve surrendered your political and cultural power to them while hoping for reciprocity, and they are laughing at you for being conquered without firing a single shot.
It’s basically the mirror image of immigration before and after Hart Cellar. When immigration was proportional to existing demographics, it did not impact the political or cultural landscape. That was a problem for people who wanted the political and cultural landscape to change. So they passed a bill to lift the proportional requirements, and lo and behold! Immigration became the political and cultural weapon they needed.
Whites have been duped into fatal self-sacrifice under the guise of “leading by example”. This is why I fucking hate it when someone “cleverly” tells a white leftist to “go first”. Leftist whites are absolutely walking the walk with respect to the elimination of white peoples, cultures, and nations.
Whether or not I have kids is no politician's business.
The Guardian is right in that, it is inevitable. Feminism has done this and there is no recovering until women suffer the consequences of their actions. The only hope is that the next society that arises from the ashes of this one learn from us.
I don't think there's a crisis. It's like a forest gets big and old and every so often there's a fire and it mostly burns down and then new trees spring up.
The US population in 1980 was 220ish million people. We're at 330M as of 2020. So forty years later it increased by 50%.
Id wager most people society can function just fine without. And I don't mean kids or elderly. I mean income earning aged adults.
Been to a restaurant and seen ten people on the floor when 3 could run the whole place? We have a LOT of dead weight population just existing, using infrastructure, sucking the government tit, producing little of value.
Remove the welfare state and population growth would be contained to only productive people raising eventual productive children.
Instead we get welfare queens popping out half a dozen gremlins who commit crime. We can manage with half our current population of it's the functional half.
If all of the new trees are members of an invasive species, then no, the “cleansing fire” wasn’t good for that forest.
But that is a different problem entirely.
The native population not breeding is NOT the same as migrants coming in.
Both are problems, and both deal with population, but one does not lead to the other.
From a sheer numbers perspective, there is no problem.
The only problem is what you said, that it'll be a new population with different values. SO GET FUCKING.
As somewhat of an ecologist here, yeah, that’s basically what happens.
Or, somewhat more broadly, if the fire is intense enough, you go from a climax community (say, a rainforest) right back to early-stage succession, with things like weeds and/or native small shrubs.
It takes centuries for that rainforest to return, if ever…
Exceptions for the dry schlerophyll forests of places like Australia, but that’s almost certainly because the Abos burned the place so thoroughly, 10s of thousands of years ago, and it was already so dry anyway, that it was never able to recover to the vegetation levels it likely had beforehand…
To take a human metaphor, let’s go with somewhere like Japan, or alternatively Iceland. You have a largely homogenous society (excluding the Ainu here, for Japan, but still), built up over centuries, that is reasonable stable and successful (again, excluding the issue of birth rates). Then a crisis happens (WW2), and you end up with “disruption” to that society, and the large-scale arrival of foreigners.
Unlikely that it can ever return to its original “base” situation. Once they’re in, they’re in.
Unfortunately many countries created the circumstances that led to this situation by themselves, with the whole… Marriage and birth rates thing.