The way you incentivize kids is mass deportations and cleaning up the streets. People had no problem reproducing when they lived in high trust societies. When our countries were allowed to turn into, "I wouldn't want a kid to grow up in this," is the inflection point.
Yes, banning immigration and deporting non-Whites helps a lot but it's not the only reason.
Men don't want relationships with women who can deny them sex and then leave for whatever reason, while getting half his stuff, alimony and child support. Why would any man take that risk for literally nothing to gain? So men aren't doing it.
Many women on the other hand already have all the resources they need from men thanks to the government's taxation of men and subsidies toward women so they would much rather fuck hot men (who won't marry them) rather than settle down with a stable good man who can provide (since the government does it for them).
This destroys birth rates.
China and India have low birth rates and you're telling me it's because of foreigners? It's not. The high trust thing is a scapegoat to ignore dealing with the bigger issue. Current tax laws, divorce laws and social programs make children pointless and unaffordable for people so they don't have kids.
That's fair. I think that no-fault divorce turning marriage into what it is now might be one of the biggest contributors to becoming a low-trust society. We usually focus on the demographic aspect but having to be on guard about anyone who shows interest in a relationship because the government turned you into a loot box is catastrophic for social trust.
No, the no fault thing is another distraction. No one wants to stay married to someone they don't want to be married to. What we need to do is stop giving incentive to not be married to someone.
Start looking at marriage like a contract and start analyzing the leverage either side has over the other. What you'll find is men had all their leverage over women removed thanks to the government and this is what destroyed everything. Now women have all the leverage, so what good is marriage? Women can get fat, not provide sex and leave at any time without notice then get REWARDED for it.
Stop rewarding women for leaving marriages and give men leverage over women in a marriage then you'll start seeing more marriages and children.
Women ARE NOT anywhere near as productive as men but the Civil Rights Act, DEI initiatives and SOCIAL PROGRAMS and GOVERNMENT SPENDING makes it such that man's natural advantages over women are cancelled out by the government. The government taxes men for their superior productivity and gives the benefit of this productivity to women. Why do women need men? They don't. A woman needs a strong government to steal from men, she doesn't need no man.
If you're having a hard time understanding what I'm saying then let me spell it out a bit better. A woman goes to a public k-12 and gets an education. This is all paid for by taxing men. The woman then gets a student loan which is backed by the government and that backing is based on the taxation of men. Using this student loan the woman goes to post secondary school, let's say to become a social worker because she lacks the intelligence and capabiliy of being anything else. She now takes a 2-year program that has subsidized tuition (she isn't paying full tuition), thanks to the government taxing men to subsidize the tuition. After, she graduates, she gets a job working for a Not-For-Profit social group. This NFP is subsidized by the government to stay functioning and that subsidy from the government comes from taxing men. The woman is getting paid an income to be "independent from men" that has since she was 5 years old been entirely 100% subsidized and paid for thanks to the government taxing men.
If we remove ALL these social programs and government subsidies what then happens? Now, the woman who isn't actually very useful at anything starts looking for a man to marry and men now have their after tax income nearly double because they aren't being taxed to support these women.
Men pay nearly all the taxes and women receive nearly all the benefits. By doing this we've destroyed men's purpose to women and reduced any leverage a man might have in a relationship to ensure the woman marries him and stays with him.
Imagine if we removed 50/50 division of assets, we got rid of alimony and we got rid of child support. Imagine we stopped taxing men to give toward social programs that mainly benefit women. What would happen? Now, the pretty dumb girls wouldn't be going to school to get a worthless psychology degree so they can not need no man, these women will focus on making themselves exactly what men want so they can attract a man. In order to ensure the man stays with her, she'll want to get married and have kids with him because men are more likely to want to keep her around if she's raising his kids for him. The man, knowing she can't leave him and benefit from it won't fear having kids with the women anymore. The women knowing she can't afford to lose the man will ensure she doesn't get fat and she'll practice her blowjobs everyday watching how-to videos and getting practice dildos to make sure her man never wants to leave her because she now needs him.
This is how you improve family life and increase birth rates. You remove the government that women are using as a crutch right now to ensure they don't need men. We need women to need men or children won't happen and marriages/relationships will be an unhappy event (what's going on right now thanks to the government). Get the government out of relationships and you'll fix relationships.
This is naive beyond belief. Nobody will just go back to tradcucked stupidity. Also, any tax savings will be poured into "supporting children" like they are currently.
The way you incentivize kids is mass deportations and cleaning up the streets. People had no problem reproducing when they lived in high trust societies. When our countries were allowed to turn into, "I wouldn't want a kid to grow up in this," is the inflection point.
Yes, banning immigration and deporting non-Whites helps a lot but it's not the only reason.
Men don't want relationships with women who can deny them sex and then leave for whatever reason, while getting half his stuff, alimony and child support. Why would any man take that risk for literally nothing to gain? So men aren't doing it.
Many women on the other hand already have all the resources they need from men thanks to the government's taxation of men and subsidies toward women so they would much rather fuck hot men (who won't marry them) rather than settle down with a stable good man who can provide (since the government does it for them).
This destroys birth rates.
China and India have low birth rates and you're telling me it's because of foreigners? It's not. The high trust thing is a scapegoat to ignore dealing with the bigger issue. Current tax laws, divorce laws and social programs make children pointless and unaffordable for people so they don't have kids.
That's fair. I think that no-fault divorce turning marriage into what it is now might be one of the biggest contributors to becoming a low-trust society. We usually focus on the demographic aspect but having to be on guard about anyone who shows interest in a relationship because the government turned you into a loot box is catastrophic for social trust.
No, the no fault thing is another distraction. No one wants to stay married to someone they don't want to be married to. What we need to do is stop giving incentive to not be married to someone.
Start looking at marriage like a contract and start analyzing the leverage either side has over the other. What you'll find is men had all their leverage over women removed thanks to the government and this is what destroyed everything. Now women have all the leverage, so what good is marriage? Women can get fat, not provide sex and leave at any time without notice then get REWARDED for it.
Stop rewarding women for leaving marriages and give men leverage over women in a marriage then you'll start seeing more marriages and children.
Women ARE NOT anywhere near as productive as men but the Civil Rights Act, DEI initiatives and SOCIAL PROGRAMS and GOVERNMENT SPENDING makes it such that man's natural advantages over women are cancelled out by the government. The government taxes men for their superior productivity and gives the benefit of this productivity to women. Why do women need men? They don't. A woman needs a strong government to steal from men, she doesn't need no man.
If you're having a hard time understanding what I'm saying then let me spell it out a bit better. A woman goes to a public k-12 and gets an education. This is all paid for by taxing men. The woman then gets a student loan which is backed by the government and that backing is based on the taxation of men. Using this student loan the woman goes to post secondary school, let's say to become a social worker because she lacks the intelligence and capabiliy of being anything else. She now takes a 2-year program that has subsidized tuition (she isn't paying full tuition), thanks to the government taxing men to subsidize the tuition. After, she graduates, she gets a job working for a Not-For-Profit social group. This NFP is subsidized by the government to stay functioning and that subsidy from the government comes from taxing men. The woman is getting paid an income to be "independent from men" that has since she was 5 years old been entirely 100% subsidized and paid for thanks to the government taxing men.
If we remove ALL these social programs and government subsidies what then happens? Now, the woman who isn't actually very useful at anything starts looking for a man to marry and men now have their after tax income nearly double because they aren't being taxed to support these women.
Men pay nearly all the taxes and women receive nearly all the benefits. By doing this we've destroyed men's purpose to women and reduced any leverage a man might have in a relationship to ensure the woman marries him and stays with him.
Imagine if we removed 50/50 division of assets, we got rid of alimony and we got rid of child support. Imagine we stopped taxing men to give toward social programs that mainly benefit women. What would happen? Now, the pretty dumb girls wouldn't be going to school to get a worthless psychology degree so they can not need no man, these women will focus on making themselves exactly what men want so they can attract a man. In order to ensure the man stays with her, she'll want to get married and have kids with him because men are more likely to want to keep her around if she's raising his kids for him. The man, knowing she can't leave him and benefit from it won't fear having kids with the women anymore. The women knowing she can't afford to lose the man will ensure she doesn't get fat and she'll practice her blowjobs everyday watching how-to videos and getting practice dildos to make sure her man never wants to leave her because she now needs him.
This is how you improve family life and increase birth rates. You remove the government that women are using as a crutch right now to ensure they don't need men. We need women to need men or children won't happen and marriages/relationships will be an unhappy event (what's going on right now thanks to the government). Get the government out of relationships and you'll fix relationships.
Let's just do what you suggest. And the deportations. And enforcement of laws. And the elimination of no-fault divorce.
I don't really care which change does the heaviest lifting, but confident that the combination will yield an improvement.
This is naive beyond belief. Nobody will just go back to tradcucked stupidity. Also, any tax savings will be poured into "supporting children" like they are currently.