Happened upon this one recently:
https://x.com/MoreBirths/status/2026093209172992040
This study backs up several chud incel beliefs, most notably:
-
Men who make more money are more likely to attract women and, subsequently, more likely to have children (or get baby trapped)
-
Women who make more money have higher self-imposed standards, making finding a mate more difficult (plus they only spend on themselves)
Therefore: "fixing the economy" will not meaningfully increase births unless women are excluded from any direct improvements.
Put another way: the only way to fix birthrates is to discourage female participation in education and the workforce. That's why dirt poor religious third worlders are having loads of children and socially progressive peoples of all economic levels are having none.
There is no reality in which women spend 80% of their fertility window actively not having children and birthrates do not collapse.
Edit to complete my thought: feminism only increases "freedom" for girls and women for a limited number of generations before collapsing the birthrate. At that point, the total number of "free" girls and women declines towards zero - because only "oppressive patriarchies" are generating children.
Embracing feminism is tantamount to consuming the seed corn. Women are choosing a few generations of fun over the survival of their own peoples, cultures, and species.
The solution to the birth rate problem is pretty simple.
Voila. Birth rates will now start going way up.
It's quite obvious if you properly observe that a woman's motivation in life is accumulating resources yet what she's good at is having babies. A man's motivation in life is his mark on the world which includes his legacy and children but what a man is good at is accumulating resources. If you want children you need women to have to rely on men for resources because then in exchange women will provide children to the men. When we as a society take resources from men to give to women, the women have 0 motivation for having kids. Women are incentivized to have kids when they're forced to use children as a bargaining chip to gain resources from men.
This needs to be put on billboards and hammered into all of the normies heads across the western world. Make women financially/economically dependent upon men and so much stuff just falls back into place.
Women are always financially/economically dependent on men but then the government steals men's resources to give them to women. The trick is just removing government and then the natural equilibrium between men and women will be far more ideal. The problems we face today are mostly a result for the government's interference in our lives.
Your missing one important thing: give severe penalties to mudsharks and race traitors. And death penalties to those promoting racemix in ads/tv.
If your a young White man your dating prospects are gone but if your brown suddenly most young White woman will ignore any flaws to mudshark
Non-Whites should be deported. If you have the power to do what you want, we have the power to deport all non-Whites
90%. The US fought a literal war over a 3% income tax solely on landowners. Now everyone pays on average around 30% minimum.
Yes to the abolition of child support, but also abolish alimony. Alimony is the bigger crime, in my opinion. And division of assets 50/50? That incentivises divorce if that's the default.
Agreed, potentially even restricting the ability to forfeit parenthood, unless there is very, very good reason (abuse being an obvious one, another being legitimately being incapable due to physical or severe mental disability, but these are exceptions to the rule)
Sorry, you misunderstood. Guess my wording was bad. I meant abolish 50/50 division of assets and abolish alimony. Abolish all 3.
Oh, no, it's all good, I get it now. I thought it was abolish the first and rely on the other two, but I gotcha now.
Oh no, it needs to be 100% father custody. Letting women keep the kids from a marriage is what led to child support being created. Normalize male headship over households again.
If we get rid of child support, you won't see very many women keeping the kids anyhow. That's kinda the point. Get rid of child support and you'll start to see 100% father custody. If a woman wants to give up her custody and a father wants 100% that should be allowed.
The issue is that a lot of fathers won't want their kids either because the whole reason they got a wife was to do the child rearing so if a woman abandons the father, he shouldn't be burdened with the kids unless he wants to be. Giving up for adoption or abandonment is always an option too. I don't care about the children of low quality humans.
Women use joint custody to hold kids hostage and extort more control over the ex husband. That's why men abandon their kids after divorce, because it's the only way to break the woman's control. 50/50 custody is a trap. You won't get rid of child support as long as you allow it.
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Father-Custody-Daniel-Amneus/dp/0961086467?tag=ustxtadsp-20
Men can give up custody then if at 50/50 custody, the women are trying to control the men and not pay child support. If we have the power to get rid of child support in any regard then we'll be able to get rid of it regardless of joint custody. I just don't see how giving men 100% custody makes things better. It's pretty unfair to the women and I say that as a pretty "not caring about woman" kind of guy. With 80% lower taxes and 80% less government spending, we'd see far less women abandon their husbands such that this wouldn't matter much.
Bye.
Friendly Reminder: Getting rid of downvotes makes it easier for pedos to hide in plain sight.
Huh you're right, they aren't sticking. I didn't see a notice or anything, when did this change?
No, it won't because you can already fuck any woman of any age you want. The issue isn't the government, it's everyone else. Even if the age of consent was puberty, the parents wouldn't let predators like you near their kids.
Correct. And changing the age of consent won't change this.
Whack-a-mole
Funny enough, Keynesian economics and women's suffrage are from the same generation in the early twentieth century.
Suffrages technically was mid 19th but had no real power aside from shrews bitching about civil war husbands with ptsd not treating them like queens. It wasn’t until socialists and communists used feminism as a foil that suffrages gained power. That same collective pushed the Wilson socialist presidency policies, wrote the Keynesian doctrine after the Great Depression, and solidified themselves under every president since. They also pushed JFK and the Hart Celler act. As much as I despise boomers for being retarded they had no real chance against the mountains of propaganda they were force fed.
same (((gene-eration))) too
Both made to promote antiWhitism and demonize young White man while prompting mudsharking to young White woman
Goyest Gen and Boomers neck and neck for worst people in history.
The economic situation reinforces the feminist arguments.
Like alone, feminism wouldn't have managed to get far, but thanks to reinforcing it with the 'women will be more productive and have higher disposable income' they managed to get a foothold and spread their ideology like a virus. Similar to communism and unions.
Now? Feminism has made a lot of women miserable and those young enough and can see that it's bs and want to go to traditional values, can't without major compromises as the economy, thanks to boomers who did drink the feminist kool-aid, have made money worth less and housing priced out of reach for new families. It's like using the current state of the economy to trap women and not start families.
Worse is many young White woman are mudsharking and thus taking awya the future of young White man. Somehow they dont demand rich, clean, fit standards from browns
Don't demand because it's not expected.
Then they need to stop mudsharking
The idea that a dual income household would be richer ended up cratering wages.
I do think that the early 20th century ideal of women being a homemaker and nothing else was a big part of the modern disaster. Women always had to work whether it was with their husband in his business or on the land/property. Men working out of the home, urban and suburban living, along with modern convenience reducing the requirements of home care completely changed things.
Women need to be encouraged to take on creative endeavors that can be done part time from home rather than trying for careers. They can focus on raising children and being the social glue of the family while also having something in the side to take pride in. Meanwhile, the man is the main breadwinner and the woman contributes a bit in the side. The modern culture needs to collapse though.
This is a good point. Being a homemaker has always been a luxury. If you were rich enough you had servants/slaves anyway. If you were poor your woman had to work. A stay-at-home-mom was always a middle class aspiration.
I don't know how true that is. We forget today, but most people (outside of cities) would have grown most of their own food, made (and manually washed) their own clothes, and maintained their own homes. A lot of that fell on the women.
Stay-at-home momming used to include what we now consider "work".
Part of that is automation making this work less time-consuming, part of that is increased specialisation and income that made it easier to hire rather than do yourself.
People mostly weren't having sex with random people in those times. I'd imagine that marrying someone who wasn't an adult was also extremely uncommon. So the age was irrelevant.
I should have saved that study that had the fairly strong linear correlation between female education and birth rates. If you wanted a solid 3.5 birthrate, you had to (on average) have a female population with no more than an 8th grade education.
That one's great as well. I like this one because it’s specifically rebukes the arguments that economics are purely to blame for the birth rate.
This is true but at this point, it's too late. Women are not suddenly start to go back to making kids. Men are not suddenly gonna grow a spine. It's over.
Yes. The feminism genie is never going back in the bottle.
Not true, it's simply a matter of helping women see reality (a herculean task, but I digress).
By every metric (self-reporting, mental health, suicide etc) women are less happy today than before the sexual revolution. Even they know it, but they've been convinced that it's somehow because they're being "oppressed by men", even though men have less control over women than they ever did.
It is in the interest of women, at least as much as men, for them to commit to pair-bonding relationships and abandon financial responsibility.
My great-grandparent's generation had a hard life, little to no social security ( family, neighbours and the church were the only options ).
They still had 4+++ kids per family.
The mindset was finding someone to make a family, having children, and making things work.
Today the Western mindset seems to be ''I cannot afford a child if I don't have their future expenses set aside and it must not impact my spending habits''.
Raising people's lifestiles does not make them produce more children. They just set the bar for the level of lifestyle that shall not be impacted by the costs of children, higher.
We can largely blame our education for brainwashing girls in education to drag them away from their natural desire to care for children. Nearly all little girls like to play ''caring for baby'' with dolls. This is dutily drilled out of them by teachers in our suicidal education system.
A traditional society structures and priorities does lead to higher birth rates.
I literally spend less than $100(CAD) a week on food for me and two kids just by avoiding prepared foods and buying on sale whenever possible. I always find it darkly funny seeing people complain about food prices and spending more than my whole family just on themselves.
Simple things, like constantly buying cheap junk instead of repairing quality items, add up. It's insane how much perfectly good stuff gets disposed of every day just because people want the newest thing, or can't be bothered to care for what they have. And then fail to teach their kids wise habits.
Don't worry, planned obsolescence will deal with that one no matter how well people try. 🙄
I just got back from the Leaf grocery stores bro. It's ugly out there.
Even with clipping the flyers, going to multiple stores, checking out the shortdated produce/bakery/meat sections, knowing the corners where they hide the clearance stuff, etc - it's still nuts.
And we haven't even seen the Straits of Hormuz shockwaves yet.
I grew up in appalachia man, I know what living poor is like. People still managed.
That was before the cost of living went through the ROOF and banks started taking everyones homes lmao.
Me and my partner wanted to have a couple kids, but there is just no way in hell. Spend half of their paycheck on rent, which is pretty typical in canada. Why would you want to bring another living soul into this dystopian ass hellhole. I also worry about the quality of my sperm after being poisoned, having a autistic child is a terrible burden and getting exposed to lead and other heavy metals I cant imagine is good for that.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/article-young-canadians-rent-housing-income-budgeting/
https://archive.is/25j3q
Then you spend the rest on bills and food which are making massive profits for the corporations.
How in the hell are you supposed to raise a kid and not be dirt poor doing it? Then on top of that, I cant do anything in the state I am, im a sad excuse of a person.
Things were tight before I lost the ability to keep a full time job, all im doing now is putting my partner deeper in debt and draggin them down. Im prolly going to have quit smoking weed if I cant get a script from the doctor and a taxbreak for it, im not really filled with hope about this. My boomer neighbor runs to timmys to get coffee five times a day, spends way more on his coffee habit than I do my weed habit :/. God forbid I smoke some herb while im dying from hyperparathyroidism again likely from being poisoned by a million dollar company.
Maid looks a little better every day.
That’s certainly a part of the problem, but jews are also engineering economic disparity for Whites, because they know we are a “K-selected people”, meaning when resources are slim we don’t have many children in order to ensure the general populace has enough resources to survive without mass suffering taking place, it’s a natural instinct of ethnic Europeans. R-selected people use mass breeding as a survival mechanism regardless of how slim the resources may be, which leads to mass starvation on a regular basis in places like Africa, or at least it used to happen regularly before Jewish NGO’s made sure groids had enough food to survive with each black woman creating 8 worthless kids of her own, leading to a massive population explosion which is now being used to destroy the western world.
Except 99.9% of our ancestors had tons of children while suffering far worse economies. The problem is women spending 80% of their fertility window actively not having children. That's what this study shows: when you improve the general economy for everyone, women included, the net gain to birthrate is zero.
Feminism is actually the same tactic as mass immigration; glut the labour pool to depress wages.
Remigration would drive up wages, but trad-feminism would acheive the same thing.
Most natalists I've seen straight up say feminism is the #1 cause of low birth rates.
For sure. The number one leftist excuse is muh economy. Because leftists can't blame feminism for anything.
Its feminism and mudsharking. If your a young White man, then the young White woman will demand you be super fit even if the White woman herself is super fat.
Yet somehow this money and fit requirement doesnt apply to browns/blacks. As theyll happily mudshark with tarantula heads, wetbacks and even pajeets. All who are fat, ugly, criminals, wife beaters, and other scum. They openly hate young White man but worship nonWhites to mudshark
That and men aren't interested in 20+ year old "women" with mental and physical mileage.
They aren't interested in anyone but Chad & Tyrone anyhow.
Excellent write up.
Only tangentially related, but I saw a (probably fake) Reddit screenshot the other day on X where a 45 y/o guy was lamenting that his 47 y/o wife made him get a vasectomy. Kek.
you know.. the cats out of the bag as they say. onyl way this can reverse is if our country experience the WORSE time in its period and reset itself. AKA, get our shit pushed in in a war where we are in complete ruined and sent back to being a 3rd world country.
or.. a super super socially conservative group takes over via violence like islamic extremists since christianity lost its teeth a long time ago. either way.. it seems our country has to be destroyed in order for it to be rebuilt for better or worse.
Honestly we just need to replace women with artificial wombs and gene therapy
We already are in the future with A.I shit, i'd recon this tech would be more than possible (but likely misused by jewish pedophiles)
Is this like a cargo cult thing to ape Indian fertility?