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