Raising Fertility
Mal
For the past 5-6 years an incredibly common sentiment amongst White nationalist circles was that fertility rates would very easily raise by just giving out social programs to families, that tax incentives and maternity leave would raise the total fertility rate of Whites above replacement rates. It's still one of the most shallow ideas from the 2016 era that spawned into a populist leftnat talking point common for people like Eric Striker and typical of the mentality to view Whites as downtrodden 1930s industrial workers (who somehow had a higher fertility rate than we do). The problem with it is that it's plain wrong, we're at the height of overabundance in the developed world and the pit of fertility rates. The solution is not economic, it is that societies need a heavy pro-natalist culture with some kind of national goal or sense of duty, in short they need Hitler not tax breaks. The simple fact is many people dont want kids, at least they don't when they're young and while modern living offers distractions and all the entertainment one could ask for. 
Hungary has been hailed as the forefront of pro-natal fertility policy right now, and while yes they've seen a bump it's nowhere near 2.1 but time will tell, and it's hard to determine whether it's Orban's policies raising fertility and not his nationalism or message to the country. Too many people believe we can policy our way through these problems, that you could have the most shitlib country but some maternity leave and tax incentives here and there will ensure the White race flourishes, when you really just need a radical shift in society. I will admit fertility has it's oddities and it's not an exact science, and yeah wageslaving all day in an office doesn't exactly increase fertility either (South Korea), but what makes sense is that if Hitler is telling you it's your national duty to have kids, you'll have kids. Emil Kirkegaard wrote a good blogpost that seems convincing on this.
https://kirkegaard.substack.com/p/author...-maybe?s=r

There is also the heritability view of fertility, that there is selection for fertility amongst a population and in the long run everything works out, but this has been mostly a guess from observations on France's fertility transition amongst Whites there (since they were the first Euro nation to fall below replacement rate and now one of the highest fertility rates in Europe). Though, once you get into the details it seems the highest fertility Whites in France are from the most welfare consuming regions (so we're not selecting for quality) and that they've seen a recent dip in fertility anyway rather than a continuous baby boom. If there is a heritability, modern living does a good job suppressing it.
Opossum
If it's numbers you want, just get rid of contraceptives (and easy abortion, of course). Judging historically, this is a technological issue more than anything. A country could have an awful, child-murdering culture and still end up with higher fertility than is found today just from lack of options otherwise.

If you want real selection (I know I sound like a broken record, but it's true), just deindustrialize. People can only have as many children as they can feed. Much more straightforward than trying to recreate this kind of effect artificially, where people will end up adapted specifically to whatever conditions you set, by whatever means, and the result may end up quite different than what you anticipated (as the best-laid plans always do).
Guest
if you dig into the Hitler data, there doesn't seem to be anything incompatible with the thesis of the increased birth rate being the result of forward-shifting of births - I doubt it would have persisted even in the counterfactual of enduring peace.
Mal
(05-10-2022, 01:37 AM)Opossum Wrote: If it's numbers you want, just get rid of contraceptives (and easy abortion, of course). Judging historically, this is a technological issue more than anything. A country could have an awful, child-murdering culture and still end up with higher fertility than is found today just from lack of options otherwise.

If you want real selection (I know I sound like a broken record, but it's true), just deindustrialize. People can only have as many children as they can feed. Much more straightforward than trying to recreate this kind of effect artificially, where people will end up adapted specifically to whatever conditions you set, by whatever means, and the result may end up quite different than what you anticipated (as the best-laid plans always do).

Well, it's not that easy. Japan post WW2 had a total fertility collapse and yet despite the fact abortion was hard to access, contraceptives like standard birth control iirc weren't even fully accepted until the 90s, the TFR (total fertility rate) continued to plummet and stabilize at around 1.3-1.4. Now Ceauşescu did succeed in his pro-natalist policies of banning abortion but again that was coupled by nationalism and goals, plus Romania back then was still very agrarian so eliminating abortions in a population like that is different than eliminating abortions in an urban modern population which barely has kids anyway. Abortions for Whites in the US don't really prevent that many births, they more so target minority groups. 

But generally I don't think deindustrialization is any solution, personally Im against that mentality, and due to the fact it'd result in the deaths of tens if not hundreds of millions in the developed world since scaling back industrial agriculture would be severely limit food supply. Now, you could be for that but I just dont see how that could even be enforced on a global let alone national stage. It's not a matter of recreating any older society, it's a newer society for a newer industrial age. We can choose optimal selection for traits, we don't need to regress to an agrarian society for that.
Guest
study from 1935 USA: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2768366

"It is especially difficult to evaluate what they consider the most important factor, namely, the psychical rebirth of the
German people, partly because this cannot be definitely dated. If it
began soon after Hitler's appointment as chancellor, then the upturn
in marriages and in uninterrupted conceptions (as indicated by
births nine months later) which began for the nation as a whole in
the quarter following this appointment may be ascribed to it in part
at least. But in the larger cities the upturn in conceptions began in the quarter before his appointment instead of the quarter after it.
Did this psychical rebirth occur first in the larger cities and then
spread to other parts of Germany? And did it begin in these cities
while the Nazis were still struggling for power and not wait until
they secured control of the government? Unless both questions can
be answered affirmatively, there is little justification in the large-city
data for the Nazi claim as to the importance of this factor. *The campaign against abortion would seem a more logical cause of the early
upturn in urban live births*"

it's worth reading in full, and if the causative role of abortion-restriction is held to be true, we can guess at what would have happened even in the counterfactual of peace:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Tota...1_46478883

does not look very inspiring

by the way, glad to see you posting here, mal
Opossum
(05-10-2022, 03:54 AM)Mal Wrote: Japan post WW2 had a total fertility collapse and yet despite the fact abortion was hard to access, contraceptives like standard birth control iirc weren't even fully accepted until the 90s
They had been manufacturing rubber condoms domestically since 1909. But sure, the technological and behavioral aspects are not 1:1, it's just that one makes the other even possible (unless a people are so disheartened they're not having sex at all, which is possible for Japan but not so much the case in the west).

(05-10-2022, 03:54 AM)Mal Wrote: I just dont see how that could even be enforced on a global let alone national stage
Industry-sycophants obsessed with the idea they can rule the world. Historically bizarre language. On the other hand, imagine not wanting "the deaths of tens if not hundreds of millions in the developed world". What is the opposite of "regression", by the way?
FruitVendor
Complete and utter removal of women from higher education. Women should even get a separate eduction/vocational school where they receive training on being a better wife/caregiver. Write off checks and slash jobs for women in useless admin roles - retired effective immediately. Women have been transmogrified into men in the belief that they need to acquire wealth and a prestigious degree before squeezing out a geriatric pregnancy. 

The modern notion that men and women are "equal" in that there is somehow a winner and a loser in a relationship rather than a complimentary union is insanely destructive. Not all women are meant to be mothers. Depending on the scenario their tubes get tied and get sent off to the whorehouse to receive training in concubinage or become caregivers. Women are in a constant state of anxiety in comparison to men, any individual or any institution that can take away this feeling is capable of completely controlling them. "Grooming" just means culture.  

Tax relief for native born couples, reinvest in the future of the country rather than outsource to the third world to pad pensions.
Mal
(05-10-2022, 04:24 AM)Guest Wrote: study from 1935 USA: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2768366

"It is especially difficult to evaluate what they consider the most important factor, namely, the psychical rebirth of the
German people, partly because this cannot be definitely dated. If it
began soon after Hitler's appointment as chancellor, then the upturn
in marriages and in uninterrupted conceptions (as indicated by
births nine months later) which began for the nation as a whole in
the quarter following this appointment may be ascribed to it in part
at least. But in the larger cities the upturn in conceptions began in the quarter before his appointment instead of the quarter after it.
Did this psychical rebirth occur first in the larger cities and then
spread to other parts of Germany? And did it begin in these cities
while the Nazis were still struggling for power and not wait until
they secured control of the government? Unless both questions can
be answered affirmatively, there is little justification in the large-city
data for the Nazi claim as to the importance of this factor.  *The campaign against abortion would seem a more logical cause of the early
upturn in urban live births*"

it's worth reading in full, and if the causative role of abortion-restriction is held to be true, we can guess at what would have happened even in the counterfactual of peace:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Tota...1_46478883

does not look very inspiring

by the way, glad to see you posting here, mal

Interesting paper, it's certainly enlightening as I wasn't aware of the fact that "On this basis there were about 500-660 abortions per I,000 live births, about 33-40 per cent of all pregnancies being interrupted by abortion."  So yes the banning of abortion was more than likely the primary cause of the subsequent rises in birth rates and aside from Berlin's unique financial incentives for birth the programs generally don't correlate with anything significant nation wide (though a 48% increase of the birth rate in Berlin is impressive). Though I would point out this is a rather narrow window to observe fertility in the timespan of a sadly narrow window of time Nazi Germany existed, and that my point is more of a long term one. Your claim that Ceauşescu's regime doesn't look very inspiring in fertility rates long term is something I'd disagree with, we don't exactly need a TFR above 3 or 4, being stable above replacement rate for that long is good enough especially for a regime like Ceauşescu's which became decrepit and depressing for the population as time went on, the fact it crashed after he was deposed is more telling of the effect of totalitarianism. 

I would also state anti-abortion measures are nothing without a pro-natalist culture or atmosphere to back it and they really only matter if abortion is exceptionally common amongst the population (as they were in Weimar Germany), Poland in recent years has enacted rather strict anti-abortion laws and it's resulted in a marginal increase in TFR as Polish people don't even abort children that much because they aren't even having children to abort. The distinction between us and Weimar here is the latter had many abortions to stop, we comparatively don't. Some of the lowest abortion rates in Europe are from countries with some of the lowest birth rates. I'll also point out the Soviet Union is an oddity, as it maintained a rather high fertility in Russia despite having an incredibly high abortion rate even maintaining a birth rate of 2.1 right before the collapse. I feel there is something to be said about having a collective national effort that enforces births to remain high, Salazar and Franco had managed to stabilize birth rates for quite a long while only for them to fall off right as they left power or their regimes ended.

The random thought here is that perhaps it's because these regimes (Salazar, Franco, Ceauşescu, and the Soviet Union in particular) withheld large sporadic growth in economic success that caused these collapses in birth rates, that their ideological commitments that locked them out of US investment and proper hyper competitive markets of heavy excess slowed down an inevitability with birth rates that being a fully post industrial developed country gives (though Franco would counter this thought here given he did cause The Spanish Miracle,  and Salazar did improve the Portuguese economy but rather slowy). 

That said, fertility as usual isn't an exact science and there are numerous factors, I just think an authoritarian government is the best fit to address it. Female education is negatively correlated with fertility, urban living is negative correlated, a Brazilian study found TVs were negatively correlated, studies on the Amish showed that Amish sects and families that allowed cell phone usage had lower fertilities than those that didn't. What's true though, and what your study does show with regards to Hitler, is that the economic incentives many populists put focus on largely have a negligible effect.
Meredith
For me, I'm sort of blackpilled  because I think the best incentives for high birth rates aside from pro-natalism in general and authoritarian are expansion, settlement and colonisation. There are real incentives for people to have larger families.

But this world won't allow for that.


Another factor is urgency. Kurds view having large families as a survival strategy, which is paying off as Turkish birthrates are cratering. 

Similarly, the Israeli state tolerates the otherwise unproductive Hasidim because their massive birthrates allow them to compete with Palestinians in the demographic Arms race, helping them enforce settlement in the West Bank.
Leverkühn
(05-10-2022, 01:37 AM)Opossum Wrote: If you want real selection (I know I sound like a broken record, but it's true), just deindustrialize. People can only have as many children as they can feed. Much more straightforward than trying to recreate this kind of effect artificially, where people will end up adapted specifically to whatever conditions you set, by whatever means, and the result may end up quite different than what you anticipated (as the best-laid plans always do).
Won't go after for you for the deindustrialize thing, as I do respect the differing opinion you give from the rest of us, but I do wonder why that's the only plan you think could work. As you correctly said, "people can only have as many children as they can feed." But deindustrializing isn't the only way to rectify that, right? I imagine cutting welfare programs to specific groups of people who have way too many kids (and low quality kids) would make a decent dent in this issue. In this regard, society (or The State) doesn't even have to do anything to begin rectifying the problem, they simply have to stop doing something that has an obviously dysgenic, negative effect. Of course, this only addresses the issue of selection and not the fertility rate as a whole.

(05-10-2022, 04:14 PM)FruitVendor Wrote: Complete and utter removal of women from higher education. Women should even get a separate eduction/vocational school where they receive training on being a better wife/caregiver. Write off checks and slash jobs for women in useless admin roles - retired effective immediately. Women have been transmogrified into men in the belief that they need to acquire wealth and a prestigious degree before squeezing out a geriatric pregnancy.
As difficult as this might be to accomplish, it's right on the money. Women forgo having children because they want to be professional, career women. They end up working email and HR jobs that seemingly add little to the economic output, all so they can feel like accomplished workers. Women will say it's because they "lack financial support," but we all know this is bullshit given women were having many more children with even less financial support in previous decades. Women need to be taken out of the workplace and put back in the domestic sphere. Of course, this could be done forcefully, but there's also a number of indirect ways to bring this about. 

As @Opossum said, cutting contraceptives is one way. As it stands, you're kind of retarded as a woman if you end up pregnant: contraceptives have gotten so good that it's incredibly unlikely to happen unless you're literally just letting someone nut in you and taking no precautions. It's too easy for women to not get pregnant even if they're fucking constantly.  We have a lively abortion thread elsewhere, so I won't get into that atm. There's also the matter of giving more freedom to businesses in the hiring/firing process: what if we went back to the days where companies were allowed to discriminate against women? It used to be the case that companies would not want to hire women in their fertile years because it meant they could get pregnant, which put the company on hook for maternal leave pay and also finding another worker while they're out. Reversing this would only bring about a small change itself, but if combined with previously listed options, the effect it has could greatly increase.
Opossum
@Leverkühn Agree with everything said (including from @FruitVendor, except about the cutting checks part), my proposal was given specifically as the maximizing option. Nature can generally do things better than you can, unless you're specifically wanting to select for things on aesthetic grounds (which could include intelligence, bravery, etc). This would still be a sort of domestication by the most proper definition, and there's many more ways for it to go wrong without the inherent self-correction of natural processes, but that doesn't make it entirely bad.

On the other hand, I have zero advice on how any of these things could be implemented as a policy overlayed onto existing society, as I hope you'd expect. If you want these things implemented in your personal life and surroundings, dreaming about global domination seems like the least effective route to actually achieving that.
parsifal
fertility issues would be solved if women looked acted and dressed like anime girls. contraception aside, women today are hideous obese slobs who, if they fail to repulse you with appearances, will doubtless succeed once they open their stupid whore mouths. even a majority of girls at high school age, which ought to be so powerful as to make any woman desirable, nonetheless cease to move passions.

what is there left to inspire a man to fall in love and crave a family? the high quality men who choose to play along with the 'pump-n-dump' dating game do so rightly, because those women do not deserve to be wives or even mistresses, they are good only for one night stands.

and what of those few who are still beautiful? instead of falling in love and marrying, they dance for attention on tiktok, squandering what little time they have locked in their rooms. look what happened to bonbibonkers, thousands of men would have killed for her hand in marriage. now she has hit the wall at age 20 (!) without ever having met a single suitor.
Trep
Allow men to exercise ownership over their families. Men don't "crave a family" in large part because they can never actually *have* a family. All this takes is repealing a few laws and slightly redefining marriage. This is far less authoritarian than the state constantly enforcing gynocracy and buckbreaking the husband.
Going along with this, both husbands and fathers should be able to influence their wives/daughters even if they are just regular Joes and not totalitarian mind manipulator cult leaders. Women will subject themselves shortly to beauty/behavior standards as well as marriage.
Frank
(05-10-2022, 10:21 PM)parsifal Wrote: fertility issues would be solved if women looked acted and dressed like anime girls.

And the truly tragic thing is that the girls who are exposed to anime seem to come out with a completely opposite conception of what an anime girl's appeal is. Men watch anime and yearn for a Yamato nadeshiko, women discover this subculture and all you get is slutty hentai ahegao shit. You can lead a whore to water but you can't make her drink.

Maybe this is a sign that it hasn't truly become mainstream yet. "Female weebs" are clearly attention seeking psychos and feigning being demure isn't a great way to generate male thirst on the internet. Anime remains niche in my mind until it becomes possible that a normal girl can discover an anime series without outside influence and find a girl to serve as a role model.
parzival
(05-17-2022, 09:07 AM)Frank Wrote: And the truly tragic thing is that the girls who are exposed to anime seem to come out with a completely opposite conception of what an anime girl's appeal is.
i may be a naive romantic but i really believe this isn't true. the "ahegao e-whore" results from but a small portion of girls exposed to anime. the issue is that a normal girl who watches anime is already likely to be an introvert, and their habits of seldom leaving the house or posting themselves online--both prophylactic against corrupting influences, by the way--are reinforced by the consumption of anime. a lot of these girls are surely quite beautiful too, but are practically invisible to society at large, and without a method of facilitating meetings between these girls and their natural partners (chuds like us) many good people on both sides seem doomed to loneliness.

of course they don't perfectly embody the ideals presented in anime, but there are small corners of the internet where such girls congregate, and the impression one gets observing their posts is of lonesome melancholy and a frustration with the world not dissimilar to ours.
FruitVendor
This whole baby "formula" shortage has reminded about the utter shit state of women.

For generations women nursed for 20-30 years straight starting in her teen years and never needed her child to suckle industrial lubricants and inflammatory oils from a BPA riddled pseudo nipple. One of the many telltale signs of the genetic timebomb that is ready to go off from generations of low fertility women giving birth via c-section and endless hospital care who should have bled out after failing to deliver.
Leverkühn
(05-24-2022, 06:37 PM)FruitVendor Wrote: This whole baby "formula" shortage has reminded about the utter shit state of women.

For generations women nursed for 20-30 years straight starting in her teen years and never needed her child to suckle industrial lubricants and inflammatory oils from a BPA riddled pseudo nipple. One of the many telltale signs of the genetic timebomb that is ready to go off from generations of low fertility women giving birth via c-section and endless hospital care who should have bled out after failing to deliver.
The whole situation has me confused. Why do so many women seem to need to give their children formula instead of breastfeeding? I understand that there are cases where babies might have type of allergy where they can't ingest milk, but such situations are incredibly rare (which makes evolutionary sense). Is it really an issue of diet? I was reading this article about how some hospitals do and should offer 'breastfeeding consultants' and provide pumps and lots of other information. I never thought all of this was necessary; it seems like this was not an issue for people in Western society a century ago. Even when mothers themselves couldn't breastfeed (or didn't want to for class reasons), the concept of wet-nurses existed and were available to women in the upper and maybe even middle classes.


It also seems to be the case that formula fed babies go through a number of issues that breast-fed babies do not.
Saker
The current historically low infant/mother childbirty mortality rate is underdiscussed in my opinion. I've heard that hip width among women has already narrowed, statistically speaking, since the C section became common (though I've never seen any real data to be clear), probably has other less visible effects. In addition, an immense number of addicts, near retards, and congenitally insane women and their babies are allowed to survive what would otherwise be a fatal birthing process by heroic interventions ultimately funded by the tax dollars taken from their superiors. Par for the course at this point I suppose.

Regarding formula/breastfeeding, I suspect it may be related to many women having their first child much later than historically normal, aggravated in some cases by generally poor diets.
gravitywell
Banning women from higher education is a good start but might not go far enough.  They should also be systematically discriminated against in the workplace, although it's probably worth phasing this in just by removing pro-woman discrimination at first.  Perhaps "sexual harassment" laws could be weaponized against businesses that unnecessarily employ women.  Financial incentives are hopeless and anyone who proposes them is unserious.

This isn't possible given the current ruling ideology; on the other end of incipient population crash "feminism" will be regarded the same way as current societies regard nudism or cannibalism: deviant oddities practiced only by maladapted savages on the fringes of human life.

Low fertility trends are in positive feedback: low fertility causes lower fertility.  For example sub-replacement fertility causes the ratio of fertile women to fertile men to drop, which increases their market power, which lowers fertility, etc.  The portion of young (aka attractive) women in the population is lower than at any point in histories.  Cultural knowledge and social technologies for successfully raising children will continue to fall into disuse from low demand; Disney is a good example of this.  At subreplacement fertility, eventually the fetish market for diapers will be larger than the baby market.
Guest
Do you agree with the thesis that anti natalism and contraception would create a selective pressure where the only people that reproduce are the ones who have a desire to reproduce?

https://robertstark.substack.com/p/white...um=reader2

" California’s hyper competitive environment is especially bad for family formation, which is relevant to breeder selection theory. The theory hypothesizes that demographic groups that undergo Darwinian selection pressures earlier may have advantages over other groups in the long run. Even if White decline persists for the next few decades, the subset of Whites who remain in California long-term will likely be more resilient, selected to withstand anti-natalist selection pressures, by the shedding of Whites who are more atomized, and less resilient through, childlessness, out-marriage, and the exodus. I expect this trend to become more pronounced in the future, rather than just the assumption of endless White flight and decline. It is also possible to see the tables turn, where White Californians evolve to become more tribal, while the descendants of non-Western immigrants become more atomized as they assimilate. "
Reply 



[-]
Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)