Culture

Make Fertility Great Again

187 Comments

Should old ladies be having children outside of divine assistance? Former director of London’s Serpentine Galleries, Dame Julia Peyton-Jones, has become a mother via surrogacy, aged 64, prompting the country to question whether such a thing is ethical or even lawful.

As a strong libertarian, I believe an Englishman’s home is his castle, but at these late stages of life, nature leaves a woman’s womb as nothing but a barren ruin. It makes sense to question how the child will fare when their support network has also come to ruin, if only on behalf of the child’s potential estate, let alone for the effect this will have on society.

The real question is not why older women would want another woman to carry their baby to fruition. Perhaps it is just a valedictory pretence of vitality by those who bought the lie that every woman could and should have it all—postmenstrual howling at the moon, long after the biological clock grew silent. Rather, we must ask why we Europeans have ‘[lost] the will to replace ourselves’, as Prof. William Reville recently put it. How can we end this revolt against nature or voluntary ‘demographic extinction’? Of course, overpowering nature is how we come to not only survive but dominate and flourish on this planet, but ignoring scientific facts and natural laws in the face of expiration is the direct antithesis; it is simply degenerate.

More women are having their children over 50!

Sadly, Gramsci and Lukacs’ theory that Western culture must be destroyed for communism to emerge has been tested by leftists and neocons since the 1960’s, when cultural Marxism came to dominate the cultural scene. From political policy to popular writing, half of Western populations have bought the idea that white procreation or even any sense of identity is about the worst thing imaginable. Whilst celebrities increasingly promote having children over the age of fifty, every week, another article is published by some young, damaged goods or other, trying to convince the world (by which I mean herself) that she’s just fine without a family. The latest I read, from the ironically named Ms. Chatel, presents the usual platitudes—children will ruin your life—but, apparently of even greater importance, they could increase mankind’s carbon footprint.

Yet, the fact is housewives are the happiest women around and I imagine their husbands are happiest too. Furthermore, traditional families are a great benefit to society as well; they are our most powerful bulwark against high crime rates. For a healthy society, we can only conclude that women at Peyton-Jones’ age should ideally be grandmothers. Grandparents are a valuable pillar of society – the more time they spend with their grandchildren, the better it is for their development and thus, the greater benefit we all receive. Can we really be surprised that this is the case when this is how we have evolved? (N.B. There’s a good reason other familial structures haven’t survived.)

So, the closer we get to the natural order, the more sustainable our society becomes. If this were not the case, men would not have evolved to find youth so attractive and women would not have evolved to age sooner and worse than men, focusing our mating habits towards those stronger, healthier eggs. Of course, women age sooner but live longer because they do not readily outlive their usefulness as grandmothers. The reason we have evolved to find Peyton-Jones’ act so taboo, however, is that she will readily outlive her usefulness as a mother; to display this as acceptable is a direct threat to the society our children must inherit. The threat cultural Marxism poses must, therefore, be stopped.

The natural order is the goal of all Traditionalists

But, as I said, I’m a libertarian; so, what about individual liberty? Well, of course, if you don’t like the natural order of things, that’s fine. By all means, go and raise a family of twelve in a highly radioactive environment at the age of 80. I will wish you the very best of luck and, what’s more, I will politely disguise the futility I feel in doing so. But don’t ask me to value what you do or to remain silent when you set about proselytizing society to your bizarre ideas. In order for my children and grandchildren (if you’re capable of thinking that far ahead) to enjoy the liberties I desire for myself, we’re going to need a sustainable environment in which they can flourish. And the purposes for which you propose we use our medical advancements don’t cut the mustard.

Instead, I propose we use our great scientific advancements to restore and enhance the natural order, for the benefit of us all. But how can we usher in a Spring, rather than the coming demographic Winter?

Could positive screening make child-rearing more popular?

In an interview I conducted with Prof. Richard Lynn, he suggested that states should stop imposing degenerating policies, promoting anything other than the traditional. However, he noted that this has only ever had a negligible effect in swaying the opinions of those Europeans who will not replace themselves. What is needed is neo-eugenics, that is, private services provided by the market, e.g. designer babies.

According to Lynn, such services could provide both an attractive and efficient way to improve demographics and even raise the average IQ of our populations by a standard deviation in just one generation. If the state were so inclined, it could promote the use of such services through subsidies, assistance or tax breaks; thus, encouraging those who were breeding to replacement levels and using these services to select preferable genes for their children, in much the same way that IVF screening currently allows us to avoid relatively undesirable qualities.

So, I ask you again, should grannies be having children? If you like civilization, you won’t love this becoming normal, that’s for sure. Whether it is through legislation or frowning upon this as a social taboo, this degeneracy must certainly be countered by the promotion and protection of traditional families and the freeing of the market to make the prospect of having children far more attractive to young Westerners. Let’s explore every avenue to secure the future of Western civilization with the same vigour that was used to bring it to ruins.

Read More: How Mass Immigration Is Driven By Female Consumerism And Low Fertility

187 thoughts on “Make Fertility Great Again”

      1. btw speaking of deodorant look at this shit. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/148852bf88ac29301a2c4983d44741e7a88dd54a93c157e0f7649b54fd755b3e.jpg
        Notice anything odd? 48H protection? How big of a fucking skank do you need to be that your deodorant needs to last 48 hours. Go to work on Friday, then happy hour, then out to a bar for Friday night, get piped out by stranger, walk of shame around 11, oooh look a brunch 2 for 1 bloody mary special, meet a guy, he takes you to another bar, then back to his place, he blows out your back for a few hours and at 6 am your are looking for a cab, exhausted, covered in cum, stinking of booze and shame but your deodorant is still going strong

        1. Yep, that’s for those skanks that don’t bring an overnight bag or shower after getting their holes filled over the weekend.

        2. Actually, some assembly line monkey is gonna get fired for not putting in the decimal point in between 4 and 8 for this label. 😀

        3. Nope. Double checked. Even the tv commercial brags of 48 hour protection

  3. This is simpler than you’re making it.
    In one sentence: As population increases, first the death rate decreases, then the birth rate decreases.
    Want it visually? The demographic transition model, all four stages:
    http://geographyfieldwork.com/g427.gif
    It holds true for all civilizations. Depend on it.

    1. That’s like saying air travel is an insult to gravity.
      The one and only one criteria for succeeding at evolution is reproducing. There’s no trophy for whether you do it naturally or by making designer babies.

  5. The baby plan is working and my 10 year younger wife is officially pregnant! First kid here we go. It is scary how quick and easy it is to get pregnant. Less than three weeks off of BC. Wrap it up bros.

    3. “Wrap it up bros”
      Seriously sound advice. Some bitches are so fertile all one need do is sneeze on them and the next thing ya know they’re shittin’ out triplets.

    4. It’s always better to have a much younger wife. Mine’s 8 years behind me, and it works great.

      1. I don’t know how these career desk jockey women have children at 35. I’m late 30’s and basically in training because I know how hectic and taxing the next ten years are going to be even if my wife is the primary care giver. No booze, eating clean, and doing lots of kettle bell and other practical exercises to boost up that dad strength.

        1. 10 years?!? Lol, dude, that’s just warm up for the late middle school and high school whirlwind. You’ll think it’s hard at age 2 months, but brother, when you get to where your every single breathing moment is planned every autumn and spring, and you take the Christmas season to *relax* (most people think it’s the most hectic season so if you’re relaxing then….), you’ll wish they were 10 years old again.

        3. I’ve heard that three is hard because you have to move from man to man coverage, to a zone defense.

        4. Haha, oh sure I fully expect them to eat up all my time. I just meant that by 10ish I shouldn’t be lifting and carrying them as much.

        5. That. And you’re both exhausted and you all have to lower your standards because nothing is ever going to be as clean or organized again. And you have to get a bigger car. And you have no time to take care of yourself (exercise, sleep, and nutrition all suffer). And that’s only if everyone stays relatively healthy.

  6. It makes far more sense for a girl to have her children before her career. The younger she is, the easier she copes with pregnancy, sleepless nights and naughty children. If a girl starts at 20 by the time she’s 35 she could have two or three children more or less old enough for her to be able to start a career or education.
    Whereas if she first goes to uni and start a career, it will all be interrupted by having children at 35. Not to mention, she would most likely hate the experience as the body can not tolerate sleepless nights and the hardship. But the biggest disadvantage is that late mothers will not be able to help their own children with their offspring.
    My wife has just had our forth at age 35 but she’s used to it and not looking to pursue a career outside home so that’s fine.

    1. The most competent women I’ve ever worked with were invariably those who had kids first, then worked. After raising kids, to them any other job is cake.

    2. Congrats on your fourth kid! Hopefully career women get the hint but since so many of them have daddy issues or complexes they likely won’t start the baby hustle until 34 when some chump decides he doesn’t want to be alone into his later years.

    3. 100% agreed. But also, do they have to have “careers” at all? (career as in full time employment with an employeer).
      These days you can do so many things. Everything from writing, painting, playing instruments and dancing to running small businesses through the internet.

      1. Some women want a career, that’s fine so long as they have their priorities right. My wife paints pictures and sells them online, so she does not have to leave the house.

    5. This is easy to observe. Women who had children early generelaly tolerate it better. Their bodies recover and handle the stress better. Some you can hardly tell they had a baby. It’s a whole other thing if they have them after 25. It’s strange how girls today get biologically fertile at an ever younger age and start their menstruations as young as 9 but go without getting their first one untill after age 35. The female anatomy isn’t completely developed until they have had their first baby. All thoose years of unfertilized ovulation gives them a higher rate of disease, breastcancer for example. I believe women should have their first baby optimally at the age around 15-25 in a strict biological sense. Its another issue that society doesn’t prepare them for this and instead turns them into sterile office rats.

        1. I said in a strictly biological sense. And I said 15-25, considering individual differences in development. Do you think nature made women able to conceive before their bodies are ready? Does it make sense for them to have unfertilized ovulations every month for 7-10 years before they have their first born? Do you know that this fact contributes to women getting breastcancer? Do you think it’s natural for women to eat contraceptives for such a long time? Or having one or several abortions? You can be sure that the majority are having sex before they are 21. Also in this perspective they are ready biologicaly. Sterile sex is an anomali. Obviously you haven’t thought much about this.

        2. Girls that age are still seeing a pediatrician, for crying out loud. That’s as much as anyone needs to think about it, kind sir. 21 is just fine.

        3. Yes you are right, despite that girls today have way more knowledge and information than in the past they are let to act like children for a prolonged time of their life. This however is a cultural matter. It hasn’t been like this always and in many parts of the world they are raised to be adult sooner. You can however not neglect the fact that many of the girls in that age are having sex and wasn’t it for the use of modern contraceptives and abortion a lot of them would in fact become young mothers. Biologically they are ready.

  7. I have strong libertarian tendencies as well, but child birth/rearing is not an individual right. The consequences of those decisions affect other people.

      1. Last thing this country needs is more welfare babies. It’s only someone’s right to bring a baby into the world that they can financially support and don’t require tax payers to compensate for.

        1. See, I’d frame that as “welfare should be abolished”.

        2. The problem with this is it gets all “hitlery” for people to talk about parenthood licenses. Hitler built bridges and the autobahn too but it’s a tough line to cross when the state starts telling people who can and can’t have kids.

        4. I’d be putting that stuff in the water in all “underprivileged” neighborhoods if I could.

        5. Yeah I’m all for that. Also strongly for making it easier for incapable parents to be criminally prosecuted and permanently lose their guardianship status. Along with other tax incentives for financially sound two parent households.

        7. As a Pole, I do think that he had a bad attitude towards Poland and he was a fascist jerk which I find amusing that the left worships big government and accuses Trump of being Hitler when their agenda is the worst combination of Nazi big government and bad eugenics. It’s like they hate Hitler so they’ll do everything badly just to spite him.

        8. End the welfare state. Return charity to the private sector. When people are forced to support the children of the lower class they have to work more to maintain themselves and thus don’t have (as many) children and the lower class has more time to have more children.

        9. Parental licensing is right out early 20th century american eugenics. The sterilization of the unfit, etc.

        10. As was legalized birth control and contraceptives in general. Logically, the current public policy to fund free abortion and contraception for middle class white women is often referred to as a positive means to reduce the number of “racist” white people oppressing others. The cultural left is so insane that they celebrated their own extinction.
          If you haven’t seen it yet, check out “Zardoz” from netflix: A scifi film starring Sean Connery about a futuristic, privileged society that welcomes its own destruction and rape by barbarian hordes.

        11. When the private sector handled welfare/charity, it often was exploitative such as the workhouses (Dickens wrote almost a whole library about it). It’s not a perfect solution by any means, but it’s certainly better than what we have today where the taxpayer is forced to pay for the state for an underclass that loathes him.

        12. I thought we were discussing the USA.
          In any case the poor law created the workhouse system. The state created it. I suppose as usual the state’s atrocities and failures are blamed on the private sector.

        13. Good point regarding how it’s apples and oranges to compare Britain to American welfare/charity systems.
          If I may offer this observation: it’s still perfectly possible for many private companies to offer charity today. Consider Microsoft and Bill Gates who has billions of dollars and then sends the money over the third world while then refusing to hire (or train) local American workers and instead bring in 3rd world workers. Is this charity or some kind of anti-west/American program that Gates is involved in?
          When Carnagie got a billion dollars for his steel mills, he put that money mostly into local charities including a library I spent entire summers learning Physics, electronics, and computer science. Whether it’s government or private industry, it’s amusing and infuriating, isn’t it?, how they often spend that “charity” to stab the worker and taxpayer in the back?

        14. “It’s only someone’s right to bring a baby into the world that they can financially support and don’t require tax payers to compensate for.”
          Great John. Thanks for openly saying the fact. Most of the times, I wonder how people (any Country !) say that they have 3 or 4 or 5 (or more) children ! and how the heck they are able to “provide” for them !
          Imagine the cost ! Food, Clothes, Shelter to accommodate, Insurance/Healthcare, Entertainment/Vacations, Education etc. etc. !
          OMG ! If indeed the parents (majority of cases: the MAN) can achieve this without “hefty” handouts & subsidies (from Tax Payers Money), then it’s fine. Otherwise … !?

        15. The bigs do, but most private charity was small and local and rarely had such motivations. Look at today’s modern internet versions.

  8. I support designer babies and “neo-eugenics”: The smarter, and more fit, that humans are, the more likely we will survive as a species.
    But whenever the word “eugenics” gets thrown around, the word “Nazi” and “Hitler” are always present as well.
    Obviously, we should not go to involuntary or forced sterilization (which would be very anti-libertarian). But providing incentives for those with hereditary illness to not reproduce, and improving intellect and health through designer babies is a wonderful thing.
    I sincerely wish I had been the result of five generations of eugenics (and I might have been, if it hadn’t died out by the 1940s).

    1. I really, really think it’s a horrible idea. What is a bad thing aesthetically, or even with regard to some genetic diseases, is a bonus against other diseases or situations. Saying perfection in regard to human genetics by “tailoring” is an awful idea on its face. So ok, we all become the blonde haired blue eyed wunderkind and all that’s great, then the sun’s intensity brightens a bit and we all become tunnel dwelling trolls, where in a world with various different non-controlled genetic quirks, at least some of us would remain above ground. Or whatever.

      2. Let me caveat my support with this: The science behind how genetics work to actually produce a human being would have to be significantly more understood. Especially given the sheer number of combinations available, and if you change one combination of nucleic acids, it creates an astronomically large number of new possibilities and changes.
        I don’t think technology is there yet. But encouraging high-IQ individuals to mate with athletic superstars (through some sort of incentives, other than the natural ones) will probably be a net benefit for the collective intellect, wisdom and health of humanity.
        But in regards to your specific possibility: the smarter we are as a species, the more likely we are to develop ways to travel to other star systems and planets. This significantly reduces the risk of local stellar phenomenon harming the human species.

        1. “But encouraging high-IQ individuals to mate with athletic superstars
          (through some sort of incentives, other than the natural ones)”
          We do this already, it’s called fame and fortune, churns out a horrid little species of mutant with Silcon Valley beta dads and cock carousel moms. Nasty stuff. Until it gets to the point where I’m immortal with the ability to psychically control others, three more dicks and two more arms to hold them with, there wouldn’t be much point.

        3. Damn time machine…on the fritz again…undershot by a whole day…*grumble* now the continuum is altered, but I promise that joke was funny tomorrow.

        4. All going to other stars does is open up a whole new infinity sized can of issues we might have to contend with.

        5. “….and pray there’s intelligent life somewhere up in space ’cause there’s bugger all down here on earth”

        6. 100% true, and I look forward to dealing with those issues. When it comes to extra-terrestrial exploration, the risk is infinite, but the potential reward is “equal” to the risk (as two infinities can’t be equal).
          Not just for humanity, but for me personally. I can’t wait to start mining “unobtaniaum” and knocking down the Navi’s tree. And making $30 million per ounce, much of which will go to funding red pill political organizations, candidates and businesses that will take the red pill mainstream.
          At that point, when the red pill becomes mainstream, there will probably be a divergence: You’ll have the GhostOfJeffersons and Roosh Vs on the more libertarian/non-interventionist side, and the FitzRoy Sommersets advocating some sort of interstellar coalition or empire to ensure the stability of the patriarchy and the security of Earth and its colonies.
          The day that the biggest mainstream political debate is between the non-interventionist red pillers and the advocates of Anglo-American red pill power expansion while PC/SJW/Progressives are a small fringe like the John Birch Society is very close to an ideal future.

      3. Fully agree. Eugenics on a broad scale is suicidally arrogant. Evolution is an interaction between organisms and their environment, fueled by randomness. A reduction in genetic diversity by scientifically removing all of our less-attractive traits puts us at a disadvantage responding to that randomness. And at a greater likelihood of extinction.
        And even if it didn’t – that level of social engineering, right down to our very bodies, is entirely anti-freedom and totalitarian in nature.

      4. Yeah, and eugenics is a slippery slope towards inbreeding. Just google the Polygamist Kingston Clan from Utah.

      1. Excellent point. Another possible downside is the possibility that it could be hijacked by the SJW’s to create a race of subservient beta men (a very real possibility).

  9. Highly against these designer babies. I think we should put money into curing (or preventing) autism. I think designer babies are frankly immoral. Sometimes science needs to step back and let nature takes its course.
    If you want to encourage family formation I think we need to put God/religion back into our lives. I think we need to win the war on feminism. I think we need to get past this notion that men and women are equal. We need to differentiate between a man and woman and convey to the world that men and women have different roles and responsibilities. We are not direct competitors but work in tandem with one another. We also need to promote parenthood as something that is cool and in vogue. We do this through media and movies. Having a president with 5 kids helps us here as well.
    Additionally, we need to be more critical of those who do not get married and have kids. We need to condemn the sex and the city girl lifestyle. Also (and this is very important) we need parents pressuring girls to get married and have kids at a respectable age (early to mid 20’s). I think the last piece will help us the best. The thing is how do we encourage baby boomers/gen X to push their daughters into married and kids?

    2. Designer babies are going to happen no matter how much you don’t want them to. The west might legislate against it, but the east definitely won’t. They couldn’t care less about human rights arguments in mainland China and that’s where it will originate from.

      1. Women can already go to the sperm bank and buy the traits they want. Most popular male sperm is 6 ft tall, white, lawyer, plays guitar, and likes cats, face like george cloony.

        1. There was a news story last year about some guy who donated sperm which was ‘successfully used’ by several women. Turns out the guy has Schizophrenia and was able to hide that little fact when he was being screened. Some of the mothers were pissed to say the least, but what kind of message does that say to their kids if they ever found out that their mothers publicly complained that they were duped with a “bad batch”? I’m not against sperm donor pregencies but fuck you for thinking that by doing that you have the right to determine an innocent child’s worth by a picture and a list of criteria.

        2. Desperate lesbians who can’t afford the fertility clinic prices troll craigslists for sperm donors who hand over the sample outside the starbucks restroom. Gives new meaning to coffee date. lol

    3. If we are going to pressure girls to marry we should also pressure men to marry when they find a good woman. Yes, there are plenty of women who are out living a disgusting lifestyle, but there are also men out there who will meet a good woman and completely waste her time. :/

  10. Who is worthy of life? The genetic traits that are most attractive to society elites right now have absolutely no bearing on human progression.

  11. I’ve been called a nazi for stating that women trying to get pregnant over 35 are playing the syndrome Russian roulette. They are down with the down so to say. They could have started getting their baby a decade earlier, but they probably preferred slutting, working, traveling to dirty countries, some more slutting (in the hostels during their trip of “self discovery”) and of course a lot of partying and drinking whine with her girlfriends. No man was good enough for her when was really fertile. She waited until 5 minutes before the last egg dried up. Then any man (who was crazy and beta enough) was good.
    We should stop giving women over 35 IVF treatments. In my country those are partly refunded by health insurance companies. I find that ridiculous. I don’t pay premiums for those kind of non life- threatening procedures. In my opinion, if you can’t have children, you shouldn’t. Nature is telling you something. I also nod my head when I see people who had cancer saying they still want to get a baby. It’s really shameful to pass on genetic shortcomings. Doesn’t matter if it’s cancer you had or Autism you have.
    And. When I see how many low IQ scum of the earth people get children, it’s a crime against civilization. Doesn’t matter if you are a gypsy or will become a 6 foot blonde guy. Stupid is stupid. There should be more rules around breeding. Only the best should be able to reproduce.

    1. But that’s just it: Even with IVF and cancer patients having children artificially, the welfare state in it’s own way is an artificial subsidization of “idiocracy” with far worse consequences. $10,000 spent on IVF for an aging career woman who finally got married is probably better spent than a similar amount of money for a migrant to have another kid.

      1. I have more respect for a migrant who has a child at 25 and doesn’t pax taxes than a career woman who paid a million in taxes and think she can ignore nature to her will. “I can have IVF or freeze my eggs so I should enjoy some more trips to France and Cuba”. That is her reasoning. Also, I’m against fat, ugly women getting semen from Scandinavian countries. That’s “in” nowadays in the Netherlands. The same kind of women, but most of the time single and a bit younger. They also commit moral crimes withholding a child of a father figure.

        1. Semen from Scandinavian countries?
          So… those sperm owners have 0 idea of what kind of woman that gonna raise their spawns? The kid has 0 idea about the father and the mother doesn’t even care enough about the sperm owner?
          Maybe it’s just the 3rd world country citizen of me speaking; you have (undoubtedly) more advance technology than my place. But this is too much. It’s starting to tear families apart to the root. This has to stop.

        3. Well said. What the hell a migrant has to do with the western females “not getting married at right age” !?
          Pretty much strange enough that how the “locals” ignore basic facts & motives of this Government in allowing “immigrants” from “selected Countries” !
          Why the “locals” ignore that this Government doesn’t allow “immigrants” from Countries like Bharat/Hindustan. People come here as Students, Professionals, Scholars, Scientists, Doctors/Pharmacists and Entrepreneurs.
          So then, why the people from “selected Countries” are allowed as immigrants (mass immigration) !? I don’t want to talk about the Conspiracies, Vested Interests, De-stabilizing other Counties ruling party/governments, Military coups etc !!!

    2. “Doesn’t matter if you are a gypsy or will become a 6 foot blonde guy. Stupid is stupid.”
      I appreciate for calling a Stupid “a Stupid”, regardless of color/faith/origin etc.

      1. I’m a teacher. I certainly think that white women with light eyes, lighter hair-colors like blonde and red are much more attractive than the boring looking all dark hair eyes Asians and Arabs etc. But that doesn’t mean I’m subjective in what I experience. I have multiple student who are non-white but very smart and also behave well. And white students who have fruitfly IQ and shitty characters.

        1. That’s quite obvious and nothing abnormal or odd. As a Asian, I have my own likes & dislikes. For example, I do NOT like (skin color doesn’t matter) women with light eyes, lighter hair-colors like blonde and red; these traits are literally BORING for me. Again, this is only from my perspective, and maybe, other Asian MEN have different opinions, likes and dislikes !

        2. I live in a western country were multiculturalism is preached. But what I mean is: there is no 1- white race. Germanic tribes mixed together. Slavic blood is mixed with German. We have green eyes, blue, grey and blue or with green. Brown hair, blonde, red. In all shades. And that is not diversity? Having brown eyes and very brown/black hair, that is what they call diversity over here. And to me that is just crazy. And again, doesn’t mean I dislike for instance Iranian women. Those can be really hot

    3. My mother has 8 children altogether. She had me at 35, and had three more children after me. She had her last one at 45. All of us breastfed and healthy as can be. She recovered quite well from all her pregnancies also

  12. Like many sociobiological arguments, it makes a lot of assumptions about how “nature” planned for everything as it is now. Women didn’t necessarily have long lifetimes until relatively recently, for example, but then again most people didn’t live beyond 40 or so anyway. Ramses the 2nd lived to be about 80 or so which made him a true god to most of his subjects since he would have outlived most of their grandparents. I don’t think nature intends to kill us off at certain ages because our modern long lifetimes are as artificial as IVF and Caesarean breach births.
    Many granola eaters (and the film Fight Club) would argue that this modern lifestyle is unhealthy for our species and the planet and we’d be better off going back to being cavemen with short, but environmentally sustainable lifetimes and lifestyles. Watch the show “Below Zero” about how some families live “sustainable” which is another word for month-to-month. One of the guys who lives in a tiny cabin by himself is just one illness away from dying (with a camera crew watching, of course)

    1. Many granola eaters (and the film Fight Club) would argue that this modern lifestyle is unhealthy for our species and the planet and we’d be better off going back to being cavemen with short, but environmentally sustainable lifetimes and lifestyles.

      That’s just Newspeak for making the proles live in mudhuts. The nomenklatura will have all the comforts they deny others.

      1. Let’s compare a nation similar to this such as India or China to the USA or Europe (even Eastern Europe). Most proles in the west have access to reliable electricity, heat, advanced electronics and healthcare, and the middle class marketplace. This stimulates the creation of these goods and services to be more affordable and for a stable society whereby an oligarch can walk around without bodyguards.
        In feudal societies such as India, China or middle ages Europe, the elite had access to advanced goods, for the time, but since they were custom made they were expensive and often rare even for them. A sickly middle and working class ultimately makes life tougher for the elites albeit for some elites in the short term, they appear more powerful.
        I’m reminded of the line from 1984 where O’Brien observes that the elite simply want more power, period, even if human experience (even their own) is worse off for it. In 1984, O’Brien’s apartment was luxurious compared to the middle class worker Winston, but inferior to even a working class person’s today. This is also largely the case in the former USSR where the GUM store was considered luxurious, but a trip to Aldi or Costco would offer more variety.

  13. Authors bio: Identifies as a libertarian 3 times
    authors blog: government intervention on fertility and intervention.

    1. If they’re going to then at least let it be for the good. I never said I idealise state intervention with anything.

  14. In “America Alone,” Mark Steyn suggests this tax policy.
    Two men earn $50,000 annually. One in single, the other has a stay-at-home wife and three kids.
    The single man pays taxes on the entire $50K. The married man, since he is one fifth of his household, only pays taxes on one fifth of his salary, or on $10K. The other $40K is not taxed.
    Any thoughts?

    1. I prefer equality before the law. And thus, I would say that the income tax as an institution needs to be repealed and destroyed. Enough with using the tax code to craft social policy. No income tax, and nothing to replace it, and fuck our entire National Security State bullshit that’s kept that shit afloat since the end of WW2, I say.

      1. OK, so that’s a “no.” Definitely a case to be made regarding having the U.S. shed its “world policeman” status.

      3. Easily one of the top 3 things suppressing entrepreneurship in new small businesses. Want to start from the bottom and compete with big box? Get ready to pay double or more tax rate as an “individual”. Big box figured that out long ago, peons. They have dedicated accounting, are able to hire felons for credits, write off bogus bad debt etc.

      4. The last few years I’ve been looking at expanding my business. I’ve weighed up the pros and cons and at the end of the day I’m better off treading water, no hassle of employment law, increased taxes, accountancy fees, and stress…….
        My father ran a business turning over millions per year and didn’t have to deal with the shit a small business has to cope with these days…..

    2. get the fuck out of here. The married guy is going to use a lot more of the collective pot than the single guy on average. I am not looking to be fleeced so the government can redistribute the money I work for to shit that only benefits people with kids.

      1. You’re being selfish. It’s not about you because you will die. It’s about keeping your tribe alive and flourishing. Those who contribute to that are valued higher than those who don’t.
        And I know everyone wants their specific choices to be the most valued but sorry, won’t happen.
        Besides, sure, a family will use more of the “collective pot” initially but they will also add x amount of new contributors to the pot.

        1. fuck you, fuck the tribe and fuck the people saddled with little brats…they wanted kids, let them pay for the fucking things. I am not a tribe minded person. Yes, I am selfish. Yes, my happiness means much more to me than a huge pile of burned babies. I am sick of the shaming that goes on about men who opt out of this absurd paradigm of farting out progeny. Every time someone makes a comment like yours I hear some shrill fat woman telling me I will die alone because I refuse to get trapped in a marriage.
          If you are the type that enjoys family life and children then great for you. Really. I wish you and your children the best. But do not ask me to play along and definitely don’t ask me to fund your fucking hobbies. I don’t ask young parents to cough up some money so I can take 25 year olds out for drinks and sodomy I don’t see why I should be expected to contribute to the education, well being, garbage removal and any other expense that their kids bring on.

        2. I don’t ask young parents to cough up some money so I can take 25 year olds out for drinks and sodomy I don’t see why I should be expected to contribute to the education, well being, garbage removal and any other
          expense that their kids bring on.

          That’s a bit of a specious stance honestly. My taxes being married and with kids are pretty sucky. My kids both now work and are paying their own way, so in essence instead of just me and the wife paying into infrastructure, we now have 4 people paying into it. As to education, I am against public education funded by tax money altogether and think it should be a wholly private affair. That being said, if it must be public funded, then the benefit YOU gain from it is that we have ostensibly educated younger people coming in to the tax roles to pull *your* weight once you hit 80 and are sucking up way more than you put into things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. I’m not for these things and I don’t think that they should exist, but this is not a game where you get no benefit. My 2 working kids add 2 more taxpayers funding your subsidized subway and sidewalks, which neither they nor I will use. Which is fine.
          And garbage collection is private here.
          I do think that penalizing single people is a bad idea. Per my other post, I loathe social policies enacted by the tax code altogether, even if they’re to my benefit.

        3. Sensitive subject?
          There is no need for any shaming, but what I do mean is that it’s natural that a society would reward a behaviour that keeps it healthy, which is, among other things, having kids and raising them well.
          You can serve in other ways, don’t worry. But one of those ways may be to contribute more resources (instead of all the time parents put in). But if you don’t want to contribute neither time nor money… what use are you to those around you?
          I hear you about marriage. Not too fond of the prospect myself. We definitely need to figure something out on that front.
          I don’t have kids yet so I don’t know if I will enjoy it or not. We’ll just have to see.
          You see kids as people’s hobbies. I guess it could be but they are doing a public service in a way. Not one you appreciate apparently, but one nonetheless. You may consider yourself someone who can make it alone, but honestly, without others now and everything our ancestors built, you would be alone in nature and die very quickly. The service of that not being the case is not free. It requires some form of contribution.

        5. nah, not sensitive….just annoying at times.
          I am not sure why you would think that society would reward having kids. You say its healthy. I say it is a fucking miserable trap and 49 out of every 50 people I know with kids would throw them into a volcano to step into my life.
          If you really think that a person is valued solely by the amount of kids he has some wench shit out I feel bad for you. I do not see children as a public service. They are a private hobby and more often than not a public menace. Do I need others? Of course I do. I don’t want to live in a world alone. Shit, I rarely leave Manhattan. I need at least 2 dozen well staffed restaurants and as many bars. I need lots of shit. What I don’t need is the little narcissism doll that people call children. I don’t give two fucks about your ancestors or about my ancestors. What I have in this world I created with my brain, with my hands and with my strength. Some fuckers that are long dead mean less to me than most the people that are alive and that is saying a lot.
          And yes, I would be alone and die very quickly without society. But here is the thing: You are born into a situation. It could have been better, it could have been worse. Here is what you have. From there on it is about what you do…you….my contributions to society: I am a very good tipper, I work hard, I care about the people I care about. You want to imagine that kids give you some immortality, like I said, I don’t ever put down what a man does for pleasure. But pretending it is some kind of great and noble thing is just silly. Enjoy your life. Have some kids. Teach them to throw a ball. Whatever. But if you want me to pay a dime towards it or pretend that it matters in any way I am not playing ball

        6. WEll, to start with I was being a little cheeky about the whole sodomy thing. Further, I think everyone is taxes in a frankly criminal way. As for the rest of it: I paid this year slightly over 7 times the average American in federal taxes. I am pulling my weight and the weight of a couple of others. This is the system we have. It is a bad one. You and I, as we have spoken about before, fully agree with what we should do with the federal taxes…..but we have what we have. So be it. My response was to the idea that we should penalize single people. But yeah….we agree whole heartedly on federal taxation.

        8. I am pulling my weight and the weight of a couple of others.

          Yep, and Shaquansha and DeTyrell appreciate your contribution. Heh.
          Social engineering always bugs the living fuck out of me. The methods to do it are better or worse, but none of them are good or morally acceptable in my estimation. The entire point of liberty was to *not* be compelled or enticed by the government to live a certain way or another, but to be left alone to make your way in life as you saw fit and to associate with whom you wished to associate. A point that is lost even to many on the right these days, let alone the monsters on the left.
          As to how much I pay in taxes individually, well, I honestly don’t know what the average is being paid right now by the “common man”, but I do know that I pay a ton more than most people since I earn several “average household incomes” all by my lonesome every year single handedly (not to mention what the wife makes).

        9. Like I said, we couldn’t possibly agree more with how much of the federal budget can go right in the toilet and what we should do with the federal income tax. But while I am ponying up slightly more than the median American salary in fed taxes (not to mention what I pay in state and city taxes) it really annoys me to hear that I should get further punished for choosing a lifestyle that I enjoy over one I would absolutely detest because some people think it has some kind of intrinsic value.

        10. You seem to have an extremely individualist view of what society is. I mean that it’s healthy for a society (as a group) to reproduce itself.
          Sure, the well staffed restaurants and bars, but you also need(ed) equally well-staffed schools, hospitals, grocery stores and all other infrastructure. No being is created ready to work for your benefit. They are kids first right? So you do need other people’s kids now (when they are grown up), and will continue to need them in the future. So why be so hostile about it?
          You don’t care about your ancestors, you don’t care about tribe, kids or genetics? What DO you care about?
          I’m sure you tip well and that you care about some people. But those people may never have existed unless someone chose to have them right? Same with you.
          Point is, kids are not some isolated thing that can just be seen as someone’s own little thing. It concerns the entire organism that is the tribe/nation.

        11. The problem with the libertarian position is that we’re never ever left alone. If not the government, it’s the big businesses like Google, Apple or Starbucks or media conglomerates or just leftist billionaires like George Soros or Mark Zuckerberg. They all want to do social engineering to fit their ideals. Sometimes the government is your main problem, and sometimes you need the government to fight off the other ones.
          Right now, there are thousands of “non-governmental organizations” out in the world, spreading western feminism and multiculturalism to the countries have have not understood their greatness. This is supported by governments, media and big business. Most of the western establishment.
          Let’s say you have a fragile state that doesn’t do a lot of social engineering. Would they leave you alone? No! They would coup that state and make it work for them like in Ukraine. In exchange for money and political support, they’ll need to implement western feminism, multiculturalism, egalitarianism etc.

        12. May never have existed doesn’t matter. They do exist. The world is as it is. No I don’t care about tribe or genetics. I care about individual accomplishment. And yes, I do see kids as someone’s hobby. You like kids. Great. I like weight lifting. I know someone who likes video games. That’s all she wrote

        13. It’s your choice to see it as “further punished”. The single lifestyle is the most promoted lifestyle of today’s establishment. How exactly are you so punished that you add the word “further”?
          If you don’t want kids, don’t have them. But you may be asked to pay a bit more for the privilege. From what I see from you, you should take that deal and run 😉

        14. I’ve been funding activities for the daughters of bad parents for 3 decades

        15. What’s funny are the guys who preach about using women, don’t commit, don’t marry, next the bitch when she doesn’t tow the line, spin your plates and then complain that young women won’t settle down and raise families. Hypocritical bullshit from man boys. At least you are consistent that you want to fuck around and don’t want commitment either way.

        16. I’m sure you have. Personally, I don’t like the fact that those who should have the least children are having the most. The welfare state is very problematic.

        17. Individual accomplishment is mostly an illusion as far as I’m concerned. We would be absolutely nowhere without the entire support network that was built and rebuilt countless times throughout the ages by our forebears. You would have no food, very little knowledge in general and certainly no internet.
          I don’t particularly like or dislike kids. But I think good men should have them so they can survive in some small sense and hopefully teach the next generation to be slightly better than we are now. Seeing it as a hobby is about as accurate as seeing food only as a source of pleasure.

        18. I gotta say, I don’t think it is actually possible to be more wrong than this. That said, you say it smartly and with conviction.best to you

        20. I don’t like that shit either. Want a wholesome girl, go get one. Get involved with a church, move to a rural area, be a decent an honorable man. I don’t want wholesome girls. Not too long ago I turned one down who wanted to fuck me because I don’t need that headache in my life when I toss her to the side.
          I def see and admonish he hypocrisy of the guys who want it both ways.

        21. “You would be alone in nature and die very quickly”. Are we in prehistoric times here? You write like we haven’t discovered fire yet and people are under threat of being eaten by sabre tooth tigers.

        22. And this is exactly what’s happening, in Canada too. The people who should not have kids are popping them out yearly while more responsible people are limiting it to two or even one. We pay for welfare kids to wear Canada Goose Jackets and carry iPhones.

        23. The “tribe”, the society can go to hell. This tribe as you call it, these people with their damn’d hands out calling single men selfish for not cheering to pay more taxes broke the functionality of society for a lot of men.
          They decided they didn’t like productive achievers so they broke the social rewards for the achiever and decided to steal them for themselves through the state under the guise of children. But that wasn’t all.
          Their perverse incentives changed what it took not to be single. It wasn’t good enough any more just to be a decent productive man because women could get what they wanted from the state and a sperm donor of their choosing. Why put up with a decent productive man when they could have tens or hundreds of exciting men? The worse it gets the more men drop out. The more you tax them the less productive they become.
          Your tribe decided to return to animal 80/20 norms. It decided to commit suicide by creating a welfare state. I and other single men had no part in it.

        24. Why is it assumed the schools are designed to produce educated productive people? They aren’t. At best they are designed to produce obedient workers. That’s productive to a degree but that’s about it.
          Contributions to SS and the rest are considerable opportunity costs. 12% of earnings for one’s entire career is a considerable sum. Remember, a person has to earn both sides of the accounting trick. Besides the only reason future taxpayers are required is because SS is a pyramid scheme.
          So the logic I am seeing as you present this tired old argument of why single people should pay for schools is because the government diminished a person’s ability to care for himself that ability should be further diminished to produce future tax payers to care for him in his old age. It’s perfect circular logic.

        25. Without the state the corporations are powerless. The first round of the wealthy attempting social engineering fell apart in the early 20th century. It was attempted privately. Even with a complaint and helpful state it didn’t work. Thus from that point forward the state was used directly.

        26. This society is not presently structured to reward behavior that would keep it healthy and sustain it. It starts betraying productive men at an early age and it only gets worse as time goes on.
          If the society were concerned about its own health and the productivity and reproduction of men it would have allowed this present condition to come to be.
          The idea of shaming men into participating in it as if it had not changed is well right out of the feminist playbook.

        27. Ever notice that the moment the childless start telling those with children how to raise them is when the whole ‘it takes a village’ nonsense drops to the side. Children then become private again.

        28. It’s meant to illustrate the hubris of believing in extreme individualism. A few exceptional individuals can make a big difference but forgetting the support teams (the entire infrastructure) that made their accomplishments possible is a folly.
          Personally, I like to think we’re just a few faulty steps from being back in the bronze age (i.e nuclear weapons going off, power grids going down, oil running out with no suitable replacement etc). Ideally, we should be somewhat prepared for that eventuality, not just hope that everything works as planned. Change is a constant, and not always the change you plan for.

        29. They are doing social engineering with and without the state. A lot of corporations today are much more powerful than most states.
          If Google wants to form people a certain way, and they do, they can do this globally. And they basically have monopoly or semi-monopoly in a lot of very influential areas so we don’t have much choice than to use their products.
          They didn’t have the reach in the early 20th century that they do now. Back then, the state was still king. This has changed later.
          You can see yourself how Trump and these big companies will battle for supremacy. A lot of them has put up opposition to Trump’s policies. It’s like in medieval times when the state and church would sometimes cooperate and sometimes compete for the position as the most powerful entity.

        30. That’s not what I was saying.
          I said that a healthy society will promote behaviors that will sustain and strengthen it. But we both know that we’re not living in healthy societies anymore, and I fully understand the wish not to contribute to these.
          I don’t want to lend them a nickel either.
          Tribe is something small and local. It’s the basis of community. It’s not the 300-million-broken-society of endless consumerism you may be living in now.
          I’m single too btw. I just don’t idealize it.
          Someone once compared men to trucks. That we drive straighter with a weighted load, and I think that’s true for the most part. We’re not meant to be alone. We’re meant to live in communities and procreate. Not just seek temporary pleasure with woman after woman with no actual consequence.

        31. Well said. Especially in the Countries with “welfare system”, majority of people love to “breed” kids to benefit from Taxes (and several other factors). More kids, more Tax rebates and benefits !

        34. My county has more people than a fair number of states. Municipalities are 30-40K or more population. Telling me that a single man like myself has to pay even locally is bullshit. Most of us are not living in hunter-gatherer 250 persons top communities.
          I don’t idealize being single, but I know I am being screwed over. Paying a huge penalty because I refuse to play a stupid game where the only winning move is not to play.
          Men are fine being alone. At least many are. Men taking lives of solicitude are throughout history and human societies. Many men are just fine with intellectual and other pursuits. Don’t confuse me with lolknee, we see the way things are much the same way but deal with it in totally opposite manners. Ultimately how man deals with a situation comes down his personality. Mine is to say ‘the hell with it’ and walk away.

        35. The state and corporations merged in the 1930s. Since then its about who’s the senior partner. Strip the corporations of their state granted monopolies and cartels and such and they will crumble.

        36. On a personal level it’s quite unjust that a single male who hardly ever uses the states resources should pay 7 times more federal tax than the average American (as loolknee did). It’s simply punishing who’s ambitious and choose other goals in life than family. The most fair tax system would be a flat one not a progressive tax system. Progressive tax systems means you nett less per hour the more work you put in. Discouraging many qualified professionals to put in extra hours. As loolknee states many single men pay a lot more in tax in real terms than many families does.

        38. You are being screwed over now because you’re paying but not getting the benefits.
          But in a healthy society, you would probably want to contribute because you would see the good your contributions leads to and it would be primarily to people you know or at least can identify with.
          I think we’re speaking past each other. Whatever we do now is a reaction to the sick state of things and is therefore less than ideal.
          No, you can only have a life of solitude if there is infrastructure/tribe/community that supports it (think i.e monasteries). You would not last long alone in the woods. You would be one broken leg away from death all the time. You’d have no one to guard you while you sleep. If you’re very skilled at hunting, what plants you can eat, how to purify water etc, I’d give you a couple of months to a year to live if you’re alone. If you, like most westerners, are not skilled like this, you’ll be dead within 3 weeks.

        39. Why would they crumble?
          Let’s take Google. Which state granted them monopolies?
          And cartels… that has little to do with the state. It is very common for cartels to form if there are only a few powerful players because they all benefit from it.

        40. This isn’t a healthy society so let’s not pretend it is. This a society designed to exploit men’s productivity for the benefit of the ruling class, government functionaries, and women.
          Monasteries and other such things were often entirely self supporting. But that was time where like minded people could go off on their own. Today the greater society, especially in the USA must stomp out the weirdos. Violently if need be.
          If I had grown up with a 18th century frontier lifestyle I would do quite well with it. Meanwhile, people like yourself would die without people like me who make the technology and keep the technology functioning. I grew up in a technological world but I learned it. What you seem to be preaching is the ‘you didn’t build that, what about the roads’ statism. Which is a false premise on to itself because in free system where there is a need someone creates what is needed. The things don’t go away the forcing of paying the state as sole provider of them does. The state no more needs to provide roads and schools as it does cell phone service.

        41. Google does not have a monopoly. If someone comes up with something better google could disappear very quickly.
          Cartels are never lasting without government enforcement because each member of the cartel has incentive to break the cartel’s rules and thus someone eventually does.

    3. Fuck income taxes altogether. The country got along just fine without them in the past, it can do it again.

    7. You are wasting your time my Friend ! But you are right and I am with you. God damn it, as a single person, I am paying more than 48K in Taxes !

  15. What use could this dusty old shrew possibly have as a mother? Liberals and their pseudo-scientific occult experiments make me sick. Breeding is good, hopefully the children are of European descent from the father and from a mother whose muff hasn’t received miles of dick (you know how those DNA receptacles take genes from past fuckers semen)

    1. That whole “DNA from past fuckers” stuff is rather dubious, at best.
      I eat lots of cow and chicken, yet somehow, my body has taken that DNA and eliminated it or transformed it into useful fuel. What it has not done, is assimilate it directly and made me part bovine, part rooster and part human.

      1. Are you stuffing the filet mignon and chicken pate into your vagina where it can be absorbed directly, GOJ?? Plus, slight difference between human semen and another species muscle tissue, yes? Perhaps the digestive enzymes of your stomach are playing a factor also?
        But you’re absolutely right, we better keep this discussion on track and within the conventional box of wisdom… thanks Hoss!

  16. In the UK you need a license to own a dog. You should be required to be tested and shown to have the financial means and emotional competence to have children that’s all I’m saying.

  17. Just remember da ladies filling their bodies with hormone therapy (the pill!). Great for us dudes as we can drill away and not have to deal with the consequences. Unfortunately for the ladies in question it makes conception difficult in later life if they’ve been on the pill for years. The drug companies don’t complain of course as they are making money on the contraception end and then on the conception drugs later on when her eggs are dried up. Oh and then there’s the oestrogen levels in the tap water going through the roof from the birds piss going down the sewer…..

    1. Your last sentence was what I was going to jump in an mention. Hormones going into *everybody’s* bodies, who don’t use really good filters anyway.

  18. This is a tough nut for several reasons. A summary by a fiction-writing friend appears here, but allow me to present the high points:
    — Now that children are no longer allowed to labor except in narrowly defined cases, they have become a pure economic burden.
    — Women have been forced into wage labor by inflation and rising taxes, which has added disincentives to the prospect of motherhood.
    — The women’s-liberation movement has deliberately devalued marriage, marital loyalty, and family itself and promoted careerism and the swinging-single lifestyle in their place.
    — Men have grown used to having sexual access without the marital commitment.
    These disincentives to marriage, childbearing, and motherhood are closely interlinked. It might be the case that they must be overcome simultaneously.

    2. What is intentional will not be undone.
      I just have two comments, additions to what you wrote really.
      Women work so prices and taxes go up so women work. Why can’t a man’s salary afford a home like it used to? Because women work and they have to out bid the other women for the same house to the limit of what the couple’s combined salaries can borrow. Taxes increase because women demand government do more because they are working. Taxes also increase because government wants more.
      Children are not allowed to work because if children are allowed to work on their own they become accustomed to it and then they don’t make good fungible human resources. I understand how children were treated way back when but the laws aren’t written to correct that, they are written to prevent children from establishing themselves and developing thought patterns that don’t serve the corporate state.

  19. I don’t think women or men should be having kids at 50 and older. How much energy are 60 yr olds going to have with a 10yr old active boy or girl? It’s selfish to wait that long to become a parent, only to have that child have to care for one or both frail elderly parents at an age when they would normally be shaping their own independent life. I think young people should start families with other young people. It’s just that modern society scares young people into thinking they can never raise a child properly until they have three college degrees and at last 100k annually in income. It’s pushed down their throats that the ideal time to have kids is when you are well established in a career and have money and other stabilities.
    The truth is there is no ideal time to have a kid, it’s scary as shit and a learning experience in fear of the unknown, unconditional love, and self doubt at any time in one’s life.

    1. Add 20 years to that, a kid is born at 50, how much energy would a 70 year old have with her high school kid drunk with hormones?
      We are about done, at late 30’s, we will be old in 20 years when the last one leaves.

    2. Yeah I’ve heard the ” must have 6 figure income to raise raise kids”. We raised two who are grown and successful on less than 40k a year for most of the time they were coming up. Made do on less than 25k from 1996 to 2001.
      People have to stop thinking that having kids is a curse or it ruins your life. They are a blessing and even with the ups and downs of raising them, if you do it halfass right they enrich your life.
      Had my first one when I was 21, two years and one month to the day later had the second. The oldest graduated from high school the year I turned 40.

  20. we had a kid at 40.
    there are pros and cons to early/late – -we have far more time/money/knowledge/experience than we had at 20…and still very fit.
    However, I am a proponent of early to bed for women…too many miss the boat…
    An investment opportunity if anyone interested – building safe spaces.
    Check out this new possible bill denying health services to mixed-genders, and women’s issues.:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-02/firestorm-coming-draft-trump-executive-order-may-deny-services-gay-transgender-peopl

  21. The necessary steps would be:
    * end the concept of child rights, including against abandonment.
    * end compulsory schooling.
    * legalize child employment
    * end women employment
    * illegalize birth control and abortion
    A father pointed out how the traditional folk had large families. He pointed out as soon as each child was enough that he or she would earn an income for the family.
    It’s akin to negatively- and positively-geared investment properties. How many can you own when you’re losing on each property? Few if any. How many can you own when you making money on each property? As many as you can find!

  23. A granny having a child is certainly preferable to IVF. Natural selection will destroy any people who don’t pass on their own genetics. That’s final. Only a retard like the author would suggest otherwise

  24. Fully agree with this article but I would go further and also prevent older men from fathering children. The genetic quality of reproduction falls off sharply in both sexes with age. And I also think that we need to grasp the nettle and not just look at promoting eugenics but also look at the flip side of the coin and deal rationally with the problem of useless eaters.

    1. May I ask what age limit do you propose for men?
      I am nearly 40 and only quite recently realised the importance of having children.
      I am one of those men whose life and thinking was fucked up by Feminism and Cultural Marxism.
      I am lucky I do not have a wife and kids yet, but I am planning to start a family in the not so far future, bearing in mind the inherent Red Pill-related risks I so far dodged.
      I want to have kids before I turn 45.

      2. I would say 50. Beyond that error creep into the transmitted DNA, and also you can not guarantee to be around to support the offspring to financial autonomy. Also stop whining about cultual Marxism. The first step in being a man is to take responsibility for yourself.

        1. Been there, done that.
          But what is that “whining” business, why do you accuse me with it? If I really started whining, would people care? Would they fuck.
          I am not “whining” about Cultural Marxism. We are waging a Cultural War here, and I want the term to be widely known. Talking or writing about Cultural Marxism and its negative effects is important. I would not consider it “whining”. Cheers!

        2. Find a good virgin breeder woman, woo her, game her and POUND HER until she spits babies out her mouth. Professional women on the other hand are no good because they’ve already signed a pact with the devil. But if you see a gal in the street who can do this
          http://youtu.be/wVW17eCfbhw
          then by all means drop what you’re doing and put on the A game. You see, if a girl is nimble and can dance, it means that she has good neuro wiring all around. She’s all good breeding stock, central nerve junction (brains) especially. A high SAT score isn’t fully a good indicator of a robust breeder with good genes or a loyal companion. A stiff aching girl who is intelligent but who is out of shape will be needy for excessive comforts and back pillows even if she’s smart and well natured. Her craggy body screams for what it wants first. Pheew forget that. But a limber girl dancing in the street because she feels like it . . that’s receptive nerves that are trainable and groomable to fit the bill for a good patriarch looking for a breeder and loyal servant/companion.

  25. Here’s an incentive: Kill feminism and the value proposition of breeding with western women will look better and better.

  26. IVF screening (the latest PGD-NGS) looks for genetic defects that will cause the implantation to fail or result in a baby that will die after birth, or will live with a severe defect (i.e. Down’s Syndrome, Klinefelter’s Syndrome ).
    So far there are no screening to look for ‘desirable’ traits such as high IQ. The science behind it is so verboten in the current environment, I don’t expect much progress in the research to determine which genes control intelligence. In fact, the push is right now to “prove” that IQ is not an inheritable trait.

  27. Over at the RooshV Forum, there was a thread I participated in with a similar theme, but focused on people not sacrificing their economic comfort to have kids (not being able to eat out as much, etc).
    A few us pointed out the issue is not the cost of food, clothes, toys, and entertainment when it comes to kids. Those costs, frankly are quite manageable even with a modest household income. The two economic crosses to bear are education and medical insurance.
    The former (assuming your kids are born without serious issues) is the worst of the two. Many of us have a choice of paying for private school (kindergarten cost $16k to $22k a year) or moving to an area with good school system. The latter means overpriced suburban housing with killer property taxes and long (expensive) commutes into work. Often, those “good schools” aren’t so great due to being infected with Cultural Marxism rot.
    Having multiple kids, paying for their education (either private or through killer property taxes), and saving for your retirement (so as to not be dependent on your kids) is a daunting problem. Even for those in the upper 40% of the take-home pay scale.

  28. As a modern woman, you would think I would disagree with this article. But nope, I wholeheartedly agree. I know it’s difficult for men who are ready to support families to find a decent woman to commit to, but believe me, gentlemen, it’s just as hard to find a man you can trust with your life, and family. Many of my friends choose to get pregnant out of wedlock in an attempt to “trap” a man. (For some it worked) I refuse to do that. I want to give birth to my husband’s children. Finding a husband in NYC is almost impossible.

  29. Silly boy. The first thing is we can deal with much of the issues .
    First know yourself, then know the technology. Many people are paying attention to the wrong voice. They do not know themselves. They cannot make good decisions without base knowledge of themselves. Otherwise all is made on someone else’s play book.
    The best thing for men is the end of the “traditional family”. That has kept them exploited for centuries(unless rich & noble).

  31. A successful man is one when lying on his death bed looks around and sees his adoring faithful wife of 30+ years and the room packed with his children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

  32. No one should ever have children. The human race sucks, we do nothing but consume and destroy everything on the planet. The earth would be much better off if we all died out. That is all.

    1. Yes, there are lots of people. Overpopulation on a resource-limited planet is a legitimate concern and a major challenge humanity is facing.
      But white population numbers are declining.
      That’s genocide.
      White people tend to value things like individualism, liberty, personal responsibility over one’s life, and they care about the Other.
      I think less white people means less of all of those things.
      The overall impact of Western Civilization on the world is a net positive in my eyes, though that may be somewhat difficult to argue.
      More white people need to reproduce than say, the demographic explosion that’s currently happening in Africa as of now.
      The world is literally becoming darker, demographically and spiritually.

Comments are closed.