Monday, March 20, 2017

The future belongs to those who show up for it

From the GSS, responses from white survey participants on the ideal number of children for a household to have, by year of participation in the survey:


Even as our TFR has been sub-replacement, our collective assessment of what we should be doing hasn't changed. We know replacement should be the floor. Fewer than 1-in-20 white Americans put the ideal number of children to have at 0 or 1.

Knowledge isn't enough, though, in this case or any other. We all have 10,000 Library of Alexandrias in our butt pockets. The sum of all human knowledge is 0.91 seconds away. Only when knowledge is put into practice does it become functional.

What we lack is the will. For more than a generation now the native populations of every Western nation--excepting Israel, if it is included as part of the Occident--have been failing to replace themselves.

This first manifests as an upward shift in the median age as the leading low-fertility generation grays. The total population doesn't actually start declining until that low-fertility generation begins dying off. It's already happening in Japan, and it will happen here when the Boomers check out.

It's not just that the populations in "refugee" sending countries are numerous, it's that even if their fertility fell to Western levels overnight, their populations would continue to grow for several decades.

Here are the median ages of populations in several refugee-sending countries:

Syria -- 24
Iraq -- 20
Chad -- 18
South Sudan -- 17
The Congo -- 20
Nigeria -- 18
Somalia -- 18
Yemen -- 19

Compare that to the geriatric West:

Germany -- 47
France -- 41 (the figure for the 10%+ of the population that is Muslim is significantly lower)
Italy -- 45
Great Britain -- 41
Sweden -- 41
The US -- 38

Increasing our birth rates is not sufficient to save Western civilization, but it is necessary. The future belongs to those who show up for it.

There are three actionable, conceivable things to do in the US (and Europe) to preserve ourselves and our posterity:

1) A moratorium on immigration (more politically palatable than preferential status for selected ancestrally and culturally compatible countries)

2) The repatriation of non-citizens ("you have to go back")

3) An increase in native fertility (an uptick of 25% would do the trick)

These are achievable. While we still have some ground to cover to get to 1) and 2), we're much closer today than we were even two years ago.

I'm anecdotal evidence for 3). My wife and I have two kids, aged 3 and 1, and we're not finished yet. My decision to start a family was spurred in large part by a sense of civilizational and ancestral duty. I was set to be a ZFG--zero fecundities given--genetic dead end through my mid-twenties, including the first few years of this blog. After a couple of years hovering in the seminal mists of the Dark Enlightenment--roughly the precursor to the Alt Right--it became clear to me that sitting on the sidelines was no longer an option.

Those who forget about their ancestors soon forget about their descendants.

Parenthetically, here's suggestive evidence that choosing cats over kids isn't something childless post-menopausal women are satisfied with having done:


Childless women over the age of 60 (n = 679) put the ideal number of children to have at 2.75 on average!

GSS variables used: CHLDIDEL(0-7), AGE(60-89), SEX, RACE(1), YEAR, BORN(1), CHILDS(0)

14 comments:

akarlin said...

The US is actually pretty good in this regard.

While the ideal number of children there is 2.5, as in France and Britain, it is more like 2.1 in the European Mediterranean and East-Central Europe, and 1.7 in the Germanic lands.

Joshua Sinistar said...

The salient point is we can feed ourselves and form social trust and they CAN'T. You can learn a lot watching the enemies media. Hollywood is the diseased and warped mind of the enemy. "Its a Wonderful Life" was a flop back when it was made, but now its an Annual Favorite for Millions. Why? Its simple really. Back then, Jimmy Stewart's character George's small town WAS AMERICA, and Pottersville was a sick and twisted Dystopian Future that people found absurd and disturbing. Now, we all live in Pottersville and George's small town is the America we only heard about. The diseased rat says that its a saccharine fantasy that never existed. These rats better hope people believe their dumb rat lies, cause pictures of it exist even now. Rats that tell sad dumb fantasies to rubes calling reality a fantasy. They CRAZY.

What's next on the sewer rat tour of dumbass Dystopian futures you can expect from dumb diseased rats? MAD MAX. Is it predictive? Or are these rats just dumb?

Sid said...

"I was set to be a ZFG--zero fecundities given--genetic dead end through my mid-twenties, including the first few years of this blog."

I'm going to speak more from personal experience than from data, but I think the male mind becomes ready for children sometime between the ages of 25 and 30. Schopenhauer believed the male mind matures around age of 28, and in my own experience, I think his intuitions are correct.

I know that a lot of natalists will insist that white men will be ready for children much earlier in their development cycle than 27-28, but when I went through my genealogy, I was astonished by how many men got married and had children in their late 20s and early 30s, particularly on the English side. Delayed marriage and family formation is a trademark of those living northwest of the Hajnal Line.

In a more ideal society, white men would be marrying around age 25-30, with white women marrying around age 20-25, though of course there would be plenty of exceptions (high school/college sweethearts getting married, late bloomers getting married in their mid 30s, etc.).

I think there are three factors which are impeding this:

1. There are cultural factors which discourage family formation, and instead encourage men and women to hold onto being childless consumers and corporate drones.

This factor is relatively easy to overcome for men. No one will remember most popular movies from this decade, but 80s movies with "patriarchal" values continue to resonate in men today.

2. One of Heartiste's big take ways from your (AE's) demographic polling analysis was that while single white men, married white men, and married white women voted for Trump in similar numbers, single white women voted well beneath the norm.

Making single white women DTF - down to fecund - will be a great challenge. I think that white men don't buy into anti-natalist cultural factors all that much, but white women likely do.

So far, white men have been increasingly able to liberate themselves from the Cathedral's culture, but we haven't taken it over. Having Trump in command of the bully pulpit helps a lot, but we're going to have to work hard to establish more cultural dominance, instead of just being able to resist the opposite side's propaganda.

3. The most important factor is economics. Frankly, family formation is quite expensive for individuals, even though it's beneficial for society and ultimately creates a more prosperous environment for people over time. This is where I think having Trump in charge makes the largest difference, and I hope he succeeds in his policy plans.

Anyway, this comment was more thinking aloud than anything else.

Anonymous said...

Well it may belong to those who show up with guns and ensure the others aren't around to show up for the future, period. This has happened many times in history and we're all a product of same, it's in our genes. Dig down, you don't have to go that deep you know.

TFR/TFW/KEK.

By the way when weapons progressed from blacksmiths to engineers the TFR ain't worth a damn.

They just seem to have us beat on balls. They're not hard to find, have your manly society buddies dick punch you. Right.There.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anatoly,

Fewer and fewer women identify as "feminist" in the US, and they are about the only people with an explicitly anti-natalist attitude. With the rest of society, it's the factors Sid discusses.

I wonder historically what the relationship between fertility and society-wide downward mobility is (i.e. Augustus famously pushed pro-natalism hard after decades of civil war and the effective end of the republic).

Joshua,

I've seen multgple surveys show that when asked where their ideal home would be, Americans say a small town. Implicit in that is cultural homogeneity, neighborliness, social trust, a social network not wildly out of line with Dunbar's number, etc.

Sid,

That diagnosis would explain away my perceived impetus. I'm 33 now, and my son was conceived when I was 29. On the paternal side, I'm English extending back to at least the 10th century (probably Anglo-Saxon, definitely not Norman).

There is scarcely any demographic group as influenced by societal pressure as young, single white women. I see many in their 20s who are oblivious to the fact that they're on track to become invisible to the world in a decade. It's not doing them any favors to tiptoe around this or even worse to emotionally safeguard by encouraging it. Approaches will vary, but don't be afraid to point this out to them.

Anon,

"Necessary but not sufficient" covers it, I think.

Feryl said...

"1. There are cultural factors which discourage family formation, and instead encourage men and women to hold onto being childless consumers and corporate drones.

This factor is relatively easy to overcome for men. No one will remember most popular movies from this decade, but 80s movies with "patriarchal" values continue to resonate in men today."

The 80's were a rather schizoid decade. Superficially, some things seemed to be improving but on the other hand, there was a lot of cynicism and paranoia (note the number of scenes in 80's movies that have a character waking up startled and sweaty). And a lot of Boomers were trying to clean up their act (cut down on the drinking/drugs, stop sleeping around, etc.) but also felt increasing pressure to stay ahead of the competition. So a lot of them seemed to transfer their energy, at some point, from 70's hedonism to 80's (and eventually 90's/00's/'10's) careerism.

I think the reason 80's movies can work well is the sincerity and openness of the actors. Then in the 90's it became more fashionable for movies to goof on themselves and actors were more likely to give the impression that they just showed up for the paycheck. People seemed to calm down after the cold war ended, though I think even in the late 80's there were signs that people were kinda checking out. Being "up" for anything is pretty demanding, and after so much experimentation and change in the 60's-mid 80's, people were worn out.

WRT values, the 70's and even to some extent the 80's produced a lot of sleazy movies, though by the mid 80's the hero was usually clean cut and the villain clearly evil. The late 70's (Animal House) thru early 80's (Porky's) were probably the height of excess and hedonism, and I certainly hope that nobody lauds that era for it's morality. But art-wise, at least there was sincerity. What makes post 1991 entertainment less effective is the glibness; actors and singers don't seem to fully embody emotions like they once did. Joy, sorrow, fear, anger, excitement, or whatever. Don't get me started on Tarantino; this "daring" director writes characters who don't talk like normal people, autistically cheapens violence and crime (even low grade 80's slasher movies at least portray to some extent the horror of being around bloodshed), and he's too much of a omega pussy to ask actresses to be naked. And the 70's and 80's movies never skimped on T&A because actors were much less self-conscious back then.

https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-there-any-nudity-in-most-Quentin-Tarantino-movies

The 90's icon of "edgy" is a PC wimp. It's obvious that his turn-ons involve butt kicking babes and black bucks.

Feryl said...

Guys, I'd think that North Asians and people in Europe's blonde belt are the most invested in parenting. So they probably put more effort into having their act together before they have kids, which means that they'll have kids later.

Dark skinned non-Asian people from the tropics have the biggest big man cultures and the worst paternal investment. Followed by people from "Middle-Earth", e.g. North Africa, the Middle East, NW Asia, and far SE Europe. Than we get to East Asia and West Europe, in which Northern Asians have greater investment than Southern ones and in Europe Catholic Meds and Celts have weaker investment than Protestant farmers.

Dan said...

My town of Rockville MD, liberal headquarters of the world, is now a national laughingtocking for pozzing itself into oblivion. We are in the national news in the worst way.

I wanted to stay here because I don't like the idea of retreat. I prefer the idea of fighting at the front. Kids are homeschooled, but my house value will now probably tank.

F this gay Earth.


Dan said...

AE, spare a thought for your fallen comrade on the front, figuratively speaking.

This is a personal body blow for sure.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Thanks for watching Tarantino movies so I don't have to. And for validating my general impression, albeit one totally based on second-hand sources.

Dan,

What he's referring to.

Your town's demographics approximate America pretty well, albeit considerably more affluent than the country as a whole. Anytown, USA.

Did you or any friends/family know the girl?

Dan said...

Hopefully this hits a few shitlibs in the nads and dampens their enthusiasm for collapsing the West.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

I'm in favor of doing whatever crazy thing we need to do to further the white birthrate. If we spent $20 trillion on social programs for The Great Society that helped to depress the white birthrates, then we can spend a little money bringing them back. Maybe if you have two babies as a married couple, student loans up to $100,000 are forgiven. If you have three babies as a married couple, you can get $150,000 forgiveness (for those outliers) or that extra $50,000 goes towards a down payment for a house. Change the tax structure so the more babies you have as a married couple, the lower your tax burden. Instead of the bottom 50% paying little or no tax, maybe have it for married couples who have 3-4 children. Also reform welfare so single mothers on welfare just get a flat rate. Doesn't matter if it is one kid or three kids. You get the same dollar amount. No incentive there to have more.

Sure this might mean a couple hundred billion dollars but again our social spending is so massive this wouldn't break the bank. Then we have the benefit of people who are able to continue to contribute to future social spending instead of those who just have their hands out demanding more gimmedats. We need to up the ante to get married couples to have more children and do whatever we can to disincentivize single women having children.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

Cut foreign troop deployments in half and it's probably paid for.

TangoMan said...

I've seen multgple surveys show that when asked where their ideal home would be, Americans say a small town. Implicit in that is cultural homogeneity, neighborliness, social trust, a social network not wildly out of line with Dunbar's number, etc.

My wife's favorite channel is the Hallmark Channel. I give it top marks too. I don't care how formulaic the films are, how the casts are stock players and keep appearing in the same movies, what counts is the absence of poz, the mostly all-White casts, the small town settings, this is all a breath of fresh air. It's kind of like watching the Waltons or what used to be mainstream network programming in the distant past. It's an idealized America for Americans who remember what America used to be and miss it.

I have to wonder if the executives are red-pilled. They're putting out product which is very White-focused and it seems to be paying off for them. I know that the race activists have noticed how White the product of the Hallmark Channel is and are starting to complain. Is there a Whiter channel in the cable universe? If there is, I don't know about it.