Post: #26

Don't worry guys; I'm sure the M2F tranny population will pick up the slack...

Post: #27

Outside of Africa and the middle east, almost the entire planet is experiencing much lower birth rates.

This website has some eye opening statistics from around the world.

Israel is the first country on this list that isn't a shit hole in Africa/Middle East/Philippines areas, and it's number 75!

The first western country on this list is France at 112 with a birth rate of only 2.08.

People are always talking about Japan's low birth rate of 1.4, Singapore has an incredible 0.8 birth rate.

Almost every single first world country has a birth rate under 2.

Here's a quote from that site.

Quote:A rate of two children per woman is considered the replacement rate for a population, resulting in relative stability in terms of total numbers. Rates above two children indicate populations growing in size and whose median age is declining. Higher rates may also indicate difficulties for families, in some situations, to feed and educate their children and for women to enter the labor force. Rates below two children indicate populations decreasing in size and growing older. Global fertility rates are in general decline and this trend is most pronounced in industrialized countries, especially Western Europe, where populations are projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years.

Here are a few more interesting facts from this website

Quote:Back in 1950, the global fertility rate averaged about five children per woman, but today that global average is down to 2.58 (total fertility rate as of 2011).

Quote:Asia, the world’s most crowded continent at 4.3 billion, had a fertility rate of 5.8 in 1960, but by 2014 it’s expected to fall to 2.1 percent.

Quote:By 2050 developed countries will have twice as many old people as young ones.

Post: #28

(06-11-2016 02:33 AM)captain_shane Wrote:  Outside of Africa and the middle east, almost the entire planet is experiencing much lower birth rates.

This website has some eye opening statistics from around the world.

Israel is the first country on this list that isn't a shit hole in Africa/Middle East/Philippines areas, and it's number 75!

The first western country on this list is France at 112 with a birth rate of only 2.08.

People are always talking about Japan's low birth rate of 1.4, Singapore has an incredible 0.8 birth rate.

Almost every single first world country has a birth rate under 2.

Here's a quote from that site.

Quote:A rate of two children per woman is considered the replacement rate for a population, resulting in relative stability in terms of total numbers. Rates above two children indicate populations growing in size and whose median age is declining. Higher rates may also indicate difficulties for families, in some situations, to feed and educate their children and for women to enter the labor force. Rates below two children indicate populations decreasing in size and growing older. Global fertility rates are in general decline and this trend is most pronounced in industrialized countries, especially Western Europe, where populations are projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years.

Here are a few more interesting facts from this website

Quote:Back in 1950, the global fertility rate averaged about five children per woman, but today that global average is down to 2.58 (total fertility rate as of 2011).

Quote:Asia, the world’s most crowded continent at 4.3 billion, had a fertility rate of 5.8 in 1960, but by 2014 it’s expected to fall to 2.1 percent.

Quote:By 2050 developed countries will have twice as many old people as young ones.

I'm in debate to what extent this is good and bad.

Definitely feel that America made too many lives during the baby boom and that this influenced the decadent consumer economy we have today.

At very least it's those on the left - the radical feminists, pro-abortionists, etc who seem to be doing the least populating versus demographics such as evangelical Christians. This could lead to the left eventually all but killing itself off in the future.

Post: #29

At very least it's those on the left - the radical feminists, pro-abortionists, etc who seem to be doing the least populating versus demographics such as evangelical Christians. This could lead to the left eventually all but killing itself off in the future.
[/quote]

True, but most of the women who are feminists today would have been normal last generation.

Degeneracy isn't static- new groups will be subverted to make up for the old.
Only groups like Amish- true "breakaway cultures" are doing well. Expect them to come under attack.

Culture. Politics. Media
Besides raising a traditional family affecting any of those 3 is great.

The right is faltering because of risk assessment. Our ancestors were too strong to say "Its not worth it" even though the odds were against them.

Post: #30

Yes, to put it simply, when a society promotes the idea that women can have it all and combines it with emasculating men, this should come as no surprise.

No matter what feminism says, men worth their salt aren't looking for a chubby 35 year old office woman to have a family with.

As I've mentioned, it astonishes me how many arrogant, entitled 35+ women that I meet. They think they're single because men can't handle their supposed independence and are intimidated by a 'strong' woman. They attribute that they still can easily get dick as proof that they are still attractive, but it just shows how self-centered and unaware they are of how men actually think, and that they are just a pump-n-dump. Bottom line is no man (especially the men they seek) is going to choose them over a younger, more attractive, more pleasant woman.

So long as feminism continues to promote you-go-girlism, that a woman's job is as important to a man as it is vice versa, that being overweight/obese is beautiful, that being a 35+ mediocre career woman is a better catch than a 25 year old feminine, pleasant woman, this is just going to continue.

Post: #31

As jobs get scarcer and it becomes more apparent to younger women just how miserable the "empowered women" of the previous generation have become there will be a move towards reclaiming their stay-at-home status.

I've had the pleasure of seeing young women have several kids to a successful trades/business man and still manage to keep in shape. You should see the vile energy that exists between such preferable specimens and the weathered old career-gals who bought into the progressive lie and now live in perpetual misery with every glance in the mirror.

Post: #32

Or there's Gavin's take :

Post: #33

There's something else at play possibly. It's getting harder and harder to raise your kids as you see fit. Not only do we have bitchy women in this country, we also have busybodies who will call "child protective services" for anything nowadays. It used to be that your kid was your kid, and you didn't have to worry about the busybodies coming after your kids. Now, you do.

Post: #34

(06-10-2016 08:34 PM)TheWhiteWolf Wrote:  As women continue to put off child rearing till later age the negative impact of this is profound. How many of those kids will be born with birth defects. I pray for future generations who will have the deck stacked against them and will have to endure a lifetime of hardship all because there mothers wanted to ride the carousel.

The eugenics v dygenics question is a valid one. How many children from women of a certain age who therefore carry various genetic risks replaced that woman's strong firstborn who ended up in the fires of the abortionist when their mother's SMV was highest and the cock carousel most appealing?

Post: #35

(06-11-2016 10:11 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  As jobs get scarcer and it becomes more apparent to younger women just how miserable the "empowered women" of the previous generation have become there will be a move towards reclaiming their stay-at-home status.

I've had the pleasure of seeing young women have several kids to a successful trades/business man and still manage to keep in shape. You should see the vile energy that exists between such preferable specimens and the weathered old career-gals who bought into the progressive lie and now live in perpetual misery with every glance in the mirror.

I've witnessed that on several occasions. You could almost feel the hate in the air.

Now that you mentioned it, whenever the issue of marriage/work obligations is raised during chit-chats at my workplace, I'm always adamant about my intention that should I marry and my wife has to work, I'm going to use some of my saved funds to hire a housemaid. She's going to do the majority of the cooking and cleaning. When asked why, I usually say it's because I would want my wife to have enough free time to regularly go to the gym, visit the hairdresser, the beauty salon etc. Basically, I'd want her to do the stuff women are supposed to do - look nice, be happy and have regular sex with their husbands.

People are usually amused and laugh at my preposterous caveman-esque ideas, but deep down I know those are bitter laughs. Especially when I mention the part about looking nice and having regular sex with their husbands. After that, everyone gets the urge to change the topic of conversation.

Post: #36

(06-10-2016 09:03 PM)eatthishomie Wrote:  No to this, and here's why. First of all, you bring these women to America, most of them will get Americanized with the quickness. It will happen. Our r-selected YOLO culture just has too appealing of a veneer for these women and a lot of them won't realize how toxic it actually is. Second off, there needs to be an incentive in place for men who have the balls and drive to learn a new language and leave America (their home) behind to move to a place like SA or SEA. Beautiful feminine women are the incentive for taking that risk.

You are missing the point.

Sure, our culture is toxic. But when you double the number of attractive single women in the country, the competition increases. The demand for any certain attractive woman halves. Men will suddenly put in a position of true abundance, not the fake "abundance mentality" that PUAs often speak of.

We don't want our ballsiest and most driven people to leave for third world shitholes just because they can't get some pussy.

Post: #37

(06-10-2016 11:29 PM)911 Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 09:34 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 09:10 PM)R_Niko Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 08:59 PM)Graft Wrote:  The United States needs to change it's immigration policy. Less poor Mexicans and Syrian males, more beautiful women from different parts of the country. A huge babyboom would explode and violence would plummet. Trump could spawn this idea.

different parts of the country wouldn't be immigration

Where are there Syrian males in the United States? I've never met one in my life?

Steve Jobs' biological father was one. There was a decent amount of immigration from Syria earlier in the 20th century, with a good part being from Christian and Armenian backgrounds. A lot of Armenians settled in Syria as refugees from the Turkish genocide in the 1910s.

My father's side of the family immigrated during this time. Most people don't know this, but 100 years ago, Middle Eastern Christians coming over fit most of the hues of the USA fairly well. The skin tones range from pale White to swarthy bronze who would pass off as Italians. They integrated fine, no terrorism, and as they've had children with the Whites in the USA all of their children and grandchildren are totally white or off-white in appearance, but genetically they still have non-Euro genes.

Everyone thinks people from the Middle East are dark like Saudi Muslims, but they were importing millions of African women as sex-slaves and had children with them. Christians stopped the practice of sex-slavery for child-bearing back in 500-600 AD.

The result was, and still is in most parts of the world, is that Muslims are far more racially Negro than Christians. There's actually a lot of Middle Eastern Christians who've integrated into the USA, but unless you ask you probably aren't going to notice.

Post: #38

According to a new survey, women who have four or more kids and are stay-at-home mothers are happy with just 2% saying they are not. In general Western women are growing unhappier each year and the fact that they having fewer children is a big reason why but not the only one.

Of course this rate of happiness for established mothers is likely due to the fact that have husbands who earn enough money so that they can stay at home with four kids. The fact that they have a stable relationship with a man. The fact that they are religious and have values that connect them to the past and future. So very little existential angst and drug abuse.

Your average childless woman has none of these things so they are more likely to be unhappy.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2...satisfied/

Post: #39

population rates can pop back enormously within a generation or two, it is easily reversible. Just looking at the birth positive incentives in Israel can show how by using tax and financial incentives, you can easily begin building strong families again. They are actually repopulating faster than the Palestinian muslims.

Post: #40

(06-12-2016 03:31 PM)Graft Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 09:03 PM)eatthishomie Wrote:  No to this, and here's why. First of all, you bring these women to America, most of them will get Americanized with the quickness. It will happen. Our r-selected YOLO culture just has too appealing of a veneer for these women and a lot of them won't realize how toxic it actually is. Second off, there needs to be an incentive in place for men who have the balls and drive to learn a new language and leave America (their home) behind to move to a place like SA or SEA. Beautiful feminine women are the incentive for taking that risk.

You are missing the point.

Sure, our culture is toxic. But when you double the number of attractive single women in the country, the competition increases. The demand for any certain attractive woman halves. Men will suddenly put in a position of true abundance, not the fake "abundance mentality" that PUAs often speak of.

We don't want our ballsiest and most driven people to leave for third world shitholes just because they can't get some pussy.

I do. That's the natural consequence of having a toxic anti-male YOLO culture, the best men leave. I don't care what happens, consequences are consequences and this society brought it on themselves. Let the motherfucker burn.

Post: #41

(06-13-2016 01:25 PM)Constitution45 Wrote:  population rates can pop back enormously within a generation or two, it is easily reversible. Just looking at the birth positive incentives in Israel can show how by using tax and financial incentives, you can easily begin building strong families again. They are actually repopulating faster than the Palestinian muslims.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. It's money! The average birth cost is ~10,000USD in America. It's so expensive here I actually had a plan to have my next one in China. You could have a Cadillac Room luxury wise for half of what it costs here. If the cost here hurt me, I know it's painful for others in my tax bracket. Only the really poor get cheap delivery via Obamacare. If you make over 75K a year, forget about having a moderate birth cost. Even with insurance you are looking at 6K+ out of pocket in a major US city. No wonder that kids are a burden here. It's ridiculous.

I read somewhere recently that the US has the highest birth costs of all developed Western nations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/health...d=all&_r=0



What middle class American wants to step out of being middle class down into middle-lower or lower, just because they must have a family? Not a logical one for sure. You would have to have some serious faith God will provide, to see past that roadblock. It's something I'm dealing with to be honest. I want at least 4 kids, but I don't think it's feasible at this rate.

Australia was giving tax incentives, like 5,000 a pop, but there was talk about pulling it back because it seems to have worked. Someone Australian correct me if I am wrong on that.

Fixing this still may not do much. I'm not convinced this can be easily fixed. Once you have killed family culture for many people for too long, you would be betting on convincing a young generation to have more than one kid, when they were the only kid. Good luck doing that in the middle of incredible degeneracy. The costs of living does not help either. General healthcare costs being high, aside from childbirth, is just like 5 dollar a gallon gasoline. It really hurts the economy as a whole.