The future belongs to those that show up

Japanese fertility
A fertility of slightly over 2.0 is a stable population.


92 Responses to “The future belongs to those that show up”

  1. R says:

    The obvious question then: what underlying factors caused or allowed legal equality for women to be implemented at that time?

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      The Cathedral did it.

      • This has made me wonder whether some Malthus oriented (but certainly anti-Darwinian) do-gooders convinced Western states to implement public education with the intent of reducing population.

        This is just a question of history. So who did it?

        • “public education”

          I meant legal gender equality.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Well, any kind of degenerate who profits by causing strife, generally running unchecked in any sort of republic-oriented system.

            The hired intellectuals of demotists, in other words.

            They do not look like do-gooders from where I stand, mister…


        • From my understanding public education in terms of founders went
          Martin Luther –> Prussia –> Puritans —> Massachusetts –> Carnegie and Rockefeller –> Protestants and Trade Unions
          “…it was the Puritan influence that inaugurated public schools and compulsory education in New England, from whence it finally conquered the whole United States.” -Rothbard Education Free and Compulsory
          Most of the motivation seemed to be either equality, indoctrination of religion, saving people from themselves and centralizing state influence on the children, or dumbing down children so that they would compete less.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            You’re basically giving a pass to the incredible desructiveness of voting-style systems when you describe it that way… Surely that’s not what you intended, O.I.W.?

          • To Alan J. Perrick:

            I wasn’t really trying to give a pass for democracy. Most of these changes were passed by voters. I was more speaking to the ideological backers of the changes. Excuse me for paraphrasing but the same book quoted that in a period of 50 years from 1850 to 1900 the America went from the majority of people thinking compulsory public education was bad to thinking it was the most normal thing in the world (before that a similar thing happened with having public schools at all). Anyways public opinion can easily be swayed by bad ideas and gradualism. Again not to excuse democracy it still is a terrible system but the first public compulsory schools were created in Prussia when it was still a kingdom. I think public school systems say just as much about the modern concept of nationalism as they do democracy.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            You’re on public education, not legal gender equality? That changes things somewhat… But, yes, goof job on those sources.

            Public education works well enough when a system isn’t rabidly progressive, it is really the political ideology or religion that corrupts it. The system in the United States did fine for a while, but the trajectory was ultimately a flawed one. Still, it is worthwhile that certain religious sects are giving their children specialised educations (which still meet the State’s criteria) and the students do not get thay progressive indoctrination. What’s wrong with those schools, I ask?

    • nydwracu says:

      I seem to recall that there was a war around that time.

    • cassander says:

      the only relevant factor at the time were Douglas MacArthur’s whims.

    • Kgaard says:

      Well … there is also economics. Women became functionally more like men as the modern economy became less physical. One could argue that there was just no way the pre-existing system was going to continue: Kids were living longer than ever (so you needed fewer of them to make your quota of survivors) and women were less needed in the home.

      If Japanese women were still kicking out 5 kids each, Japan would have 200 million people now (or more, actually) in a country smaller than California and a lot more mountainous.

      So that outcome doesn’t make sense either.

      Additionally we know from Sex at Dawn that neither men nor women were meant to bang the same person ad infinitum til death.

      So didn’t the system HAVE to collapse?

      • >Additionally we know from Sex at Dawn that neither men nor women were meant to bang the same person ad infinitum til death.

        Sex at Dawn has been pretty thoroughly debunked, afaik.

        Further, whatever Gnon intended is at best only informative to our social technology. Gnon intends that fire should get out of control and burn down your house, but we keep it safely contained in the fireplace. Likewise we keep sexuality safely contained in the monogamous marriage where it can be productive instead of destructive and competitive.

        Good point about Japanese absolute population. They may have needed to collapse, but the transition coinciding with Japan losing its mojo and becoming feminized in WW2 is interesting and informative to us who want to control these things.

        • Kgaard says:

          Well … Of course … there’s a difference between fire burning down one’s house (which has no benefits to anyone) and a woman who is tired of banging her husband (or not being banged by him) finding a fresh sex partner. In that case there are beneficiaries — both the cheating woman and the other man.

          On Sex at Dawn … I actually have not seen it debunked ANYWHERE. Can you point to a good debunking? The core claims are so powerful as to be revolutionary (re for instance the shape of the penis, the fact that men finish up quick but women can go for a long time, the fact that sperm compete inside the fallopian tubes etc etc).

          I was making arguments parallel to Jim’s recently with some blue-pillers and they were just pounding on me, likening me to Hitler etc etc. I parried them as best I could but it was rough. So I am tightening up my game, so to speak. I am curious exactly HOW we could get to a sustainable family system now. I’m not sure I see the path. I look at my own extended family and it’s full of train wrecks. The women do whatever they want and nobody stops them. And yet, WHO is going to stop them? There is no internally-consistent mechanism for stopping women from blowing up families (or chasing alpha til they’re 40 and then letting their 130-IQ Nordic wombs expire cold) that you can actually use effectively in the modern era.

          • Jamal_the_Honorable_Black_Gentleman says:

            You really shouldn’t be reading pop science books. They’re inevitably propaganda-driven sensationalist literature. Oprah with an associates degree.

            (Nobody wants to read a book saying that humans have fairly moderate tendencies to promiscuity – sex sells).

          • Kgaard says:

            Jamal … Sex at Dawn is best thought of as an aggregation of scientific studies on sex. When it came out three years ago, the leading scientists and anthropologists in relevant fields just sort of shrugged and said, “Yeah, we knew all that already.”

            You owe it to yourself to read the book! I have never seen anyone in the reactosphere refute any of its claims. It’s a massive check on the hopes of traditionalists.

            The book’s findings support the argument that monogamy is something imposed by men on women. Once men stop enforcing monogamy it melts away very quickly, especially among women with options (hot 20 somethings with an education, in particular).

            So … that brings me back to my earlier question: Who’s gonna force monogamy on women who don’t want it (and who can vote)? The answer, as far as I can tell, is nobody.

            This is one reason I pay close attention to Pakistan. I see a path by which it becomes an increasingly successful country. IQs are rising as incest and family sizes fall (while education and health measures rise). Moreover, smart women are still having lots of kids there due to Islamic law etc etc. So it’s a place to watch. The stock market has been rising nicely for several years …

          • Samson J. says:

            So … that brings me back to my earlier question: Who’s gonna force monogamy on women who don’t want it (and who can vote)? The answer, as far as I can tell, is nobody.

            Nobody at present, you’re right. That’s why many (most?) of us here are against democracy.

          • Samson J. says:

            re for instance the shape of the penis,

            Are you talking about the “penis extracts the other guy’s semen” thing? That was the biggest Just-So story I’d heard in a while.

          • Kgaard says:

            Samson … Why yes … I am indeed referring to the penis being shaped as a scooper. Also the fact that sperm are designed to compete with other sperm to get to the egg. Plus the idea that eggs have a kind of built in ability to decide whose sperm they want … etc etc. The book is full of fun insights like these.

            The ultimate implication is that marriage is not the default social structure for our current level of technological development — but rather matriarchy is. I’m coming more and more to the view that men are structurally field serfs in the modern world. “Society” is women, children and the state. Men exist to pay taxes and do stud duty periodically. As long as women can vote, and as long as the infrastructure exists to re-distribute wealth, there is no way around this structure.

            The question, then, is, “What are the proper goals for a field serf?” My best answer so far is “Sex, grog and fish.”

            • jim says:

              This is not, however, the system that built white civilizations – nor east asian civilizations for that matter. Field serfs do not build civilizations, nor will they maintain them, nor defend them.

          • Kgaard says:

            All true — but I’m still a field serf. In relation to women and family my position is worse than that of a field serf, as presumably old-time serfs had a degree of control of their children and wives. But in other ways (ability to acquire wealth) my position is better. With respect to influence in community in community affairs, my position is worse today in terms of sheer volume of influence (which is now zero) but better in terms of respect for my personal rights (since nobody in particular messes with me).

            So … I have it worse than serfs in some ways (no control over women or family, no influence in community) and better in other ways (better control of my property, fewer people messing with me). So I guess I am a RICH field serf.

            Would a rich field serf protect his civilization? Well … maybe. And maybe not. The logical strategy for the rich field serf is to go to another country that is poor, not so intensely controlled and with better-looking women. In such a place his wealth would be of some use in starting a family, having a bit of control over it, and perhaps even having influence in the community.

      • jim says:

        If Japanese women were still kicking out 5 kids each, Japan would have 200 million people now (or more, actually) in a country smaller than California and a lot more mountainous.

        Hence the need to conquer the world.

        But, imposing similar measures on ourselves, we too are disappearing. I want the superior races, in particular the white race, to expand, rather than to vanish.

        • Kgaard says:

          Fair point. By the way … There is a very interesting new documentary out called “Code Black” about the Los Angeles County Hospital emergency room. Riveting stuff. But a big takeaway is that all the doctors are white and Asian, while the patients are black and Latino. Some of the nurses etc are Latino, as well as one or two who are black. The waiting room looks very, very sad. It’s like a scene torn from both Idiocracy and Elysium — but the doctors are still working hard to take care of them. Will those doctors burn out in another generation? Probably.

          The question I was asking myself during the movie is whether one can extrapolate that situation. I think sort of yes and sort of no. Free county hospitals are just 2% of the total US hospital system, so it won’t all look like that.

          Sometimes it’s hard to tell what we extrapolate correctly and what we extrapolate excessively. Where I live, 45% of kindergarteners now need remedial English. Twenty years ago that figure was probably 5%. So … that’s a data point one can hang one’s hat on …

      • jim says:

        The Japanese economy did not change that much during the occupation. The fertility rate did.

        As for overpopulation, when the superior races have a population problem, then they will have the luxury of figuring out how to stop people on the wrong end of the bell curve from breeding.

      • peppermint says:

        Additionally we know from Sex at Dawn that neither men nor women were meant to bang the same person ad infinitum til death.

        Blacks certainly aren’t, but Whites are. Whites have always had one man / one woman marriages without divorce, since before Whites had writing.

        Furthermore, one man / one woman marriages without divorce are the sine qua non of White civilization. It is literally the most important thing about Whites from a sustainability standpoint.

        Buttfuck sustainability, right? Just as long as you get your rocks off today and tomorrow, in a hundred years, we’ll all be dead and replaced by robots anyway, right?

        • Kgaard says:

          Peppermint … You are probably right about whites going back a few thousand years. I agree that that monogamy has been our defining feature. But what portion of human history does that represent? 0.3% or something like that? (Just guessing.) Our hard wiring is much older. Perhaps it’s the case that Nordic living created monogamous software — but the hardware was still polyamorous. Now that we’re in an easier environment than that which prevailed in the far north up until quite recently, the old polyamorous hardware is re-asserting itself …

          • Red says:

            Who cares about hard wiring? Civilizations that have adopted monogamy wipe the floor with those who don’t.

          • B says:

            Don’t stop there! For most of our history as a species, murder was ok, as was infanticide (still practiced by primitives.) Sure, the software is new, but the old hardware is still there! Once we throw off the fetters of monogamy, we can keep going.

            Wasn’t that Carlyle’s point, where the Devil had been chained for a millennium and we were taking off the fetters one by one?

          • peppermint says:

            so, are you okay with throwing away what it means to be White in order that you can get your rocks off?

            You may think it will increase the number of children you can have. But in the long run, your genes will be outcompeted by organisms that have evolved in the environment that you seek to create. Such as the negroid.

          • Kgaard says:

            Peppermint — Hey … I’m with you … I would have loved to have married and had a bunch of kids. But we are already well into the dysgenic/hypergamous phase of western history. By the time I was in my 20s and 30s the number of legitimate marriage prospects for me had collapsed, and I was not lucky enough to snag one of those that remained. I wasn’t gonna hitch myself to a boring and/or unattractive and/or old woman just for the sake of pumping out kids. The marriage itself would have had to have been rewarding. Not too late I suppose.

            Anyway, none of this changes the underlying logic. As life gets easier, lifetime marriage collapses. As I posed a while back, “Who’s gonna enforce it — who’s gonna make women stay in marriages when they want to leave?” Answer … nobody. Unless you take away their right to vote, which ain’t happenin’ …

  2. spandrell says:

    The right axis is off.

  3. mlr says:

    Two points, if I may:

    1. It was also the end of the war (isn’t that significant enough to warrant some place in this (I think largely apt) analysis?);

    2. Didn’t Heartise recently say, paraphrasing a commenter of his “whatever happens, japan has got the japanese, and you have not.” (The original comment being: “Places like Brazil and the Congo have enormous economic potential just based on geography, climate, and natural resources. A place like Japan is mountainous (only 3% of the land area is arable), few natural resources, not located near major trade routes, subject to frequent catastrophic earthquakes and tsunamis. But Japan has the Japanese people who are more valuable than all of Brazil’s natural wealth.”

    • Alcestis Eshtemoa says:

      I left a couple of descriptive comments on this Sailer article about Brazilian demographics –>

      Please read it and you’ll see that Brazil isn’t like the Congo. Favelas are only 12 million out of 200 million, or 6% of the entire Brazilian population, but one wouldn’t know that from watching false images which distort the situation thanks to international leftist NGOs and false media stories

    • jim says:

      1. It was also the end of the war

      The war began and ended without any major impact on fertility. We would expect the end of the war to result in a return to prewar fertility levels, which is indeed exactly what happened.

      “whatever happens, japan has got the japanese, and you have not.

      At this rate, in a few generations, Japan will no longer have the Japanese.

      There are already plans afoot to bring in third worlders to replace the missing grandchildren.

      • mlr says:

        I’ve been thinking this through over the past few days, and I certainly agree that 1) the birth rate is declining 2) it’s most pronounced decline followed the end of the war (a reverse Baby Boom, as it were).

        When I lived in Japan, I was witness to so many little examples of tradition, any one of which might rightly be dismissed as anecdotal, but taken together leave a strong impression. The one example that stands out is the common expectation that a woman wake up before her husband, job of her own or no, and make him breakfast AND a bento lunch (which is supposed to LOOK as good as it tastes), and then get the children ready, and finally herself, and have dinner prepared for him when he returns home, no matter what hour of the night/morning.

        Past trends simply do not convince me that a nation of 150,000,000 is going to vanish. And no, I’m afraid the “import third worlders” won’t do as an explanation, either. Every construction site I walked past was manned by Japanese, 100% (highly efficient, by the way – I’ve never, EVER seen a work site BUZZ quite like they did; and you haven’t seen coordination until you’ve seen a guy drop a 3 meter metal pole straight down to his man 5 stories below, who catches it with a grunting “HAI! straight from the centre of his chest). Ditto with convenience stores, where they BOW to you as you go in and out. There is no job a Japanese will not do – with dignity, and in which they are treated with dignity by their fellows.

        There are no movements beyond a few, isolated, highly-contentious Phillipino nurses programmes. Japan is still very, very stingy with citizenship. To become a citizen is… ahem … nearly ‘impossibru’.

        I think the sensational take on Japan “running out of people” stems from economists who can’t see the possibility of “more numerical growth” as benign. Yes, benign.

  4. Do you have a source to cite for the red line? IE that legal equality for women was in fact instituted then? You have yet to cite a source for what the Augustan reforms actually entailed. I’m starting to wonder if you are just making up the history to suit your world view.

    • scientism says:

      The US introduced reforms during the occupation: women’s suffrage, US style schools (including coeducation) and reforming the legal system, which had applied to family units rather than individuals. They also changed the divorce laws, etc. Japan got one big dose of the Cathedral on that red line.

      For example:

      “The Ie (?), or “household,” was the basic unit of Japanese law until the end of World War II: most civil and criminal matters were considered to involve families rather than individuals. The “Ie” was considered to consist of grandparents, their son and his wife and their children, although even in 1920, 54% of Japanese households already were nuclear families. This system was formally abolished with the 1947 revision of Japanese family law under the influence of the Allied occupation authorities, and Japanese society began a transition to a more Americanized nuclear family system.”

      Note that the usual cited factors for low fertility don’t apply: Japanese women don’t doggedly pursue careers, oral contraception wasn’t available until 2011 in Japan. Abortion rates were very high in the 50s/60s, but they’re similar to Western countries now. So the main factor was the introduction of Western ideas and institutions.

    • jim says:

      I’m starting to wonder if you are just making up the history to suit your world view.

      I have found that those who demand sources seldom read, and seldom believe, those sources.

      googled Augustan reforms sine manu, and one of the first hits said, in the extract quoted in the search engine:

      In the reign of Augustus, the wife obtained still greater independence in the handling of her estate because of slackening of the tutelage. It is noteworthy, indeed, that she was completely released from it if she became the mother of three children. The emperor Claudius abolished blood tutelage entirely, and as a consequence the husband had no further legal power over his spouse,

      You could have found that as easily as I do. I expect typical readers of my blog to simply know this stuff without needing to look it up, or at least to know that the relevant search term to find the effect of the Augustan reforms on the status of women is “sine manu”

      • R7_Rocket says:

        Nerd of Redhead on the Pharyngula blog comment section was notorious for demanding citations, then when a citation is shown, Nerd of Redhead would simply ignore it.

      • Thank you.

        As I told you before, I googled and the first cite and others that I looked at implied otherwise.

        It may be normal to request cites and ignore them, but it also is not so abnormal on the internet to make shit up. If you want to be believed it helps to have citations. And I thought you would remember that I’m the guy who spent months actually reading through the scientific literature and wrote the survey article documenting it says vaccines are damaging (contrary to practically everybody’s prejudice).

        • jim says:

          The cites you googled correctly said that Augustus attempted to legislate sexual morality and encourage fertility, and that he failed.

          This did not directly contradict my claim that he failed because he did not lower the status of women, and indeed raised the status of women relative to their husbands.

          So, interpreting your cites as contradicting my claim, interpreting them as “implying otherwise” suggested to me a predisposition to interpret cites in accordance with preconceptions.

  5. Zerg says:

    Speculation: Women want to mate with representatives of a thrilling-beyondness, so that when women are kept in the domestic realm they see the average man as mate-worthy because he represents the thrilling-beyondness of the public realm; now that women feel that the public realm belongs to them as well, the average man no longer represents a thrilling-beyondness. Now they need something beyond the public realm, something that only psychopathic charismatic gangster prophets can represent. As for marrying at age 39 to have the single child — this is a thoroughly pragmatic, level-headed decision, so now they’ll choose an unthrilling Provider for that purpose.

  6. Ansible says:

    Jim, have a look at this e-book. If further reiterates your points on no fault divorce’s effect on marriage, the destructive nature of feminism and why men must insist on patriarchy if we are to create a stable and constructive society.

    • Zerg says:

      According to the introductory video at the site you link, towards the end, “the economics of today’s sexual relationships clearly favor men.” Experience and Chateau Heartiste alike reveal this claim to be utterly false — not a big inducement to read the ebook that follows.

      • Ansible says:

        Did I say watch the video or read the book?

        I am aware of Heartiste, do you mind giving me a link to Experience? My google-fu is weak today.

        The video is pretty much shit, I’ll give you that. The book has a good amount of information and it is relatively short. It may have taken me an hour to read, but I didn’t digest it in one sitdown. It is relevant to the recent femenism+civilization=civicide kick Jim has been on. I thought our host (as well as some of you) might find it useful and pertinent.

        • Zerg says:

          Okay, I’ll look at the book, now that you’ve assured me that it’s not in the spirit of the video. I think that Heartiste himself consults Experience pretty frequently, don’t you? Hey, and Ansible, since you’ve been cross with me — make nice by telling me what you think of my “Speculation” right above your recommendation of the e-book. (I don’t think it’s original, but it seems to me to have more explanatory power than the “hypergamy” thing does, because women have ALWAYS had varying levels of status, right on up to king’s-first-daughter, so I don’t see why a new education/job-based status-marking system should in itself make women less inclined toward baby-making matings.

          • Ansible says:

            “I think that Heartiste himself consults Experience pretty frequently, don’t you?”

            Caught me being a douchenozzle, I assumed Experience was another darkly enlightened blogger.

            Your speculation is spot on. It follows my own experiences with modern women. In my grandparent’s time most women wanted working men, in my parents time many women wanted working men, in my own time scarcely any want working men and those that do are considered broken/strange/overeager by their peers. Millennials love their careers and cats more than life itself.

            Thrilling-Beyondness: Personal Experience
            When I meet women in public or day-job the conversation invariably turns towards career. As soon as they realize that they are of a similar socio-economic status they place me in the beta-box (marry him as a provider). When I meet women at a party or bar they can generally be gamed into thinking that I am worthy of their pussy. The difference here is that at the bar I am making the music that has been giving them tingles. But God forbid the woman I am gaming considers herself a musician, worse if she plays in a “band”, worse yet if she “plays” an instrument I played that evening. Whether I am technically more proficient than her does not matter; I will have less power over her than a chubby 4 who is about to hit the wall. Even if she cannot hang onto the beat, it does not matter; she is now “one of the boys”. I am not Kanye West; ergo I am her equal/unfuckable. Not famous, black and dangerous; ergo not alpha. The thrill-beyondness of music is gone and with it her tingles. I’ve got to use another facet of my personality to get that thrilling-beyondness feeling back between her legs.

            This is why the woman I intend to wife-up is firmly rooted in the domestic sphere. She is easy in comparison; the fact that I keep making money off music after high school/college should be enough thrilling-beyondness her.

            Thrilling-Beyondness: History
            Even when women had varying levels of status they always had men who stood above them. The king’s-first-daughter knew she would one day marry a prince and HE would rule, not she. We can see how well it worked out for Austria and eventually all of Europe when Charles VI of Austria tried to change that with the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713. Charles VI spent most of his later reign securing his realm so that his eldest daughter Maria Theresa could succeed him. It didn’t work hence the ridiculous War of the Austrian Succession. Her husband (and after his death her sons) would be co-rulers. I wonder how that affected the thrilling-beyondness of being married to an emperor? Gee… the fact that she made every decision despite it being known that she was intellectually and politically inferior to her husband did not stop her. He could not assert his will as a King.

            Should women rule or should they make rulers? The chaos that engulfed Europe because of poor decisions (or even lack of decisions) by her and her offspring are telling. Maria Theresa was unable to keep Prussia from rising up. Her son Joseph II swallowed enlightened absolutism so quickly that both the nobility and peasants rebelled. The French are celebrating Bastille Day (today btw) because Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI did not have the ability to crush the Terror. Maria Theresa made a lot of rulers, mother-in-law to quite a bit of Europe, but that was a matter of survival, not thrilling-beyondness.

            I can see why Maria Theresa had babies; I can also see why modern women don’t. They don’t have a reason to/men do not give them tingles. Same coin different sides. If she sees herself as equal to every white male she encounters on the street she of course will search for the weird/strange/psychotic. Unless millenials stop seeking thrilling-beyondness under the tyranny of egalitarianism the West will continue to decline.

            Of slight interest to Anglophiles, Elizabeth II has four children, Diana has two children, and Kate has one. Even the worlds most successful ruling family is collapsing, these damn Hanoverians should at least know better than to wait until the wall to get married. What kind of strange thrilling-beyondness was Kate chasing before wifing up to William? She married him at the age of 29, right at the wall and looking for a Provider. Damn did she get lucky.

            Thrilling-Beyondness: Beyond Sex
            This concept of thrilling-beyondness could also be applied to subjects outside of sex, art music being one of them.

            I don’t have evidence for B, but I’ve got evidence for A. We all do. Just turn on the radio for five minutes. The progressive cesspool of thought is so large and pervasive that making the reactionary leap out of it requires an immense amount of brainpower, a violent assertion of will or sheer dumb luck.

            The smarts and geniuses are so involved in trying to prove or create progressive-thought-de-jour that they are not investing and inventing in a way conducive to civilization growth. Art is the worst of all, unless you want to be completely shunned or worse ignored by civilization you must become a mouthpiece for the Cathedral, you must sacrifice your art before the altar of ugliness. Art music has been in decline/living off borrowed cultural capital since before Beethoven. The fact that dodecaphony hijacked musical academia for over half a century is testament enough.

            Art music does not exist outside of political artifact. John Lennon is loved not because of his musicality and voice, John Lennon is loved because his musicality and voice gave rise to that disgusting drivel called Imagine. John Cage is not remembered because his prepared piano work Sonata and Interludes is worthy, John Cage is remembered for his pioneering of indeterminacy and prepared piano, but most particularly because he was a gay man pioneering indeterminacy and prepared piano. Never mind if perhaps we should have even had aleatoric music at all…

            You are swimming in an ocean of shit. Yes it’s shit, but damn is it deep and wide… you may never even see solid ground in all your life. All your thrilling-beyondness is coming from discovering everything you can about a shit ocean.

            You’re right, and thrilling-beyondness is a way of naming that concept. Couldn’t think of a shorter and stickier name. Not sure if this was worth your time reading, but I enjoyed thinking about it. Must apply Moldbuggian Analysis to music and art for interesting results. I think I can do some damage.

          • Zerg says:

            Thanks for your very generous and interesting response, Ansible. The application to music and art (and metaphysics, e.g. poststructuralism?) is intriguing — suggests that the human spirit/intellect is feminine in relation to the eternal. (Pressing the analogy requires thinking that the sort of art, music, and metaphysics practised by Raphael, Mozart, and Descartes somehow began seeming ordinary to us; we somehow felt “equal” to it and therefore had to look beyond it. But how did that happen?)
            GARBAGEGENERATION is indeed an interesting book; I wonder, though, whether Westhunter (Greg Cochran) would agree that matriarchal households are the “natural” situation even for Europeans. The book ignores HBD-related questions, perhaps because it was written before those questions started being taken seriously again. The book’s use of psychopaths as evidence of the inferiority of mom-ruled families annoys me, because psychopaths seem to me to be mutants, not ordinary feckless trash-people.

  7. peppermint says:

    by the way, you’ve said that Lenin and Stalin should have been shot for murder and robbery and conspiracy to commit murder and robbery, which I think we can all agree with.

    OTOH, Dostoevsky was almost shot, apparently for translating anarchist and communist literature.

    Why could the system treat Dostoevsky with such brutality, but only put Stalin in jail for a few months?

    • jim says:

      Why could the system treat Dostoevsky with such brutality, but only put Stalin in jail for a few months?

      The system that nearly executed Dostoevsky was a very different system from the system that only put Stalin in jail for a few months.

      Dostoevsky was almost shot in 1849

      The Russian left singularity started in 1861

      Stalin murdered forty people in order to steal a lot of money from a bank in 1907, by which time everyone who knew which side his bread was buttered on knew that was a holy act that demonstrated the immense moral superiority of Stalin.

      • B says:

        The Russian Left Singularity started way before then, but it’s an s-curve function, probably with Peter the Great (absolutism is one of those stages of leftism which we left far behind us on the right.) Dostoyevsky had the misfortune to be a revolutionary in its early stage, after the successful suppression of the Decembrists and the 48ers. Stalin came after the People’s Will made revolution a mainstream ideal among the petit bourgeoisie of the government workers.

  8. B says:

    The whole fertility debate is weird.

    People collect and show off all sorts of things, finding meaning in them. Cars, tools, jewelry, trees, horses, dogs, cats, etc.

    Children are inherently an enjoyable thing to make, raise, invest time and effort in, be proud of. Children are fun.

    In the modern Western death spiral, this is one of the many basic human functions which are broken. So what?

  9. Interesting to see that the first big drop ~1950 and the second ~1980 (which plunged Japan into sub-replacement) are about a generation apart.

    • B says:

      Probably the lone children of the first generation grew up and had one or no children of their own.

    • jim says:

      It is obvious that today’s Japanese have markedly lower testosterone than yesterday’s Japanese. I am not sure why. Possibly being raised under feminism cuts deep.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        That’s it, “Jim”.

        I hate to see people take the pressure off of the Feminists with canards along the lines of “flouride, G.M.O., growth-hormones, carbon monoxide emissions, etc.”

        It’s Feminism which creates a very brittle society, and not the sort of resonant one that permits production of testosterone.

        It’s not Environmentalism, it’s Feminism. (Different sects in The Cathedral’s religion of Political Correctness – Environmentalism and Anti-Whitism impact in other ways)


      • A.B. Prosper says:

        I can’t speak for Japan here but the US hit below replacement fertility in the 1930’s and other than a couple of decades has stayed there pretty consistently.I doubt testosterone levels were really low in 1930.

        Fertility was way below replacement from 1930 (around 2.0 modern rates with 8x infant mortality)

        went to 2.5 in till 1945 which is probably still just below or at replacement (4-6x modern infant mortality)

        From roughly 1930 to 2016 — 86 years, fertility rates were at or below replacement for 75% of them time.

        The high high fertility period from about 1945-1969 was an anomaly

        The cultural and historical norm since modernity and urban growth is smaller families. Everything else is weird

        As for B. thinking children are fun, no . For many people they are not, they are an opportunity cost. Its not 1043 or something where people have nothing else to do but talk and fuck every hour and dollar spent on children is one not available for another use

        people tend to want one or two kids, that’s it. And note to the US TfR despite a depression hasn’t varied much , its 1.7 which isn’t vastly higher than 2.0 which is the norm.

        The US does not need billions of people and Germany doesn’t need 80 million people in a nation the size of Oregon and one that has had overpopulation pressure for nearly a century.

        The problem isn’t fertility but immigration and if immigration had been checked and not allowed, we’d face basically no real problems anyway. Other than Ponzi economies but that is a policy issue, stop assuming growth and you’ll be fine.

        Most of human history has no population growth and we’ll be fine without it

        As for the baby boom, what caused that was a holiness spiral Everyone had large families , so you had one too,

        That isn’t going to repeat itself for a myriad of reasons though I suppose getting women out of the work force and wages up (US workers had phenomenal wealth growth during the baby boom) might work.

        Neither goal is really achievable however, our other national religion, Technological Progress means that wage growth is a permanent non starter for most workers.

        • jim says:

          The high high fertility period from about 1945-1969 was an anomaly

          The high high fertility period was the gap between first wave feminism (Amelia Earhart getting a ticker tape parade for being transported across the Atlantic by a man like a sack of potatoes) and second wave feminism.

          During that period it once again became socially acceptable to refuse to hire women for jobs for which they are inherently unfit, and once again became socially acceptable to spank one’s wife (McLintock). During that period women were once again expected to aspire to becoming wives and mothers, rather than despise that role.

          Before 1933, no corporal punishment of wives depicted in Hollywood. 1933 to 1945 portrayed as shocking and unexpected.

          We first see corporal discipline of one’s wife (spanking) portrayed in the media as normal and socially acceptable in 1945, and fertility abruptly rises, and this depiction continues to 1963. whereupon it abruptly, suddenly, and totally stops – and fertility starts falling.

          • A.B. Prosper says:

            Perhaps. I’m not sure that the peculiar social conditions you mentioned weren’t the cause/milleu of the holiness spiral though

            Again let me ask why do we need more people, even White ones?

            Lets say the US population dropped to 150 million, less than half the current in 5 decades That would be the same number as the start baby boom , enough for teeming cities, small towns , a healthy economy

            Other than border control what is the problem in having less people?

            • peppermint says:

              Men and women either have children, or don’t live for their children, which is one step removed from being cuckolds.

              The US is far from full. there is empty land and by the ’80s and ’90s there were jobs that weren’t being done and no Americans to do them.

              Do you want Whites to reproduce and do great things, or do you want Whites to rest on their laurels until they die out?

              This continent must be, as Thomas Jefferson said, fully populated by the Americans. Heil Hitler.

  10. […] which passes beyond the strongly-related considerations of Jim (most recently here, here, and here) and Sister Y (here, and here), is the first-order eugenics of these machines. They concentrate […]

  11. Zach says:

    …and where did this frothing at the mouth contrivance come from?


  12. Zach says:

    “I have found that those who demand sources seldom read, and seldom believe, those sources. ”


  13. Zach says:

    Malthus is a feminist, jewish, liberal, obama voting, clinton loving, gay loving, idiot worshiping, slit hating, straight unloving, boob hating prick!

    Fuckin’ A! The “Un” is our soul. The un-unloves- trying to get cute.

    Be steadfast!

  14. […] The more women are subordinated, the higher the fertility.  Japan is a good test case.  Not only did fertility dramatically drop when General McArthur emancipated women, but in feudal Japan, fertility among high status families was below replacement when women were […]

  15. […] depressing. What happened? This has actually been discussed at length before – the case of Japan by Jim and the case of Spain by me (the post linked earlier). But let’s briefly summarize what we […]

  16. […] had a dramatic effect on marriage and fertility in the US, almost as spectacular as the disastrous fall in fertility that ensued when McArthur emancipated Japanese women. Marriage went up, fertility went […]

  17. Jake says:

    I’ve tried to comment on this post repeatedly, but I’m not even getting the usual “Your comment has been received and is pending moderation” message. Any idea what might have happened to my comments?

    • Jake says:

      You seem to have missed an even more obvious graph:

      Female emancipation, and indeed Maoist communism, seem to have done wonders for the population of China. Under communism, the population doubled from 500 million to 1 billion in thirty years (easily the fastest rate of growth in China’s long history). Meanwhile, the last vestiges of foot binding were completely stamped out, and women were guaranteed equal rights.

      How did you miss that?

      You’re pursuing a false narrative. Fertility is largely self-regulating; it might make sense to completely abandon modernity and turn women into baby-making sex slaves if we needed vastly more cannon fodder to resist the invasion of a massive foreign army, but there would be no need to do so because fertility always goes up during and after periods of high mortality. In developed countries, people have fewer children, but they invest far more in each child. This is a universal phenomenon: China may need a two child (or, perhaps, a “have one child, please!”) policy now that it has grown increasingly rich; banning women from driving (or doing virtually anything without a male guardian) was unable to raise fertility substantially above the replacement rate in oil-rich Saudi Arabia; Singapore’s fertility seems not to live up to your reactionary ideal. Nor is there any significant racial bifurcation: Black American fertility is 1.89 children per woman while white American fertility is 1.82 children per woman (; Hispanic fertility is somewhat higher at 2.1 but the evidence is clear that Mexican women rapidly recognize that having children is more expensive in the U.S. than it is in Mexico and adjust their behavior accordingly. The reactionary idea that war-ravaged Taliban Afghanistan was better in 2001 when it had a higher fertility rate, and 10% of children died before their first birthday (, is utterly bizarre: Why is that the only metric by which to evaluate a society? If you hate women and want to oppress them for your own perceived benefit, you can just say so; there’s no need to make up preposterous just-so stories to rationalize your misogyny.

      None of this is to deny that U.S. fertility could (and probably should) be modestly improved, for example by addressing rampant pregnancy discrimination ( But that would require a willingness to engage with the same reality that everyone else does rather than retreating deeper inside your alt-reich bubble. It would also require that your stated concern is genuine, and not motivated by any irrational animus.

      • jim says:

        Women in Saudi Arabia are twice as likely to go to university as men, and their schools teach them the joys of sodomy and how to put a condom on a banana. Hence the relatively low fertility.

        The reason the “international community” attempted a color revolution in Syria is largely because they had exact equality between males and females in their school system, instead of the required female primacy.

        Places and people that successfully resist female primacy in their education system have fairly high fertility, but are frequently subject to warlike acts by the “international community”.

        “Boko Haram” means “bullshit is forbidden” – meaning western education for girls is forbidden. People fight wars over this issue.

        The problem is that to reproduce, men and women must cooperate. If they are not free to make a binding and enforceable contract to form a single household under a single head of household, you get defect/defect equilibrium. Everyone loses. Nobody gets what they want.

        • ilkarnal says:

          Why not hire women to bear children? Surrogacy, to offload the inconvenience to third worlders. Seems affordable. And you could pay the surrogates to sex-selectively produce more surrogates. If you had, say, a thousand people and a few hundred million dollars you could plant a rapidly growing seed somewhere promising. Getting income is a lot more practical than raising all the money beforehand, though. Maybe one could create some sorta tourist trap in a promising African or South American location.

          • Dave says:

            Thanks to IVF, you can effectively split the role of wife among four different women, none of whom has the power to divorce you: (1) the egg donor, (2) the surrogate womb, (3) the nanny, and (4) the sex toy. Only (1) needs to be of your race, and (4) is optional.

            The problem with this plan is that it does not align well with male instincts, which tend to put marriage (or at least sex) before child-rearing. If you’re suggesting that the *state* pay women to make babies, the mind recoils in horror at what sort of “citizens” these unloved wards would become!

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        Jake, are you seriously using Maoist China as an example of feminism not killing fertility?

        1. TFR drops from 6.6 in 1950 to 2.4 in 1976, which is large even if you assume it should drop due to lower infant mortality (a slower continuation of pre-communist trends). The population increase was just a slower continuation of pre-communist trends / better census taking as the weak traditional state was replaced by a totalitarian socialist one.

        2. Maoist China was far more patriarchial than modern China, let alone the current Anglo Empire. Footbinding and other practices were long gone / declining before 1949. Private patriarchy was replaced with state patriarchy (the state assigned women to men and took them away when they were purged, sex outside of marriage was illegal, even traditional plays were outlawed for “pornographic content, etc – see It was definitely to the right of my preferred laissez-faire optimum, possibly Jim’s as well.

Leave a Reply