The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Russian Demographics in 2019
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Last year’s summary: Russian Demographics in 2018 [2016; 2014].

Preliminary data for 2018 is in.

Births, deaths, and natural increase in Russia, 1946-2018.

Summary

There were about 1,599,316 (10.9/1,000) births in 2018, a decline of 5.4% relative to the 1,689,884 (11.5/1,000) births in 2017. There were about 1,817,710 (12.4/1,000) deaths in 2018, a decline of 0.4% relative to the 1,824,340 (12.4/1,000) deaths in 2017.

Consequently, the rate of natural increase declined from -134,456 (-0.9/1,000) in 2017, to -218,394 in 2018.

Unlike the previous year, the decline in birth rates was relatively even across Russian and non-Russian regions in 2018 (e.g. Dagestan declined by 5.2%, which is similar to the Russian average).

The population was estimated at 146,793,744 as of Jan 1, 2019, down from 146,880,432 exactly one year ago. This implies about 131,706 in long-term net immigration, down from 172,551 last year.

If accurate, this would mark the first time since 2007 that the population of Russia has declined in absolute terms*.

***

Fertility

Russia experienced a sustained recovery from the fertility collapse of the 1990s starting from the mid-2000s, during which TFR rose from around 1.3 children per woman to a post-Soviet record of 1.78 children per woman by 2015. However, Russian fertility fell off a cliff in the second half of 2016.

Monthly births in Russia, 2006-2018, with yearly moving average.

Monthly births in Russia (percent change year-on-year), 2007-2018 , with yearly moving average.

In my last Russia demographic update a year ago, I noted that there were tentative signs that it may have bottomed out in recent months. This turned out not to be, though the rate of decrease did slow down.

Russia Total Fertility Rate (children per woman), 1946-2018.

Adjusting for the age structure of the population – the number of Russian women in their childbearing years is falling faster than the number of absolute numbers – I calculate Russian TFR was ~1.57 children per woman in 2018, down from 1.62 in 2017. (In the previous year, I calculated it would be 1.61 children per woman, while it turned out to be 1.62 children per woman in reality).

I have previously established that ethnic Russians have approximately 0.08 fewer children than the average for the Russian Federation. This would imply that ethnic Russian TFR is now at around 1.5 children per women.

While there’s no way to put a positive spin on these developments, it’s worth bearing in mind that pretty much the entire industrialized world has been in a minor baby glut for the past couple of years (as documented by Twitter demographer @Cicerone1973). Consequently, Russia has largely preserved the relative position to other countries it acquired around 2014-15, at the height of its baby boom. Its numbers are currently very similar to those forecasted for Germany (1.55) and Visegrad (1.47 in Poland; 1.50 in Hungary; 1.53 in Slovakia; 1.67 in Czechia). Note that native German and Visegrad TFRs will also be modestly lower on account of immigrants and Gypsies, respectively.

Broadly speaking, Russia continues to do better than the Med, but worse than France, the UK, Ireland, and Scandinavia. Overall EU fertility in 2016 was 1.60 children per woman, so bearing in mind the decline since then, it should now be in the low 1.50s (with natives at perhaps 1.45 children per woman). American TFR has declined from 1.84 children per woman in 2015 to perhaps 1.74 children per woman in 2018 (translating to a White American fertility rate of ~1.64 children per woman).

I have often made the point that there there seems to be a Great Homogenization, as American millennials adopt European mores while Europeans soak up American culture from Game of Thrones to #MeToo. Despite geopolitical tension, Russia is very much involved in this process as well. It is interesting to see this happening with respect to demographics as well. As we can see, natives/whites in the EU (~1.45), Russia (~1.50), and the US (~1.64) all now have rather similar fertility rates.

A few weeks ago, I wrote a comprehensive article on Russia’s fertility preferences.

While I recommend you check it out and read it in its entirety, one prediction I am willing to make on the basis of that data is that the retreat in Russian TFR observed in 2016-18 will halt, modestly recover, and stabilize at around 1.7 children per woman by the early 2020s.

***

Mortality

Based on the decrease in mortality, I calculate that life expectancy was ~73.2 years in 2018 (up from 72.7 in 2017), continuing to surge past Soviet-era peaks close to 70 years established in the mid-1960s and late 1980s.

Russia life expectancy, 1959-2018.

As has usually been the case, this was accompanied by continued strong decreases in deaths from external causes, such as transport accidents, work fatalities, and “deaths from vices.”

Russia mortality / 100,000 from external causes.

This includes deaths from murder, suicide, and deaths from alcohol poisonings, the latter of which drives a great deal of Russian mortality in general.

Russia mortality / 100,000 from murder, suicide, and alcohol poisoning.

Given the smoothness of these “Pinkerian” trends, I don’t have much to add beyond what I have said in previous demographic updates.

One way of looking at this is that mortality trends in Russia are basically tracking improvements in the ex-Soviet Baltics (and the City of Moscow) with a lag of ten years, so there is good reason to expect this trend will continue.

This is primarily linked to the big reduction in vodka bingeing during the past decade, which depressed Russian life expectancy by about a decade relative to what it “should be” based on its GDP per capita and healthcare system. This “alcoholization” began to soar from around 1965, and peaked in the 1990s and early 2000s. According to calculations by the demographer Alexander Nemtsov, something like a third of Russian mortality around 2005 could be attributed to it.

As alcohol abuse fell, so did all of the other components of mortality, especially those most strongly associated with it, i.e. deaths from external causes: which includes homicides, suicides, deaths from transport accidents (despite soaring vehicle ownership), and, self-referentially, deaths from alcohol poisoning.

Part of this reduction was due to cultural change, including the realities of life under capitalism (if you turn up to work drunk, you can be fired, unlike under socialism), part of it was due to economics (more diversity of choice), and part of it was thanks to specific Kremlin policies, such as steady increases in the excise tax on alcohol and restrictions on alcohol advertising.

This year’s update: Moscow’s LE was 77.9 years in 2017, up from 73.3 years – the average Russian LE today – back in 2008. So we could be looking at entrance into the range of developed world life expectancies by the late 2020s.

Homicide rates fell from 6.0/100,000 in 2017 to 5.2/100,000 in 2018, returning Russia to its typical historical range before alcoholization epidemic took off in mid-1960s. For anyone who may have missed it, see my post A Short History of Russian Homicides for historical perspective. In that post, I speculated Russia might overtake US in homicide rates in 2018. Not happening because US also had a big drop to ~5.0/100,000. But we can still reasonably expect this to happen in 2019 or 2020 at the very latest.

Based on the experience of Finland – a similarly hard-drinking country that had murder rates similar to those of the Russian Empire at large a century ago, but which in the absence of Communism has come close to converging to the European average – I expect Russia to eventually converge to a homicide rate of 1-2/100,000 one or two decades down the line. For that matter, Moscow – which usually leads Russia on socio-economic trends by around 5-10 years – has already hit that marker, with homicide rates at 1.9/100,000 as of 2018 (it was at Russia’s current level of 5.2/100,000 back in 2010).

Russia is no longer any sort of outlier even amongst developed Western countries in terms of suicide rates.

***

Infant Mortality

For the historical perspective, see: Russian Infant Mortality, 1900-2016

Having stagnated during the late Soviet Union and 1990s, Russian infant mortality has been rapidly improving ever since, reaching 6.0/1,000 in 2016, 5.5/1,000 in 2017, and 5.1/1,000 this year. Relative to OECD numbers as of 2015, this would actually now put Russia ahead of the US (5.9) and New Zealand (5.7), though most of the rest of the developed world and Visegrad continues to outperform it. It also needs to be acknowledged that the US has more stringent definitions of infant mortality, so in practice it remains ahead of Russia. That said, the gap is now much smaller than it used to be.

Abortion in Russia continues to decline to normal country levels.

Russia abortions as percentage of live births.

This is still about 2-3x higher than in most of Western Europe and the US, but Russia is longer the absolute outlier it once was.

***

The Ukraine & Belorussia

Great Russians have always had lower life expectancies than Ukrainians. This is a remarkably stable pattern since late Imperial times (LE in 1897: Russians – 28.7; Belorussians – 36.2 years; Ukrainians – 38.1 years**).

Except for the last few years

The crossover point in 2015 at 71.4 years for both. By 2017, Ukrainians were living 72.0 years to 72.7 in Russia, and – considering that there were 10,000 more deaths in the Ukraine in the first months of 2018 relative to the same period last year, while they fell in Russia, this gap will increase further in 2018.

The more Russian/pro-Russian areas of the Ukraine tend to have lower life expectancy than the more Ukrainian/nationalist areas, with the difference between the former and the Ukrainian average constituting about one year.

Consequently, the life expectancy of those regions would now just around 71.0 years. This would now place them at the level of some of the hardest-drinking, lowest LE regions within Russia itself.

The Ukraine is failing in its duty of care to its own people.

This story is repeated across other indicators of public health. For instance, I noted that Crimea had an infant mortality rate of just 3.7/1,000 in 2018, down from 6.9/1,000 in 2013 (its last year in the Ukraine). Ukraine’s rate in 2017: 7.6/1,000, barely down from 8.0/1,000 in 2013. Russia went from 8.2/1,000 in 2013 to 5.1/1,000 last year. Russia’s “annexation” of Crimea has saved thousands of lives.

In terms of fertility rates, the Ukraine peaked in 2012-15 at ~1.5 children per woman, but this collapsed to 1.37 in 2017 and will probably further decline to 1.31 children per woman in 2018. Worst performance in Slavdom.

Belorussia has stopped releasing month to month population data a couple of years ago, so the data we have for it is about a year old. However, it appears to be doing quite well. According to their last demographic yearbook, the TFR was at 1.54 children per woman in 2017 (down from their post-Soviet peak of 1.73 children per woman in 2016; incidentally, this further confirms the general nature of the fertility decline of the past couple of years) and life expectancy was at 74.4 years.

***

Prospects

My “predictions” are pretty basic. Hopefully 2019 will mark a final turnaround in the fertility collapse, though the numbers for late 2018 indicate that we haven’t quite reached bottom yet. Life expectancy, and other health indicators, should continue to improve.

The Russian government recently released its thirteen “national plans” – a massive infrastructure and capacity building program that will plow $400 billion into Russia’s roads, bridges, and hospitals over the next five years.

The two plans most relevant to Russian demographics are the following:

Healthcare ($30 billion)

This program aims to improve mortality from diseases of the circulatory system, dropping it by a quarter. While Russia has seen major improvements on this score (dropping from ~900/100,000 in the early 2000s to 575/100,000 by 2018, it still has a long way to go; typical rates in the EU are well less than 200/100,000.

On the other hand, the goal of lowering infant mortality from 5.5/1,000 in 2017 to 4.5/1,000 by 2024 has already been half achieved (see above).

There is a major emphasis on improving hospital accessibility and prophylactic care.

There’s even a goal of quadrupling medical equipment exports from $250 million to $1 billion annually (while that’s almost a rounding error in terms of Russian exports, this would presumably imply developing a domestic medical equipment industry – could this be a protective measure against the prospect of ramped up US sanctions?).

Demographics ($50 billion)

Goals include increasing healthy life expectancy, increasing the fertility rate to 1.7 children per woman (this would actually fall short of the figures reached in 2013-16; though it does tally with my prediction for the early 2020s), increasing participation in sports.

However, in terms of spending, the vast bulk of the spending – around 90% of it – will go specifically on financial support for families with children and preschooling. There will also be mortgage rates of 6% for families with two or more children.

I looked up the details at RT Russian [Google Translate]:

From January 1, 2019, the amount of state benefits paid in connection with the birth of a child in Russia will increase. Thus, the maximum amount of monthly payments to parents whose children have not reached 1.5 years will exceed 26 thousand rubles, the minimum – 4.5 thousand rubles. At the same time, the maximum amount of maternity allowance will exceed the level of 300 thousand rubles. For at least 140 days of maternity leave, the mother will be able to get 51.9 thousand. Assistance is provided for both employed parents and unemployed. Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the total funding of measures to support families with children in the next six years will amount to almost 2.7 trillion rubles. …

This type of assistance from the state is more designed for employed parents, since the amount of the benefit should be 40% of the average earnings for the two previous calendar years per one month. The marginal bases for calculating insurance contributions to the Social Insurance Fund for 2017 and 2018 are 755 thousand rubles and 815 thousand rubles.

Essentially, this represents an intensification of the pro-natalist policies that Russia has been pursuing for a decade now. This seems similar to trends in Hungary. Let’s see if it works.

***

* In reality, I suspect not, because immigration is usually underestimated. Russia’s population increased substantially after the 2010 Census, necessitating post hoc adjustments.

** Boris Mironov. Российская Империя: От Tрадиции к Mодерну, том I. pp. 283.

 
Hide 208 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Excellent post, Anatoly! Russia’s demographic (in a broad sense–including rates of crime, alcoholism, et cetera) history shows that while nature (genetics) matters a lot in determining countries’ well-being, nurture can play a very significant role as well–especially in regards to severely fucking up countries. It’s great to see Russia significantly recovering from the effects of Bolshevism.

    Also, I really do hope that Russian fertility will significantly rise in the near future and that this rise won’t be dysgenic.

  2. Overall very encouraging trends. The issue with fertility is not so pressing as life expectancy, murder, and alcoholism. Much better to have a Russia that is pleasant with 120 million people than a sovok shithole with 200 million, and I suspect that fertility rates will recover within a few decades anyway. The biggest concern is that the ethnic balance will be upset and the proportion of ethnic Russians will decrease. Is this happening?

    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS

    I suspect that fertility rates will recover within a few decades anyway.
     
    For it to recover, several bad trends have to be reversed.

    1) Debt money systems like to pay off old debts with new debts. This means impressing women into the workforce as new debtors. A fully bank credit monetized economy, does not recognize contribution of the volunteer economy. This inability to see makes women choose to not have families, and society in general to downgrade the idea of replacing itself.
    2) Paying families to have children will take some sort of debt free social credit system. This is injection of non debt derived money type into base of population which is the family unit. This is also called American Social Credit, which differs from Douglas Social Credit. Douglas injects into price system at point of sale.
    3) The previous former two points require over-turning our current ideas of how money works, and this will become increasingly imperative and obvious because of automation.
    4) Automation will aggregate money toward those who own the means of production i.e. robot owners. Capital will build robot factories and suck money out of money supply in payment for goods -and unemployed human labor will be left in the dust. Since humans earn their way by making things which become prices, many humans will be cut out of the economy. No income, no children.
    5) White people and North East Asians have a forward time orientation as part of their evolutionary history. If there is war, or a dim future, they don't breed. Women especially want a "nest" where she can be secure both monetarily and physically before she will mate.
    6) Male /Female roles are blending due to machine power. Feminists insist that women are economic actors the same as men. Evolution says otherwise, but machine power does equalize women in the workplace, where muscles matter less and less.

    My view is that these trends are very difficult to overcome.

    It will first require dealing with our mal-formed money. New money has to channel into families and making babies. One idea is to use South East Asian women as incubators. Impregnate them with well matched white eggs and white men sperm. They will then be birth mothers, and the baby then goes to white Russian family that already has children. In this way, Russians can have larger families, while the Russian women (who thinks she is an economic man) can go back to the workforce. These women are thus only out of the workforce for a few years, but will have larger families. This process could also be Eugenic, where babies are of high quality and intelligence.

    Another fix is to adopt Nazi policy of no abortion, and a young mother can quietly sneak away to a protected "state funded" birthing center where she can live while pregnant then have the baby. These young mothers continue to receive education while they were away at the birthing center.

    oops. Did I mention something positive about Nazis? So sorry.

  3. Thanks , very good post – I only have time to skim, but obviously much better than any “mainstream media” discussion I read so far this year.

    I was wondering about “tempo affects” – and if average age of birth is still rising, whether this could add upward pressure on fertility rate in a few years in the future. This is how John Bongaarts explained a recovery of fertility rates to 2008.

    Golikova says the objective of their new policy, will aim to increase total fertility rates to 1,7 by 2024.

    My cynical conspiracy theory is they might be assuming “tempo affect” in their modelling to add upward pressure on fertility rates by 2024, and so predict the powers can receive credit when total fertility likely rises above 1,7 by 2024.

    I also thought another point after reading Sailor’s forum:

    “Within the expert community, tempo affect probably also exaggerated the extent to which fertility rates were believed to be “coupled” to economic and political conditions, and to government assistance. People were delaying partly because of the economic situation – so in the data the total period fertility rate was temporarily very strongly “coupled” to economic conditions and government assistance like maternity capital which affected more the decision when to have children, than whether to have children.”

    Obviously timing of births is more affected by political policy and economic situation, than eventual cohort fertility rate is.

    On the other hand, I was also thinking about a contrary trend in relation to the urbanists’ discussions this month.

    In Sailor’s forum, where they are now discussing fertility rates there were people claiming migration to larger cities, is accelerating fertility decline in Finland.

    Moscow and Petersburg are both “fertility swamps” for whatever reasons, and at the same time with internal migration to them and vast new construction – if the claim about Finland in the Sailor forum is true, and would also generalize, this could be future downward pressure on fertility rates. There might also some relevance with “psychometric maps” – by which this internal migration of higher human capital to fertility swamps, would have dysgenic implications.

    And I also was thinking about relation of population pyramid and political trends.

    High and rising median age, will be an upward pressure to increase conservative politics and political stability (as well as downward pressure on crime rates) in the next decade.

    Positive correction between age and conservative politics is quite universal.

    median age in Russia is 40 years for 2019. And will be higher by next Presidential election. So mainstream politics will be conservative politics in the future. The current situation with Putin is still a healthy equilibrium – where most parts of society are appeased.

    I can imagine culture becomes more conservative in the future, but also with trends favouring political stability. Perhaps someone like Orban will come.

    The smallest generation is just starting to pass its exams to enter university now, and enter voting age.

    Combined with rising life expectancy, the voting demographic will become representatively even more old for a decade (as the population of young children is larger than the population of teenagers now).

    Demographically, even with the stagnating economic growth, it is a “good time” (relatively) to be a teenager now, as there will be relatively better graduate jobs available relative to applicant numbers in a few years.

    So this should also increase political stability, other things equal, from the next generation.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    as there will be relatively better graduate jobs available relative to applicant numbers in a few years.
     
    This kind of effect should be beginning now actually, and will just become larger for the next decade.

    I would assume, demographics are becoming at least one of the contributing factors to the lowest unemployment rate happening now.
    https://regnum.ru/news/2571088.html

    At least the political stability situation can be improved by this (subtracting the unpopularity of increasing retirement age).

  4. @Dmitry
    Thanks , very good post - I only have time to skim, but obviously much better than any "mainstream media" discussion I read so far this year.

    I was wondering about "tempo affects" - and if average age of birth is still rising, whether this could add upward pressure on fertility rate in a few years in the future. This is how John Bongaarts explained a recovery of fertility rates to 2008.

    Golikova says the objective of their new policy, will aim to increase total fertility rates to 1,7 by 2024.

    My cynical conspiracy theory is they might be assuming "tempo affect" in their modelling to add upward pressure on fertility rates by 2024, and so predict the powers can receive credit when total fertility likely rises above 1,7 by 2024.

    I also thought another point after reading Sailor's forum:


    "Within the expert community, tempo affect probably also exaggerated the extent to which fertility rates were believed to be “coupled” to economic and political conditions, and to government assistance. People were delaying partly because of the economic situation – so in the data the total period fertility rate was temporarily very strongly “coupled” to economic conditions and government assistance like maternity capital which affected more the decision when to have children, than whether to have children."

     

    Obviously timing of births is more affected by political policy and economic situation, than eventual cohort fertility rate is.

    -

    On the other hand, I was also thinking about a contrary trend in relation to the urbanists' discussions this month.

    In Sailor’s forum, where they are now discussing fertility rates there were people claiming migration to larger cities, is accelerating fertility decline in Finland.

    Moscow and Petersburg are both “fertility swamps” for whatever reasons, and at the same time with internal migration to them and vast new construction – if the claim about Finland in the Sailor forum is true, and would also generalize, this could be future downward pressure on fertility rates. There might also some relevance with “psychometric maps” – by which this internal migration of higher human capital to fertility swamps, would have dysgenic implications.
     

    And I also was thinking about relation of population pyramid and political trends.

    High and rising median age, will be an upward pressure to increase conservative politics and political stability (as well as downward pressure on crime rates) in the next decade.

    Positive correction between age and conservative politics is quite universal.


    median age in Russia is 40 years for 2019. And will be higher by next Presidential election. So mainstream politics will be conservative politics in the future. The current situation with Putin is still a healthy equilibrium – where most parts of society are appeased.

    I can imagine culture becomes more conservative in the future, but also with trends favouring political stability. Perhaps someone like Orban will come.
     

    The smallest generation is just starting to pass its exams to enter university now, and enter voting age.

    Combined with rising life expectancy, the voting demographic will become representatively even more old for a decade (as the population of young children is larger than the population of teenagers now).

    https://i.imgur.com/8ljozUp.png

    Demographically, even with the stagnating economic growth, it is a "good time" (relatively) to be a teenager now, as there will be relatively better graduate jobs available relative to applicant numbers in a few years.

    So this should also increase political stability, other things equal, from the next generation.

    as there will be relatively better graduate jobs available relative to applicant numbers in a few years.

    This kind of effect should be beginning now actually, and will just become larger for the next decade.

    I would assume, demographics are becoming at least one of the contributing factors to the lowest unemployment rate happening now.
    https://regnum.ru/news/2571088.html

    At least the political stability situation can be improved by this (subtracting the unpopularity of increasing retirement age).

  5. This is why re-Sovokization of Russian millennial culture can help Russia really turn around its fertility.

    Craft beer kills sperm counts. Indian food causes one to be pudgy and hence less able to bang (for both sexes). SWPL also encourages pet dogs, instead of pet humans.

    A Russia with a 2-child policy and culturally an Orthodox Christian (with strong Sovok symbolisms to curate leftist allies) version of Iran will really have the entire alt right/manosphere and the Chavistas/ANC both fully on board.

    This will also significantly bridge a cultural gap with China especially the “conservative” old guard siloviki if Russians are actually interested in deep Sino-Russian ties.

    • Replies: @neutral

    Indian food causes one to be pudgy
     
    Is there any reason for this? Also how come Indians are not known to be pudgy if this is all they eat every day?
    , @Sid973
    Indian food causes one to be pudgy and hence less able to bang? India has a TFR of 2.3 while presumably eating Indian food.
  6. Goals include increasing healthy life expectancy, increasing the fertility rate to 1.7 children per woman

    A total fertility rate of 1.7 children per woman is still a forecast of imminent extinction. Russia and the West will have to do far, far better than that if they want to survive.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Karlin predicts "Age of Malthusian Industrialism", where European (or at least Western Europe) fertility rates will be above replacement level by the end of the century
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge

    I also think this is likely (maybe not in this timeline), although by a different mechanism: introduction of artificial wombs in the future.

    It sounds heretical, but that kind of possibility, could also encourage "increased government centralized planning". Imagine with artificial wombs and some legal changes - the government would intervene to recreate the replacement fertility rate of the 1980s.

    , @Hyperborean

    A total fertility rate of 1.7 children per woman is still a forecast of imminent extinction. Russia and the West will have to do far, far better than that if they want to survive.
     
    As a consequence of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars France, which had once been the most populous in Europe, inherited a poor demographic situation.

    While her rivals, despite considerable emigration, were bouncing leaps and leaps ahead, French fertility was stagnant and even saw its first sub-replacement record in 1891.

    The little increase there was in this period (36 million to 39 million during 1850-1950) was dependent on immigration from Belgium, Italy and Poland.

    And while France, during the second half of the nineteenth century, did comparatively narrow the economic gap with Britain and Germany that had sprung up during the first half there was a widespread pessimism in the country.

    This was a concern even for the fervent Dreyfusard Émile Zola who published Fécondité in 1899, a novel contrasting the fates of a rich, self-obsessed urbanite couple who put their efforts with their sole son, who dies, with the simple and fulfilling life the hero choses with his wife who produce a cornucopia of children.

    While this inferiority meant that France would play a secondary role to Germany, despite the low fertility, liberal government, lax borders before the First World War (a pan-European phenomenon) and a rather complacent and naïve attitude towards Africans (often remarked upon by Germans), the French nation was never as long as it maintained a sensible position regarding mass migration.

    And starting in the 1940s, after a century of national impotence, France experienced a generation of demographic burst with an around 300,000 increase per annum until, I would estimate, the 1970s when non-white births and immigration distort the statistics too much.
  7. @Intelligent Dasein

    Goals include increasing healthy life expectancy, increasing the fertility rate to 1.7 children per woman
     
    A total fertility rate of 1.7 children per woman is still a forecast of imminent extinction. Russia and the West will have to do far, far better than that if they want to survive.

    Karlin predicts “Age of Malthusian Industrialism”, where European (or at least Western Europe) fertility rates will be above replacement level by the end of the century
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge

    I also think this is likely (maybe not in this timeline), although by a different mechanism: introduction of artificial wombs in the future.

    It sounds heretical, but that kind of possibility, could also encourage “increased government centralized planning”. Imagine with artificial wombs and some legal changes – the government would intervene to recreate the replacement fertility rate of the 1980s.

    • Replies: @AquariusAnon
    By the end of the century I shudder to think what the demographics of many European countries will be like. I see France sitting at 50-60% white, Germany maybe 70% white.
    , @dfordoom

    I also think this is likely (maybe not in this timeline), although by a different mechanism: introduction of artificial wombs in the future.
     
    Who is going to raise those children? I presume they'll be raised in the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre. They'll be even more Borg-like than Millennials today.

    Even assuming that some are lucky enough to get raised by humans there are likely to be problems. Will women feel the same attachment to kids if they don't give birth to them? Will the children resent their mothers for being vain and selfish?

    If we are to survive we need to rebuild actual families. You know, Mummy and Daddy and several kids, all living under the same roof. I know it sounds radical and bizarre but I'm told it used to work.
  8. @Dmitry
    Karlin predicts "Age of Malthusian Industrialism", where European (or at least Western Europe) fertility rates will be above replacement level by the end of the century
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge

    I also think this is likely (maybe not in this timeline), although by a different mechanism: introduction of artificial wombs in the future.

    It sounds heretical, but that kind of possibility, could also encourage "increased government centralized planning". Imagine with artificial wombs and some legal changes - the government would intervene to recreate the replacement fertility rate of the 1980s.

    By the end of the century I shudder to think what the demographics of many European countries will be like. I see France sitting at 50-60% white, Germany maybe 70% white.

    • Replies: @songbird
    Are you counting Arabs/Turks as white?
    , @Mr. XYZ
    With the U.S. being 35% White?
    , @Mr. XYZ
    Also, songbird's question here is serious. Thus, you should answer his question here.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Probably whites (Europeans) and even half-white people will be less than 50% of Germany’s population COMBINED by the end of this century. At best. Same for France.
    , @neutral
    That is way too optimistic, Germany will be 50% non white by 2050.
  9. @AquariusAnon
    By the end of the century I shudder to think what the demographics of many European countries will be like. I see France sitting at 50-60% white, Germany maybe 70% white.

    Are you counting Arabs/Turks as white?

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • LOL: AquariusAnon
    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    And Persians, and Afghans, and Berbers as well?
  10. @AquariusAnon
    By the end of the century I shudder to think what the demographics of many European countries will be like. I see France sitting at 50-60% white, Germany maybe 70% white.

    With the U.S. being 35% White?

    • Replies: @AquariusAnon
    Sounds about right, 45% in the best case scenario, 30% in the worst. I'm guessing maybe 40% white. It will be California on steroids with around half of the per capita wealth and levels of development the US has today. On a per capita basis, it will probably be a lower tier first world country like today's Portugal, Taiwan, Greece, or Poland.
  11. @songbird
    Are you counting Arabs/Turks as white?

    And Persians, and Afghans, and Berbers as well?

    • Agree: songbird
    • Replies: @Hail
    In the grand tradition of the intertwining of race and religion (religious identity), 'White' and 'Muslim' cannot coexist.

    I would go so far as to say that a native European, all 1,024 of whose 1,024 ten-generations-ago ancestors were born in Europe, if he converts to fundamentalist Islam is no longer 'White' in our understanding of the term.

    Likewise,

    Arabs/Turks
     

    Persians, and Afghans, and Berbers
     
    None of these are 'White.' Perhaps identity categories will significantly change by the second half of the late 21st century, but as of now and coming few decades at least: No way.
  12. @Mr. XYZ
    With the U.S. being 35% White?

    Sounds about right, 45% in the best case scenario, 30% in the worst. I’m guessing maybe 40% white. It will be California on steroids with around half of the per capita wealth and levels of development the US has today. On a per capita basis, it will probably be a lower tier first world country like today’s Portugal, Taiwan, Greece, or Poland.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    I don't think that U.S. per capita GDP is going to decrease before 2100. California's per capita GDP is still increasing in spite of mass Latino immigration.

    Also, I suspect that the decades ahead are going to result in more high-quality immigration to the U.S. as Latin America ages and thus sends less of its people over here. I suspect that we'll see more smart Asians, smart Africans, and possibly smart Middle Easterners (but especially smart Asians and smart Africans) move to the U.S. as the 21st century progresses.

    In addition to this, as a side note, does anyone know what kind of immigrants we get from the Diversity Visa Lottery? This lottery previously helped me and my family out (though it was not decisive in regards to ensuring that we will stay in the U.S.) and thus I am wondering if this lottery generally produces high-quality or low-quality immigrants for the U.S.
  13. @AquariusAnon
    Sounds about right, 45% in the best case scenario, 30% in the worst. I'm guessing maybe 40% white. It will be California on steroids with around half of the per capita wealth and levels of development the US has today. On a per capita basis, it will probably be a lower tier first world country like today's Portugal, Taiwan, Greece, or Poland.

    I don’t think that U.S. per capita GDP is going to decrease before 2100. California’s per capita GDP is still increasing in spite of mass Latino immigration.

    Also, I suspect that the decades ahead are going to result in more high-quality immigration to the U.S. as Latin America ages and thus sends less of its people over here. I suspect that we’ll see more smart Asians, smart Africans, and possibly smart Middle Easterners (but especially smart Asians and smart Africans) move to the U.S. as the 21st century progresses.

    In addition to this, as a side note, does anyone know what kind of immigrants we get from the Diversity Visa Lottery? This lottery previously helped me and my family out (though it was not decisive in regards to ensuring that we will stay in the U.S.) and thus I am wondering if this lottery generally produces high-quality or low-quality immigrants for the U.S.

  14. @AquariusAnon
    By the end of the century I shudder to think what the demographics of many European countries will be like. I see France sitting at 50-60% white, Germany maybe 70% white.

    Also, songbird’s question here is serious. Thus, you should answer his question here.

  15. BTW, I’ve thought of another way to strengthen Russia’s demographics–specifically a voluntary population exchange with the other ex-USSR countries. That way, the ethnicities of these countries will feel more secure in their homelands due to them becoming a larger percentage of the total population while Russia will get up to several million additional Russians. Win-win, wouldn’t you say?

  16. Its numbers are currently very similar to those forecasted for Germany (1.55) and Visegrad (1.47 in Poland; 1.50 in Hungary; 1.53 in Slovakia; 1.67 in Czechia). Note that native German and Visegrad TFRs will also be modestly lower on account of immigrants and Gypsies, respectively.

    Quibble: Poland has almost no gypsies, so its ethnic TFR is the same as the national one. Also numbers might be an underestimate because it may include young Poles that don’t live within Poland, whose kids born abroad aren’t counted.

    In terms of fertility rates, the Ukraine peaked in 2012-15 at ~1.5 children per woman, but this collapsed to 1.37 in 2017 and will probably further decline to 1.31 children per woman in 2018. Worst performance in Slavdom.

    As with life expectancy, Ukrainian TFR varies by region. It has declined everywhere but has cratered in the East. Western Ukrainian TFR is comparable to that of the Visegrad nations and Russia.

    • Replies: @AquariusAnon
    Poles born in the UK, if they ever return, will end up being a threat to Poland itself.

    1 million sloppy drunk chavs, who are fat and trashy to begin with, that grew up in Council Estates, whose girls love black and Paki guys and get pregnant as teenagers. Poland will eventually regret taking the Polish diaspora in the UK and Ireland back in.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    Quibble: Poland has almost no gypsies, so its ethnic TFR is the same as the national one.
     
    Correct, which is why I said Visegrad as a block. Regionally, this will strongly affect Hungary and Slovakia, slightly affect Czechia, and not affect Poland.

    As with life expectancy, Ukrainian TFR varies by region. It has declined everywhere but has cratered in the East.
     
    Agreed. The Ukraine is failing in its duty of care to those people.
    , @Mr. XYZ

    As with life expectancy, Ukrainian TFR varies by region. It has declined everywhere but has cratered in the East. Western Ukrainian TFR is comparable to that of the Visegrad nations and Russia.
     
    So, southern and eastern Ukraine is gradually reverting to its pre-Russian, Wild Fields state? /s
    , @Pumblechook
    This is actually 100% the case. The polish census includes the 2 million-plus Poles (primarily aged below 40) but does not include their children in the annual birth statistics. Considering that this means around 40-45k births (20k in U.K., 15k in Germany and 10k across Italy/Netherlands/France/Ireland etc.) compared to approx. 390k in Poland proper over the last few years - then we can say that Polish TFR is around 0.1-0.15 higher than officially recorded. So actually last year was more realistically around 1.55-1.6

    So there is still a total of around almost 450k Polish ethnic births in EU the last few years, which is higher than the ethnic Italians (around 390k) or the ethnic English (around 380k). So not bad overall.
  17. @Intelligent Dasein

    Goals include increasing healthy life expectancy, increasing the fertility rate to 1.7 children per woman
     
    A total fertility rate of 1.7 children per woman is still a forecast of imminent extinction. Russia and the West will have to do far, far better than that if they want to survive.

    A total fertility rate of 1.7 children per woman is still a forecast of imminent extinction. Russia and the West will have to do far, far better than that if they want to survive.

    As a consequence of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars France, which had once been the most populous in Europe, inherited a poor demographic situation.

    While her rivals, despite considerable emigration, were bouncing leaps and leaps ahead, French fertility was stagnant and even saw its first sub-replacement record in 1891.

    The little increase there was in this period (36 million to 39 million during 1850-1950) was dependent on immigration from Belgium, Italy and Poland.

    And while France, during the second half of the nineteenth century, did comparatively narrow the economic gap with Britain and Germany that had sprung up during the first half there was a widespread pessimism in the country.

    This was a concern even for the fervent Dreyfusard Émile Zola who published Fécondité in 1899, a novel contrasting the fates of a rich, self-obsessed urbanite couple who put their efforts with their sole son, who dies, with the simple and fulfilling life the hero choses with his wife who produce a cornucopia of children.

    While this inferiority meant that France would play a secondary role to Germany, despite the low fertility, liberal government, lax borders before the First World War (a pan-European phenomenon) and a rather complacent and naïve attitude towards Africans (often remarked upon by Germans), the French nation was never as long as it maintained a sensible position regarding mass migration.

    And starting in the 1940s, after a century of national impotence, France experienced a generation of demographic burst with an around 300,000 increase per annum until, I would estimate, the 1970s when non-white births and immigration distort the statistics too much.

    • Replies: @AaronB

    there was a widespread pessimism in the country.
     
    In 1891? Impossible.

    Pessimism only started after Jews undermined European civilization, after America gained cultural hegemony of the Western world.

    You are committing an alt-right heresy.
    , @AaronB

    French fertility was stagnant and even saw its first sub-replacement record in 1891.
     
    Also impossible. Everyone knows these problems only began after Jews undermined white self confidence. Not because of changes in European culture itself.

    You are a disgrace to the alt right.
  18. @AP

    Its numbers are currently very similar to those forecasted for Germany (1.55) and Visegrad (1.47 in Poland; 1.50 in Hungary; 1.53 in Slovakia; 1.67 in Czechia). Note that native German and Visegrad TFRs will also be modestly lower on account of immigrants and Gypsies, respectively.
     
    Quibble: Poland has almost no gypsies, so its ethnic TFR is the same as the national one. Also numbers might be an underestimate because it may include young Poles that don't live within Poland, whose kids born abroad aren't counted.

    In terms of fertility rates, the Ukraine peaked in 2012-15 at ~1.5 children per woman, but this collapsed to 1.37 in 2017 and will probably further decline to 1.31 children per woman in 2018. Worst performance in Slavdom.
     
    As with life expectancy, Ukrainian TFR varies by region. It has declined everywhere but has cratered in the East. Western Ukrainian TFR is comparable to that of the Visegrad nations and Russia.

    Poles born in the UK, if they ever return, will end up being a threat to Poland itself.

    1 million sloppy drunk chavs, who are fat and trashy to begin with, that grew up in Council Estates, whose girls love black and Paki guys and get pregnant as teenagers. Poland will eventually regret taking the Polish diaspora in the UK and Ireland back in.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    His point is that lots of young people are counted as part of the Polish population, and thus increase the denominator in the equation for calculating the TFR. The TFR would be higher without those. The same is true of Hungary.
  19. It will be interesting to see how Russia’s fertility evolves going forward, just taking Rosstat projections, if one assumes net migration stays at 150k p.a. and LE rises to 78 by 2030 then the difference between having a TFR of 1.57 between 2018-30 vs 1.75 would be between the population declining by 1.9 million vs growing by 100k, a difference of 2 million.

    Regarding the global fertility decline, it looks like last year for the first time Norway’s fertility rate dropped below 1.6, taking the data for the first nine months and extrapolating it, Norway had a TFR of 1.56 last year. Sweden also had its fertility rate drop to 1.75 last year. So much for the high fertility of Scandinavia.

    Something of note perhaps, Canada is about to set a record for being the first Anglo colony settled by the British to have less then 50% of its births be from Europeans. TFR fell to 1.49 in 2017 in Canada, For White Canadians, TFR is down to 1.4, the way things are going, the White Canadian share of total births will fall below 50% in the next few years. There were around 390k births a year on average in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s of which 85% were white, so 330k white births a year, 25-35 years later those 330k sized generation is having around 220k children due to a TFR of 1.4, accounting for around 60% of Canada’s 380k births every year.

    By the late 1990’s, early 2000’s total births in Canada averaged around 340k of which at most 80% were to European Canadians, or 270k a year, this generation when it starts having kids in the mid 2020’s will produce around 180k children a year, less then 50% of current births, the overall number of births should remain stable as migration will be sufficient to offset the effect of declining cohorts. It is truly remarkable that Canada which for its entire history was far less diverse then America will in a few years basically be equal to it in terms of the composition of births next decade, perhaps the most rapid demographic transformation of any society in recent history.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Disagree: UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    While I agree about the massive demographic transition overall, I don't believe that White Canadian births are at 50%. On the 2016 Census results it showed that 69% of people aged 0-4 were white.

    I'm telling you - most immigrants have few children - and the 2nd or 3rd generation nonwhites have almost none. They were too busy acting like Drake.


    Canada is browning at a shocking rate, on account of immigration only. Nonwhites here are blinded by materialism and black culture and do not reproduce.
  20. What is the impact of the release of methane from the Siberian permafrost due to global warming.

  21. @AquariusAnon
    By the end of the century I shudder to think what the demographics of many European countries will be like. I see France sitting at 50-60% white, Germany maybe 70% white.

    Probably whites (Europeans) and even half-white people will be less than 50% of Germany’s population COMBINED by the end of this century. At best. Same for France.

    • Replies: @AquariusAnon
    With numbers like that, it will take nothing short of a war on par with WW2 to restore the demographics. I was slightly optimistic thinking the situation wouldn't be that drastic, as hopefully the nonwhite migrant population stabilizes at some point, both in terms of births and immigration.
  22. @RadicalCenter
    Probably whites (Europeans) and even half-white people will be less than 50% of Germany’s population COMBINED by the end of this century. At best. Same for France.

    With numbers like that, it will take nothing short of a war on par with WW2 to restore the demographics. I was slightly optimistic thinking the situation wouldn’t be that drastic, as hopefully the nonwhite migrant population stabilizes at some point, both in terms of births and immigration.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    A lot might depend on what the minorities will perceive their best interests to be. After all, their share of the voting population is going to gradually increase throughout the 21st century.
  23. @AquariusAnon
    With numbers like that, it will take nothing short of a war on par with WW2 to restore the demographics. I was slightly optimistic thinking the situation wouldn't be that drastic, as hopefully the nonwhite migrant population stabilizes at some point, both in terms of births and immigration.

    A lot might depend on what the minorities will perceive their best interests to be. After all, their share of the voting population is going to gradually increase throughout the 21st century.

  24. @AquariusAnon
    Poles born in the UK, if they ever return, will end up being a threat to Poland itself.

    1 million sloppy drunk chavs, who are fat and trashy to begin with, that grew up in Council Estates, whose girls love black and Paki guys and get pregnant as teenagers. Poland will eventually regret taking the Polish diaspora in the UK and Ireland back in.

    His point is that lots of young people are counted as part of the Polish population, and thus increase the denominator in the equation for calculating the TFR. The TFR would be higher without those. The same is true of Hungary.

  25. @AP

    Its numbers are currently very similar to those forecasted for Germany (1.55) and Visegrad (1.47 in Poland; 1.50 in Hungary; 1.53 in Slovakia; 1.67 in Czechia). Note that native German and Visegrad TFRs will also be modestly lower on account of immigrants and Gypsies, respectively.
     
    Quibble: Poland has almost no gypsies, so its ethnic TFR is the same as the national one. Also numbers might be an underestimate because it may include young Poles that don't live within Poland, whose kids born abroad aren't counted.

    In terms of fertility rates, the Ukraine peaked in 2012-15 at ~1.5 children per woman, but this collapsed to 1.37 in 2017 and will probably further decline to 1.31 children per woman in 2018. Worst performance in Slavdom.
     
    As with life expectancy, Ukrainian TFR varies by region. It has declined everywhere but has cratered in the East. Western Ukrainian TFR is comparable to that of the Visegrad nations and Russia.

    Quibble: Poland has almost no gypsies, so its ethnic TFR is the same as the national one.

    Correct, which is why I said Visegrad as a block. Regionally, this will strongly affect Hungary and Slovakia, slightly affect Czechia, and not affect Poland.

    As with life expectancy, Ukrainian TFR varies by region. It has declined everywhere but has cratered in the East.

    Agreed. The Ukraine is failing in its duty of care to those people.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    Agreed. The Ukraine is failing in its duty of care to those people.
     
    A cynic could say that this is all part of the plan. After all, if Novorussians will live longer, then there are going to be more of them--which in turn will mean that there will be less support for pro-Western Ukrainian parties.

    Also, and more importantly, the more that Novorussians reproduce, the less support that pro-Western Ukrainian parties will have (unless it’s the pro-Western Novorussians who are reproducing the most, that is).
  26. Great article, thanks.

    Pro-natalist policies work over time. They re-arrange the incentives and rational people eventually adjust their behavior. People who claim that pro-natalist policies ‘don’t work‘, say so because they don’t want them to work.

    The relative cost of each additional child for a working family is much higher than it ever used to be. The difference in consumption for people with no kids and those with kids – if left to the market – would be astronomical. That’s the main reason families have been collapsing as countries move to a market-consumer economy.

    What Orban is doing is right, even his generous pro-natalist policies don’t come close to compensating for having normal families (more than 1 child). The solution is very simple: add enforceable punitive policies for people who voluntarily bail on sustaining the society. Unmarried people, people choosing to have no kids, or have 1 kid, gays, people who don’t raise their children are not entitled to any pension or benefits at old age, only basic sustenance. (Exclude people who would migrate for these benefits.)

    There is no such thing as moving money between generations – pensions are paid from current economic activity. If during one’s work life a person chooses not to assure that there is next generation, he or she is entitled to nothing or very little. If we would add these simple and fair consequences for people who in effect abandon one’s society, they would adjust. You are 80 and had no kids? And no good reason for it? You get enough bread to survive and basic care, but you are the one who chose to separate from the society so we will not pamper you.

    • Replies: @Ender
    Wouldn't it be more efficient to subject LGBTs to compulsory conversion therapy? As for the childless people, they tend to have less upkeep cost, so would save more over time, so getting less pensions would not hurt them that much.
    , @Gerard2

    gays
     
    Quite sickeningly gays are allowed to adopt, or biologically have their own child via a surrogate mother in plenty of western countries.This is a disgrace and narcissistic behaviour from both the authorities and the faggots themselves. All part of a huge authoritarian attempt at causing a cultural shift.

    Gay rights - I thought meant certain healthcare issues, not discriminating in employment, not beating them up, giving gay couples same property and inheritance rights, acknowledging their influence in contemporary heterosexual male ( fashion, music, grooming, whatever)....not this sick freakshow shit of state -sponsored gay parenting
    , @Annatar
    I agree, the main purpose of pro-natalist policies is to equalise the differences in consumption that occur among people with children vs people without children, a system where the cost of raising children is privatised but the economic benefits of children are socialised with the benefits being the taxes the children eventually pay which are distributed to society even to people with no kids in the form of pensions etc. is bound to lead to low fertility.

    Pro-natalist policies work if they basically are equal in value to the cost of having X number of children, that number can be set by the government, the value can even be a bit lower since most people demonstrate some willingness to accept partial reductions in consumption to have children.
    , @Intelligent Dasein
    This is never going to happen. It is not possible to rejigger the welfare state so as to produce traditional society outcomes, for the welfare state is itself antithetical to the traditional ordering of society, as the latter depends on private property and family honor. Atomized individuals are atomized individuals, whether you pay them to have children or not to have children.

    And pro-natalist policies do not work over time. In fact, I am not away that any pro-natalist policy has ever worked, if by "working" you mean actually reversing a civilizational collapse and bringing sub-replacement fertility above replacement again. In the waning days of the Roman Empire, every possible measure was taken to increase the number of births, culminating in the edict of Pertinax, which simply gave away land to anybody who would bring it under cultivation---all to no effect. What the all-powerful Roman emperors could not accomplish with draconian measures, the wimpy Western welfare states certainly will not accomplish with half-assed measures.

    There is one thing that might just possibly work, not in the sense that it will actually rejuvenate our crumbling society and boost birthrates above replacement, but only in the sense that it will arrest the decline long enough so that we do not suffer total demographic and fiscal calamity, and that is to get rid of the welfare state entirely and replace it by the Prussian, military-style "work-state," organized around St. Paul's simple maxim that "he who does not work, let him not eat." A state managed by Caesars with practical economic experience, wherein goldbricking, laziness, and malingering are punished with the whip and the noose, where welfare is not even an option but any worker can expect his share of daily bread, where oligarchs are crushed and financialization is but a distant memory, would at least provide for a softer landing when our society settles into the post-industrial agrarianism that is our inevitable destiny. The present course will bring us to the same destination, but only after a series of outright disasters.

    , @Dmitry
    Have we seen any evidence (empirical evidence) that government policies of financial incentives, ever affect "quantum of fertility" rather than merely its tempo?

    In the Gaidar forum video last month,it was effectively admitted the "maternity capital" policy is a good idea because it reduces the poverty rate, even though it doesn't really affect eventual fertility.

    , @anon

    Unmarried people, people choosing to have no kids, or have 1 kid, gays, people who don’t raise their children are not entitled to any pension or benefits at old age, only basic sustenance.
     
    Long term threats and promises are not credible. Who can guarantee that your "patriotic goverment" will be still in charge in 20, 30, 40 years? Remember, Soviet Union was supposed to last for "all eternity".
  27. @AquariusAnon
    This is why re-Sovokization of Russian millennial culture can help Russia really turn around its fertility.

    Craft beer kills sperm counts. Indian food causes one to be pudgy and hence less able to bang (for both sexes). SWPL also encourages pet dogs, instead of pet humans.

    A Russia with a 2-child policy and culturally an Orthodox Christian (with strong Sovok symbolisms to curate leftist allies) version of Iran will really have the entire alt right/manosphere and the Chavistas/ANC both fully on board.

    This will also significantly bridge a cultural gap with China especially the "conservative" old guard siloviki if Russians are actually interested in deep Sino-Russian ties.

    Indian food causes one to be pudgy

    Is there any reason for this? Also how come Indians are not known to be pudgy if this is all they eat every day?

  28. @AquariusAnon
    By the end of the century I shudder to think what the demographics of many European countries will be like. I see France sitting at 50-60% white, Germany maybe 70% white.

    That is way too optimistic, Germany will be 50% non white by 2050.

    • Replies: @Ender
    That sounds too optimistic, maybe 20 percent white or less?
  29. A true project of Russian Greatness would have the core part of your child-rearing cohorts double every generation. This would eventually be reflected in exponential growth until Russia reached a billion Russians. Than you could settle into replacement rate. You have the space and it could be a pretty glorious place.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  30. @neutral
    That is way too optimistic, Germany will be 50% non white by 2050.

    That sounds too optimistic, maybe 20 percent white or less?

  31. @Beckow
    Great article, thanks.

    Pro-natalist policies work over time. They re-arrange the incentives and rational people eventually adjust their behavior. People who claim that pro-natalist policies 'don't work', say so because they don't want them to work.

    The relative cost of each additional child for a working family is much higher than it ever used to be. The difference in consumption for people with no kids and those with kids - if left to the market - would be astronomical. That's the main reason families have been collapsing as countries move to a market-consumer economy.

    What Orban is doing is right, even his generous pro-natalist policies don't come close to compensating for having normal families (more than 1 child). The solution is very simple: add enforceable punitive policies for people who voluntarily bail on sustaining the society. Unmarried people, people choosing to have no kids, or have 1 kid, gays, people who don't raise their children are not entitled to any pension or benefits at old age, only basic sustenance. (Exclude people who would migrate for these benefits.)

    There is no such thing as moving money between generations - pensions are paid from current economic activity. If during one's work life a person chooses not to assure that there is next generation, he or she is entitled to nothing or very little. If we would add these simple and fair consequences for people who in effect abandon one's society, they would adjust. You are 80 and had no kids? And no good reason for it? You get enough bread to survive and basic care, but you are the one who chose to separate from the society so we will not pamper you.

    Wouldn’t it be more efficient to subject LGBTs to compulsory conversion therapy? As for the childless people, they tend to have less upkeep cost, so would save more over time, so getting less pensions would not hurt them that much.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    That sounds too optimistic, maybe 20 percent white or less?
     
    I realise that there exists a certain demographic momentum, but making too extreme predictions is counterproductive.

    Wouldn’t it be more efficient to subject LGBTs to compulsory conversion therapy?
     
    1) This will appear very cruel for most people for something unlikely to work

    2) Requires a lot more effort than simply letting people receive the wages of their choices


    As for the childless people, they tend to have less upkeep cost, so would save more over time, so getting less pensions would not hurt them that much.
     
    If they have too much money even without pensions, apply a bachelor's tax.

    However it is done, the basic solution is easy, just make it more expensive for productive citizens *not* to have children than it is to have children.

    The unfilled pensions contributions from childless peopls will already help pay for the tax exemptions, etc. for people with children.

  32. Thanks for the update, Anatoly!

    Belarus still publishes quarterly birth figures in its Statistical review. In about one week, they should publish the full 2018 figures:

    http://www.belstat.gov.by/en/ofitsialnaya-statistika/publications/statistical-publications-data-books-bulletins/public_bulletin/index_12650/

    So far, births in Belarus went down by a massive 8.2% in the first three quarters of 2018. Their TFR will likely end up at 1.46 in 2018.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    Belarus related news in line with its position in the non-aligned movement in a way that doesn't disrespect Russia too much:

    https://eng.belta.by/president/view/lukashenko-belarus-will-adopt-russias-best-practices-in-education-118750-2019/

    https://eng.belta.by/politics/view/belarus-mfa-tells-about-preparations-for-lukashenkos-visit-to-munich-for-msc-118747-2019/
    , @songbird
    Wow, that is quite shocking to me that Belarus has a TFR that low.

    If one was to create a cultural connectome of Europe to the US, I think it is nearly safe to say Belarus would be the least connected. So, perhaps the idea of a progressive mind virus spread by Hollywood, doesn't explain the path to low TFR by itself.

    It makes me wonder about the standard of living in Belarus, whether people have the same level of distractions there or not, whether it is purely economic.
  33. @Ender
    Wouldn't it be more efficient to subject LGBTs to compulsory conversion therapy? As for the childless people, they tend to have less upkeep cost, so would save more over time, so getting less pensions would not hurt them that much.

    That sounds too optimistic, maybe 20 percent white or less?

    I realise that there exists a certain demographic momentum, but making too extreme predictions is counterproductive.

    Wouldn’t it be more efficient to subject LGBTs to compulsory conversion therapy?

    1) This will appear very cruel for most people for something unlikely to work

    2) Requires a lot more effort than simply letting people receive the wages of their choices

    As for the childless people, they tend to have less upkeep cost, so would save more over time, so getting less pensions would not hurt them that much.

    If they have too much money even without pensions, apply a bachelor’s tax.

    However it is done, the basic solution is easy, just make it more expensive for productive citizens *not* to have children than it is to have children.

    The unfilled pensions contributions from childless peopls will already help pay for the tax exemptions, etc. for people with children.

    • Replies: @Ender
    Most unbiased reasearched say it is as successfully as alcohol cessation or drug rehab, and it is still less cruel for them than the sort of gay dhimmitude that you people envision for them, you people seriously think that LGBTs will be any happier living like a dhimmi than with forced conversion therapies?
    , @Ender
    Most unbiased reasearched say it is as successfully as alcohol cessation or drug rehab, and it is still less cruel for them than the sort of gay dhimmitude that you people envision for them, you people seriously think that LGBTs will be any happier living like a dhimmi than with forced conversion therapies? Like I though Jim Crow showed that a minority will never be happy with second class citizenship, and either you get rid of them completely, or you grant them full acceptance in society, and that there is no stable long term middle ground between that.
    , @dfordoom


    Wouldn’t it be more efficient to subject LGBTs to compulsory conversion therapy?
     
    1) This will appear very cruel for most people for something unlikely to work
     
    To a sane person it would sound humane. Giving homosexuals the chance of a normal fulfilling life.

    Like any sane proposal it is of course politically impossible.
  34. @Beckow
    Great article, thanks.

    Pro-natalist policies work over time. They re-arrange the incentives and rational people eventually adjust their behavior. People who claim that pro-natalist policies 'don't work', say so because they don't want them to work.

    The relative cost of each additional child for a working family is much higher than it ever used to be. The difference in consumption for people with no kids and those with kids - if left to the market - would be astronomical. That's the main reason families have been collapsing as countries move to a market-consumer economy.

    What Orban is doing is right, even his generous pro-natalist policies don't come close to compensating for having normal families (more than 1 child). The solution is very simple: add enforceable punitive policies for people who voluntarily bail on sustaining the society. Unmarried people, people choosing to have no kids, or have 1 kid, gays, people who don't raise their children are not entitled to any pension or benefits at old age, only basic sustenance. (Exclude people who would migrate for these benefits.)

    There is no such thing as moving money between generations - pensions are paid from current economic activity. If during one's work life a person chooses not to assure that there is next generation, he or she is entitled to nothing or very little. If we would add these simple and fair consequences for people who in effect abandon one's society, they would adjust. You are 80 and had no kids? And no good reason for it? You get enough bread to survive and basic care, but you are the one who chose to separate from the society so we will not pamper you.

    gays

    Quite sickeningly gays are allowed to adopt, or biologically have their own child via a surrogate mother in plenty of western countries.This is a disgrace and narcissistic behaviour from both the authorities and the faggots themselves. All part of a huge authoritarian attempt at causing a cultural shift.

    Gay rights – I thought meant certain healthcare issues, not discriminating in employment, not beating them up, giving gay couples same property and inheritance rights, acknowledging their influence in contemporary heterosexual male ( fashion, music, grooming, whatever)….not this sick freakshow shit of state -sponsored gay parenting

    • Replies: @Ender
    What makes you think gays will be happy in the long run with marrying, but not being allowed to have kids like everyone else, since for most people, having kids is till the long term aim of marriage.
    , @Hyperborean

    Gay rights – I thought meant certain healthcare issues, not discriminating in employment, not beating them up, giving gay couples same property and inheritance rights, acknowledging their influence in contemporary heterosexual male ( fashion, music, grooming, whatever)….not this sick freakshow shit of state -sponsored gay parenting
     
    I recall reading a lesbian Slate writer who was wishing that her daughter who turn out to be a lesbian as well - a natural, though hypocritical and statistically unrealistic, urge.

    And it brought to mind the 19th century Catholic writer who made the ironic remark: “When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle.”
  35. @Hyperborean

    That sounds too optimistic, maybe 20 percent white or less?
     
    I realise that there exists a certain demographic momentum, but making too extreme predictions is counterproductive.

    Wouldn’t it be more efficient to subject LGBTs to compulsory conversion therapy?
     
    1) This will appear very cruel for most people for something unlikely to work

    2) Requires a lot more effort than simply letting people receive the wages of their choices


    As for the childless people, they tend to have less upkeep cost, so would save more over time, so getting less pensions would not hurt them that much.
     
    If they have too much money even without pensions, apply a bachelor's tax.

    However it is done, the basic solution is easy, just make it more expensive for productive citizens *not* to have children than it is to have children.

    The unfilled pensions contributions from childless peopls will already help pay for the tax exemptions, etc. for people with children.

    Most unbiased reasearched say it is as successfully as alcohol cessation or drug rehab, and it is still less cruel for them than the sort of gay dhimmitude that you people envision for them, you people seriously think that LGBTs will be any happier living like a dhimmi than with forced conversion therapies?

  36. @Hyperborean

    That sounds too optimistic, maybe 20 percent white or less?
     
    I realise that there exists a certain demographic momentum, but making too extreme predictions is counterproductive.

    Wouldn’t it be more efficient to subject LGBTs to compulsory conversion therapy?
     
    1) This will appear very cruel for most people for something unlikely to work

    2) Requires a lot more effort than simply letting people receive the wages of their choices


    As for the childless people, they tend to have less upkeep cost, so would save more over time, so getting less pensions would not hurt them that much.
     
    If they have too much money even without pensions, apply a bachelor's tax.

    However it is done, the basic solution is easy, just make it more expensive for productive citizens *not* to have children than it is to have children.

    The unfilled pensions contributions from childless peopls will already help pay for the tax exemptions, etc. for people with children.

    Most unbiased reasearched say it is as successfully as alcohol cessation or drug rehab, and it is still less cruel for them than the sort of gay dhimmitude that you people envision for them, you people seriously think that LGBTs will be any happier living like a dhimmi than with forced conversion therapies? Like I though Jim Crow showed that a minority will never be happy with second class citizenship, and either you get rid of them completely, or you grant them full acceptance in society, and that there is no stable long term middle ground between that.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    Most unbiased reasearched say it is as successfully as alcohol cessation or drug rehab
     
    Do they take into account bisexuals?

    you people seriously think that LGBTs will be any happier living like a dhimmi than with forced conversion therapies? Like I though Jim Crow showed that a minority will never be happy with second class citizenship
     
    A people who keep mistresses second-class citizens? It could even be an open secret, it should just be done more discreetly.
  37. @Cicerone
    Thanks for the update, Anatoly!

    Belarus still publishes quarterly birth figures in its Statistical review. In about one week, they should publish the full 2018 figures:

    http://www.belstat.gov.by/en/ofitsialnaya-statistika/publications/statistical-publications-data-books-bulletins/public_bulletin/index_12650/

    So far, births in Belarus went down by a massive 8.2% in the first three quarters of 2018. Their TFR will likely end up at 1.46 in 2018.
  38. @Gerard2

    gays
     
    Quite sickeningly gays are allowed to adopt, or biologically have their own child via a surrogate mother in plenty of western countries.This is a disgrace and narcissistic behaviour from both the authorities and the faggots themselves. All part of a huge authoritarian attempt at causing a cultural shift.

    Gay rights - I thought meant certain healthcare issues, not discriminating in employment, not beating them up, giving gay couples same property and inheritance rights, acknowledging their influence in contemporary heterosexual male ( fashion, music, grooming, whatever)....not this sick freakshow shit of state -sponsored gay parenting

    What makes you think gays will be happy in the long run with marrying, but not being allowed to have kids like everyone else, since for most people, having kids is till the long term aim of marriage.

    • Replies: @Gerard2
    I forgot to mention that Lvov and Ivano-Frankivsk women would most likely become the leaders in surrogate mothers for faggot parents.....it is actually becoming a thing, targeting ukrops for this
    , @Bill Jones
    Two sodomites shacking up does not a marriage make, much less a family.
    , @dfordoom

    What makes you think gays will be happy in the long run with marrying, but not being allowed to have kids like everyone else, since for most people, having kids is till the long term aim of marriage.
     
    They don't want kids. They also don't want to get married. They never did. The whole point of homosexual marriage was to undermine marriage, to make it ridiculous.

    The whole point of the homosexual agenda is not to advance homosexual rights but to attack traditional institutions. Like feminism it's an ideology of hate.
  39. @Gerard2

    gays
     
    Quite sickeningly gays are allowed to adopt, or biologically have their own child via a surrogate mother in plenty of western countries.This is a disgrace and narcissistic behaviour from both the authorities and the faggots themselves. All part of a huge authoritarian attempt at causing a cultural shift.

    Gay rights - I thought meant certain healthcare issues, not discriminating in employment, not beating them up, giving gay couples same property and inheritance rights, acknowledging their influence in contemporary heterosexual male ( fashion, music, grooming, whatever)....not this sick freakshow shit of state -sponsored gay parenting

    Gay rights – I thought meant certain healthcare issues, not discriminating in employment, not beating them up, giving gay couples same property and inheritance rights, acknowledging their influence in contemporary heterosexual male ( fashion, music, grooming, whatever)….not this sick freakshow shit of state -sponsored gay parenting

    I recall reading a lesbian Slate writer who was wishing that her daughter who turn out to be a lesbian as well – a natural, though hypocritical and statistically unrealistic, urge.

    And it brought to mind the 19th century Catholic writer who made the ironic remark: “When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle.”

    • Replies: @Gerard2

    And it brought to mind the 19th century Catholic writer who made the ironic remark: “When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle.”
     
    That's a good one!
  40. @Ender
    Most unbiased reasearched say it is as successfully as alcohol cessation or drug rehab, and it is still less cruel for them than the sort of gay dhimmitude that you people envision for them, you people seriously think that LGBTs will be any happier living like a dhimmi than with forced conversion therapies? Like I though Jim Crow showed that a minority will never be happy with second class citizenship, and either you get rid of them completely, or you grant them full acceptance in society, and that there is no stable long term middle ground between that.

    Most unbiased reasearched say it is as successfully as alcohol cessation or drug rehab

    Do they take into account bisexuals?

    you people seriously think that LGBTs will be any happier living like a dhimmi than with forced conversion therapies? Like I though Jim Crow showed that a minority will never be happy with second class citizenship

    A people who keep mistresses second-class citizens? It could even be an open secret, it should just be done more discreetly.

  41. So why weren’t gays happy and contented with civil unions, and most Mistresses would actually want to be the legal wife if given the chance, and for their children to be legitimized, as for the research, it basically showed that it worked that most well with the ones who are highest up the Kinsey scale.

    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    Civil unions were just a step in the incrementalist plan of the left. They were the foot in the door meant to fool us with a inconsequential sounding plan that they could later swap with the real plan of subverting marriage. "Not being enough" was a part of the plan all along.

    This has nothing at all to do with what the homosexuals want. It's all Marxist subversion using minorities as a cloak. None of the homosexual men that I've met are in a "civil union" or a "marriage" and the number of these "marriages" is a ridiculously small part of the homosexual share of the population. Homosexuals do not want civil unions and homosexuals do not want marriages. They are not monogamous and they're not interested in even pretending that they're interested in monogamous relationships.

    If they politically support gay marriage, it's because they resent normal people with happy families that they can never have if they continue their lifestyle. The real aim, of course, is exactly the same as written in the Communist Manifesto - eliminating marriage as an institution. It's all about building a coalition of permanently resentful groups and there is no way to placate them, ever. No matter how much you give them they will always demand more because they're motivated by hatred of the majority, not by genuine desire for the things that they claim they want.
  42. @Hyperborean

    A total fertility rate of 1.7 children per woman is still a forecast of imminent extinction. Russia and the West will have to do far, far better than that if they want to survive.
     
    As a consequence of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars France, which had once been the most populous in Europe, inherited a poor demographic situation.

    While her rivals, despite considerable emigration, were bouncing leaps and leaps ahead, French fertility was stagnant and even saw its first sub-replacement record in 1891.

    The little increase there was in this period (36 million to 39 million during 1850-1950) was dependent on immigration from Belgium, Italy and Poland.

    And while France, during the second half of the nineteenth century, did comparatively narrow the economic gap with Britain and Germany that had sprung up during the first half there was a widespread pessimism in the country.

    This was a concern even for the fervent Dreyfusard Émile Zola who published Fécondité in 1899, a novel contrasting the fates of a rich, self-obsessed urbanite couple who put their efforts with their sole son, who dies, with the simple and fulfilling life the hero choses with his wife who produce a cornucopia of children.

    While this inferiority meant that France would play a secondary role to Germany, despite the low fertility, liberal government, lax borders before the First World War (a pan-European phenomenon) and a rather complacent and naïve attitude towards Africans (often remarked upon by Germans), the French nation was never as long as it maintained a sensible position regarding mass migration.

    And starting in the 1940s, after a century of national impotence, France experienced a generation of demographic burst with an around 300,000 increase per annum until, I would estimate, the 1970s when non-white births and immigration distort the statistics too much.

    there was a widespread pessimism in the country.

    In 1891? Impossible.

    Pessimism only started after Jews undermined European civilization, after America gained cultural hegemony of the Western world.

    You are committing an alt-right heresy.

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Quite wrong you are. La Civita Cattolica published its article 'The Jewish Question in Europe' in 1890. This then-mainstream Catholic article argued that those who abandoned Catholic civilization (As France did during the Revolution) would inevitably come to be ruled by the Jews. La Civita Cattolica, at that time, was the perfectly orthodox magazine of the Jesuits in Rome, and its article in 1890 reflected the kind of century-long pessimism that Mr. Hyperborean mentions. 'The Jewish Question in Europe' was very much about conditions in France.

    EDIT: I see that Hyperborean has himself listed several articles from France to disprove your twaddle.

    , @Bill

    Pessimism only started after Jews undermined European civilization,
     
    That started a long time before the 19th Century. E.g. Jews brag about their outsized role in "The Enlightenment," at least if they think the audience they are bragging in front of is pro-Enlightenment.
  43. @Hyperborean

    A total fertility rate of 1.7 children per woman is still a forecast of imminent extinction. Russia and the West will have to do far, far better than that if they want to survive.
     
    As a consequence of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars France, which had once been the most populous in Europe, inherited a poor demographic situation.

    While her rivals, despite considerable emigration, were bouncing leaps and leaps ahead, French fertility was stagnant and even saw its first sub-replacement record in 1891.

    The little increase there was in this period (36 million to 39 million during 1850-1950) was dependent on immigration from Belgium, Italy and Poland.

    And while France, during the second half of the nineteenth century, did comparatively narrow the economic gap with Britain and Germany that had sprung up during the first half there was a widespread pessimism in the country.

    This was a concern even for the fervent Dreyfusard Émile Zola who published Fécondité in 1899, a novel contrasting the fates of a rich, self-obsessed urbanite couple who put their efforts with their sole son, who dies, with the simple and fulfilling life the hero choses with his wife who produce a cornucopia of children.

    While this inferiority meant that France would play a secondary role to Germany, despite the low fertility, liberal government, lax borders before the First World War (a pan-European phenomenon) and a rather complacent and naïve attitude towards Africans (often remarked upon by Germans), the French nation was never as long as it maintained a sensible position regarding mass migration.

    And starting in the 1940s, after a century of national impotence, France experienced a generation of demographic burst with an around 300,000 increase per annum until, I would estimate, the 1970s when non-white births and immigration distort the statistics too much.

    French fertility was stagnant and even saw its first sub-replacement record in 1891.

    Also impossible. Everyone knows these problems only began after Jews undermined white self confidence. Not because of changes in European culture itself.

    You are a disgrace to the alt right.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    Also impossible. Everyone knows these problems only began after Jews undermined white self confidence. Not because of changes in European culture itself.
     
    You also state Romanticism was about 'self-rejection' and 'xenophilia', I don't think you shluld comment on cultural affairs.

    I although I personally believe France was in a uniquely poor position as a result of the defeat during the Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, for the sake of the argument, Édouard Drumont's La France Juive (1886) is over 1200 pages long and quite explicit in naming names.

    It also led to La Russie juive by Calixte de Wolski, L'Algérie juive by Georges Meynié in 1887, followed by L'Autriche juive de François Trocase in 1900 and L'Angleterre juive by Doedalus in 1913.


    You are a disgrace to the alt right.
     
    Since I am not an American, this does not bother me.
    , @neutral
    Jews were already fully embedded in France in the 1890s. Just look how they made (((Dreyfus))) into a divine entity, this happened long before jews did similar things to MLK or Emmet Till.
  44. @Ender
    So why weren't gays happy and contented with civil unions, and most Mistresses would actually want to be the legal wife if given the chance, and for their children to be legitimized, as for the research, it basically showed that it worked that most well with the ones who are highest up the Kinsey scale.

    Civil unions were just a step in the incrementalist plan of the left. They were the foot in the door meant to fool us with a inconsequential sounding plan that they could later swap with the real plan of subverting marriage. “Not being enough” was a part of the plan all along.

    This has nothing at all to do with what the homosexuals want. It’s all Marxist subversion using minorities as a cloak. None of the homosexual men that I’ve met are in a “civil union” or a “marriage” and the number of these “marriages” is a ridiculously small part of the homosexual share of the population. Homosexuals do not want civil unions and homosexuals do not want marriages. They are not monogamous and they’re not interested in even pretending that they’re interested in monogamous relationships.

    If they politically support gay marriage, it’s because they resent normal people with happy families that they can never have if they continue their lifestyle. The real aim, of course, is exactly the same as written in the Communist Manifesto – eliminating marriage as an institution. It’s all about building a coalition of permanently resentful groups and there is no way to placate them, ever. No matter how much you give them they will always demand more because they’re motivated by hatred of the majority, not by genuine desire for the things that they claim they want.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    However, for what it's worth, the only openly homosexual guy from my circle of friends in Hungary (he had pretended to be heterosexual back then, and only "came out" when it got more and more difficult to keep up the pretense) lives in a long-term relationship which started some 16 years ago or earlier. (Basically, he couldn't keep up the pretense when it turned out he had bought an apartment where only this guy, 10 years younger than him, lived, and his brother got angry about it that he had to rent an apartment, while his brother had an "empty" apartment in the same city...) I'm not sure if it's monogamous or open relationship, but seems pretty stable. I'm not sure if they are in a civil union or not, but probably they are.
    , @AP
    Actually there are quite a few married lesbians. But males - this is indeed rare. I've heard gays complain that the idea of marriage is ridiculous and "acting straight."
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    This is good, I would only quibble with you in that the homosexual's deepest hatred, even if but an unconscious one, is not for the majority, per se, but for the LOGOS, in which Christian civilization claimed to believe.
  45. @AaronB

    French fertility was stagnant and even saw its first sub-replacement record in 1891.
     
    Also impossible. Everyone knows these problems only began after Jews undermined white self confidence. Not because of changes in European culture itself.

    You are a disgrace to the alt right.

    Also impossible. Everyone knows these problems only began after Jews undermined white self confidence. Not because of changes in European culture itself.

    You also state Romanticism was about ‘self-rejection’ and ‘xenophilia’, I don’t think you shluld comment on cultural affairs.

    I although I personally believe France was in a uniquely poor position as a result of the defeat during the Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, for the sake of the argument, Édouard Drumont’s La France Juive (1886) is over 1200 pages long and quite explicit in naming names.

    It also led to La Russie juive by Calixte de Wolski, L’Algérie juive by Georges Meynié in 1887, followed by L’Autriche juive de François Trocase in 1900 and L’Angleterre juive by Doedalus in 1913.

    You are a disgrace to the alt right.

    Since I am not an American, this does not bother me.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    And lest you start making demeaning comments about how Europeans are somehow mentally troubled for being concerned about Jewish influence, bear in mind that 'healthy' Turks also were and are 'obsessed' about the influence of Dönmeh.
    , @utu
    Napoleon was the greatest disaster for France. What did he accomplish besides emancipating Jews and spreading the gospel of emancipation all over Europe?
  46. @Beckow
    Great article, thanks.

    Pro-natalist policies work over time. They re-arrange the incentives and rational people eventually adjust their behavior. People who claim that pro-natalist policies 'don't work', say so because they don't want them to work.

    The relative cost of each additional child for a working family is much higher than it ever used to be. The difference in consumption for people with no kids and those with kids - if left to the market - would be astronomical. That's the main reason families have been collapsing as countries move to a market-consumer economy.

    What Orban is doing is right, even his generous pro-natalist policies don't come close to compensating for having normal families (more than 1 child). The solution is very simple: add enforceable punitive policies for people who voluntarily bail on sustaining the society. Unmarried people, people choosing to have no kids, or have 1 kid, gays, people who don't raise their children are not entitled to any pension or benefits at old age, only basic sustenance. (Exclude people who would migrate for these benefits.)

    There is no such thing as moving money between generations - pensions are paid from current economic activity. If during one's work life a person chooses not to assure that there is next generation, he or she is entitled to nothing or very little. If we would add these simple and fair consequences for people who in effect abandon one's society, they would adjust. You are 80 and had no kids? And no good reason for it? You get enough bread to survive and basic care, but you are the one who chose to separate from the society so we will not pamper you.

    I agree, the main purpose of pro-natalist policies is to equalise the differences in consumption that occur among people with children vs people without children, a system where the cost of raising children is privatised but the economic benefits of children are socialised with the benefits being the taxes the children eventually pay which are distributed to society even to people with no kids in the form of pensions etc. is bound to lead to low fertility.

    Pro-natalist policies work if they basically are equal in value to the cost of having X number of children, that number can be set by the government, the value can even be a bit lower since most people demonstrate some willingness to accept partial reductions in consumption to have children.

  47. @neutral
    https://www.rt.com/news/451546-russia-ad-restaurant-shaming/

    Looks like Russia is full of SJWs as well
  48. @Jaakko Raipala
    Civil unions were just a step in the incrementalist plan of the left. They were the foot in the door meant to fool us with a inconsequential sounding plan that they could later swap with the real plan of subverting marriage. "Not being enough" was a part of the plan all along.

    This has nothing at all to do with what the homosexuals want. It's all Marxist subversion using minorities as a cloak. None of the homosexual men that I've met are in a "civil union" or a "marriage" and the number of these "marriages" is a ridiculously small part of the homosexual share of the population. Homosexuals do not want civil unions and homosexuals do not want marriages. They are not monogamous and they're not interested in even pretending that they're interested in monogamous relationships.

    If they politically support gay marriage, it's because they resent normal people with happy families that they can never have if they continue their lifestyle. The real aim, of course, is exactly the same as written in the Communist Manifesto - eliminating marriage as an institution. It's all about building a coalition of permanently resentful groups and there is no way to placate them, ever. No matter how much you give them they will always demand more because they're motivated by hatred of the majority, not by genuine desire for the things that they claim they want.

    However, for what it’s worth, the only openly homosexual guy from my circle of friends in Hungary (he had pretended to be heterosexual back then, and only “came out” when it got more and more difficult to keep up the pretense) lives in a long-term relationship which started some 16 years ago or earlier. (Basically, he couldn’t keep up the pretense when it turned out he had bought an apartment where only this guy, 10 years younger than him, lived, and his brother got angry about it that he had to rent an apartment, while his brother had an “empty” apartment in the same city…) I’m not sure if it’s monogamous or open relationship, but seems pretty stable. I’m not sure if they are in a civil union or not, but probably they are.

  49. @Hyperborean

    Also impossible. Everyone knows these problems only began after Jews undermined white self confidence. Not because of changes in European culture itself.
     
    You also state Romanticism was about 'self-rejection' and 'xenophilia', I don't think you shluld comment on cultural affairs.

    I although I personally believe France was in a uniquely poor position as a result of the defeat during the Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, for the sake of the argument, Édouard Drumont's La France Juive (1886) is over 1200 pages long and quite explicit in naming names.

    It also led to La Russie juive by Calixte de Wolski, L'Algérie juive by Georges Meynié in 1887, followed by L'Autriche juive de François Trocase in 1900 and L'Angleterre juive by Doedalus in 1913.


    You are a disgrace to the alt right.
     
    Since I am not an American, this does not bother me.

    And lest you start making demeaning comments about how Europeans are somehow mentally troubled for being concerned about Jewish influence, bear in mind that ‘healthy’ Turks also were and are ‘obsessed’ about the influence of Dönmeh.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    You know he was joking, right?
  50. @AaronB

    French fertility was stagnant and even saw its first sub-replacement record in 1891.
     
    Also impossible. Everyone knows these problems only began after Jews undermined white self confidence. Not because of changes in European culture itself.

    You are a disgrace to the alt right.

    Jews were already fully embedded in France in the 1890s. Just look how they made (((Dreyfus))) into a divine entity, this happened long before jews did similar things to MLK or Emmet Till.

  51. @Cicerone
    Thanks for the update, Anatoly!

    Belarus still publishes quarterly birth figures in its Statistical review. In about one week, they should publish the full 2018 figures:

    http://www.belstat.gov.by/en/ofitsialnaya-statistika/publications/statistical-publications-data-books-bulletins/public_bulletin/index_12650/

    So far, births in Belarus went down by a massive 8.2% in the first three quarters of 2018. Their TFR will likely end up at 1.46 in 2018.

    Wow, that is quite shocking to me that Belarus has a TFR that low.

    If one was to create a cultural connectome of Europe to the US, I think it is nearly safe to say Belarus would be the least connected. So, perhaps the idea of a progressive mind virus spread by Hollywood, doesn’t explain the path to low TFR by itself.

    It makes me wonder about the standard of living in Belarus, whether people have the same level of distractions there or not, whether it is purely economic.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Wow, that is quite shocking to me that Belarus has a TFR that low.

     

    How would it be different? This is all the same space culturally, linguistically and ethnically as Russia/Ukraine.

    cultural connectome of Europe to the US, I think it is nearly safe to say Belarus would be the least connected

     

    How would it be less connected? Belarus has difficulties with visa-movement, and a lower than normal average salary (although at the top, there are a lot of rich people). But if you exclude this, it's just the same as everywhere.

    The last people I talked to from Belarus, was (some years ago) going to concerts of Rihanna in London.

    And of course, Belarus produces a lot of shit rappers they export to Russia.


    So, perhaps the idea of a progressive mind virus spread by Hollywood, doesn’t explain the path to low TFR by itself.

     

    America has higher fertility than all Europe, except for Republic of Ireland, France and Sweden.

    American cultural influence would, if such influence could, increase fertility. Especially the lifestyle in America TV series - which is mostly about large families living in large houses, not small families living in small apartments like in Europe.

    However, no demographers would believe consumption of media has any effect or correlation with fertility rates. If it did, there would be at least some correlations.


    wonder about the standard of living in Belarus, whether people have the same level of distractions there or not, whether it is purely economic.

     

    Just looking a job adverts in Belarus for a few minutes (I didn't investigate average salary or anything), it seems just like Chelyabinsk, or similar Russian city.

    One unusual difference, is the larger number of, comparatively higher salary hi-tech jobs are advertised there for agencies (I guess these agencies are hiring for US, Israeli and EU startups - which are outsourcing a lot of boring work to Belarus).

  52. @Beckow
    Great article, thanks.

    Pro-natalist policies work over time. They re-arrange the incentives and rational people eventually adjust their behavior. People who claim that pro-natalist policies 'don't work', say so because they don't want them to work.

    The relative cost of each additional child for a working family is much higher than it ever used to be. The difference in consumption for people with no kids and those with kids - if left to the market - would be astronomical. That's the main reason families have been collapsing as countries move to a market-consumer economy.

    What Orban is doing is right, even his generous pro-natalist policies don't come close to compensating for having normal families (more than 1 child). The solution is very simple: add enforceable punitive policies for people who voluntarily bail on sustaining the society. Unmarried people, people choosing to have no kids, or have 1 kid, gays, people who don't raise their children are not entitled to any pension or benefits at old age, only basic sustenance. (Exclude people who would migrate for these benefits.)

    There is no such thing as moving money between generations - pensions are paid from current economic activity. If during one's work life a person chooses not to assure that there is next generation, he or she is entitled to nothing or very little. If we would add these simple and fair consequences for people who in effect abandon one's society, they would adjust. You are 80 and had no kids? And no good reason for it? You get enough bread to survive and basic care, but you are the one who chose to separate from the society so we will not pamper you.

    This is never going to happen. It is not possible to rejigger the welfare state so as to produce traditional society outcomes, for the welfare state is itself antithetical to the traditional ordering of society, as the latter depends on private property and family honor. Atomized individuals are atomized individuals, whether you pay them to have children or not to have children.

    And pro-natalist policies do not work over time. In fact, I am not away that any pro-natalist policy has ever worked, if by “working” you mean actually reversing a civilizational collapse and bringing sub-replacement fertility above replacement again. In the waning days of the Roman Empire, every possible measure was taken to increase the number of births, culminating in the edict of Pertinax, which simply gave away land to anybody who would bring it under cultivation—all to no effect. What the all-powerful Roman emperors could not accomplish with draconian measures, the wimpy Western welfare states certainly will not accomplish with half-assed measures.

    There is one thing that might just possibly work, not in the sense that it will actually rejuvenate our crumbling society and boost birthrates above replacement, but only in the sense that it will arrest the decline long enough so that we do not suffer total demographic and fiscal calamity, and that is to get rid of the welfare state entirely and replace it by the Prussian, military-style “work-state,” organized around St. Paul’s simple maxim that “he who does not work, let him not eat.” A state managed by Caesars with practical economic experience, wherein goldbricking, laziness, and malingering are punished with the whip and the noose, where welfare is not even an option but any worker can expect his share of daily bread, where oligarchs are crushed and financialization is but a distant memory, would at least provide for a softer landing when our society settles into the post-industrial agrarianism that is our inevitable destiny. The present course will bring us to the same destination, but only after a series of outright disasters.

    • Replies: @songbird
    Half-measures just mean the incentives of the political elites aren't enough. That's a big part of the problem - any pol in Western Europe who says something like "we need to stop subsidizing alien invaders and encourage native Europeans to have a lot of children" will quickly get his head cut off. And that is exactly the sort of platform that would be required, IMO.

    Pronatalism would have to be built into the schools along with a very healthy dose of nationalism, IMO. It needs to have a cultural component, or a moral foundation, beyond just economic measures.

    The collapse of Rome is a shadow of our time. There may be lessons to be learned, but it is too different from our own time to ascribe the effectiveness of all possible policy solutions. We are a radically wealthier society due to industrialization and the advent of many technologies. Our carrying capacity is much greater - there is more room for sustained growth. It is much easier to disseminate propaganda and ideas, much easier to spread settlers.

    Not to mention, European Civilization is much larger than Roman.
    , @Beckow

    ...get rid of the welfare state entirely, blabla...
     
    This is your Achilles heel and the fatal error of most so called 'conservatives', libertarians, and other assorted market fanatics. Real conservatives try to preserve the societies they live in, and that means that some kind of what you call 'welfare' is required in the modern, complex societies.

    There are five things that no 'market' system has ever done well: raising children, medical care, education, housing, and retirement. The reason is very simple: markets work on negotiated transactions, the above core activities happen too infrequently and are too important to behave well in a traditional market. We see all of them failing to some extent or another in the modern societies. They have been gamed by insiders who have created quasi monopolies, there is no real 'market' in any of them. It matters because these non-market parts of the economy have grown to 70-80% of all activity. If 70-80% of the economy is non-market, what kind of a capitalist, free enterprise, market system is it?

    You are never going to get rid of 'welfare'. The goal is to streamline it and make it work for the core group in our societies: native born, working families with kids. Get rid of the freeloading administrators, migrating parasites, and the rent-seeking monopolists.

    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    It is not possible to rejigger the welfare state

     

    If we can't rejigger it, can we at least 'de-jigger' it?
  53. @Hyperborean
    And lest you start making demeaning comments about how Europeans are somehow mentally troubled for being concerned about Jewish influence, bear in mind that 'healthy' Turks also were and are 'obsessed' about the influence of Dönmeh.

    You know he was joking, right?

    • Replies: @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Well, if he was joking, then Hyperborean at least is not alone in misreading him. :)
  54. @Intelligent Dasein
    This is never going to happen. It is not possible to rejigger the welfare state so as to produce traditional society outcomes, for the welfare state is itself antithetical to the traditional ordering of society, as the latter depends on private property and family honor. Atomized individuals are atomized individuals, whether you pay them to have children or not to have children.

    And pro-natalist policies do not work over time. In fact, I am not away that any pro-natalist policy has ever worked, if by "working" you mean actually reversing a civilizational collapse and bringing sub-replacement fertility above replacement again. In the waning days of the Roman Empire, every possible measure was taken to increase the number of births, culminating in the edict of Pertinax, which simply gave away land to anybody who would bring it under cultivation---all to no effect. What the all-powerful Roman emperors could not accomplish with draconian measures, the wimpy Western welfare states certainly will not accomplish with half-assed measures.

    There is one thing that might just possibly work, not in the sense that it will actually rejuvenate our crumbling society and boost birthrates above replacement, but only in the sense that it will arrest the decline long enough so that we do not suffer total demographic and fiscal calamity, and that is to get rid of the welfare state entirely and replace it by the Prussian, military-style "work-state," organized around St. Paul's simple maxim that "he who does not work, let him not eat." A state managed by Caesars with practical economic experience, wherein goldbricking, laziness, and malingering are punished with the whip and the noose, where welfare is not even an option but any worker can expect his share of daily bread, where oligarchs are crushed and financialization is but a distant memory, would at least provide for a softer landing when our society settles into the post-industrial agrarianism that is our inevitable destiny. The present course will bring us to the same destination, but only after a series of outright disasters.

    Half-measures just mean the incentives of the political elites aren’t enough. That’s a big part of the problem – any pol in Western Europe who says something like “we need to stop subsidizing alien invaders and encourage native Europeans to have a lot of children” will quickly get his head cut off. And that is exactly the sort of platform that would be required, IMO.

    Pronatalism would have to be built into the schools along with a very healthy dose of nationalism, IMO. It needs to have a cultural component, or a moral foundation, beyond just economic measures.

    The collapse of Rome is a shadow of our time. There may be lessons to be learned, but it is too different from our own time to ascribe the effectiveness of all possible policy solutions. We are a radically wealthier society due to industrialization and the advent of many technologies. Our carrying capacity is much greater – there is more room for sustained growth. It is much easier to disseminate propaganda and ideas, much easier to spread settlers.

    Not to mention, European Civilization is much larger than Roman.

  55. If Russia really wants to raise birth rates then it should put all of that land to good use and let its cities sprawl out. It is easier to raise families in single family homes than in tower blocks.

  56. Of course reasonable measures should be undertaken to better position re these matters. But, one must have in mind:

    * no (post)modern civilization can have birth rate more than 2.1 per woman. This is irreversible.

    * no powerful modern civilization can go back to religion. Religion (male authority, family) is the only thing that can make a woman desire to have more than 1, max 2 children.

    * women will not go back to the role of housewives. But, they could want to have more children if, say, society pays them more money for half a work. Give them enough money for 3-4 hours long work day. Positive discrimination against men, but for family & nation (which is basically extended family)

    * start discriminating against parasitic fecund undesirables (Gypsies, blacks, Muslims,…). Not openly, but one could devise laws that will destroy both their parasitism & clannishness.

    * short of sci fi projections, where we’re not dealing with humans anymore, better thing is to invest in health issues where you can make human life more vital, healthy, functioning,… To hell with back pain, obesity, alcoholism,..

    * give people hope. This is the most important. How, with religion mostly dead? I don’t know, but it has to do something with family & nationalism.

    * promote national pride & nationalism, national culture & history, and the continuity with the past.

    * promote fear & loathing of racial & national neighbors. If necessary, instill fear of annihilation & ethnic swamping.

    * carefully study what your nation is good at, and where it is weak or below average. Be realistic & think long term. Don’t think people are tabula rasa & they’ll suddenly excel in an area they generally don’t care about or are weak at

    * focus on media to promote “positive values”, but not in a crude fashion because you’ll turn out to be a joke.

    * try to inculcate sexual morality that is more conductive to noble female nature, i.e. fight a war against promiscuity & sexual licence. Try to revive elements of religion that are noble, family-oriented & productive to nuclear family & paternity. Suppress laws conductive to lower female nature, welfare dependence, cuckoldry,..

    * again, try to educate people so to give them hope & meaning of life, as much as this is possible

    * ecologically, try seriously to eliminate plastic & other lowering sperm count chemicals.

    At the end- accept that all may be somehow determined & that you need not succeed. But you have tried, at least…

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    The situation will be solved, when there are introduced artificial wombs. This technology is something which will be attainable, although probably not very soon.

    It will then be a very direct (if very expensive) way for the government to either buy "artificial womb" production of children for couples (therefore removing one of the disincentives for women to have children), or alternatively direct government and private sector production of children.

    If for nothing else than reasons of long term economic planning, governments will all be motivated to intervene to create a more even population pyramid.

    -

    In increasing fertility rates to at least replacement, from a government perspective, there are short term costs, but medium and long term benefits.

    If we look at the dependency ratio and focus on Russia's line. Dependency ratio is predicted to increase in the next decades (although this is a bit mitigated with the rise in pension age).

    In the short term, increase in fertility will just rise the red line even more (increase dependency ratio), and worsen the fiscal position. But in the medium and long term, that would be the only path to lower the dependency ratio.

    But a real quantum of fertility increase isn't easy for a government to intentionally induce (and government will probably not be able to intentionally achieve this until the technology changes).


    https://i.imgur.com/FRFFkG7.jpg

    , @dfordoom

    women will not go back to the role of housewives. But, they could want to have more children if, say, society pays them more money for half a work.
     
    Most women are already getting paid for doing pretend jobs. Nice cushy office jobs where you don't get your hands dirty and you can sit around drinking coffee and gossiping. Most women aren't in the actual workforce. They work hobby jobs. Middle-class women don't actually work.

    And there is no sane reason whatsoever for allowing married women to work.
    , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    You think we can win people with nationalism in the absence of religion?

    Good luck with that.
  57. @Hyperborean

    Gay rights – I thought meant certain healthcare issues, not discriminating in employment, not beating them up, giving gay couples same property and inheritance rights, acknowledging their influence in contemporary heterosexual male ( fashion, music, grooming, whatever)….not this sick freakshow shit of state -sponsored gay parenting
     
    I recall reading a lesbian Slate writer who was wishing that her daughter who turn out to be a lesbian as well - a natural, though hypocritical and statistically unrealistic, urge.

    And it brought to mind the 19th century Catholic writer who made the ironic remark: “When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle.”

    And it brought to mind the 19th century Catholic writer who made the ironic remark: “When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle.”

    That’s a good one!

  58. @Ender
    What makes you think gays will be happy in the long run with marrying, but not being allowed to have kids like everyone else, since for most people, having kids is till the long term aim of marriage.

    I forgot to mention that Lvov and Ivano-Frankivsk women would most likely become the leaders in surrogate mothers for faggot parents…..it is actually becoming a thing, targeting ukrops for this

  59. There’s enough evidence that these rather modest — compared to the cost of raising children — financial incentives have no substantial impact anywhere. Russia’s betting on a failed policy.

    I’ll say what works, and why a developed country that adopts this proposal will be the first to reach above replacement-level fertility among its fertile women (aged countries have too many old women holding down the TFR).

    Children are a financial burden today, contrary to the past when they were extra hands, useful in a more agrarian environment. If you’re focused on a carefree life or the improvement of your financial condition, you certainly don’t want to divert time and resources to the care of children. I must admit I include myself here. The life cycle of most people today consists of being born, going to kindergarten, highschool and then — here is the issue — instead of marrying and forming a family, when they are of an age in which their forebears were married and many with children, they forgo all of this in order to go to university, get a diploma, establish a career path and then, only then, build a family… when their more fecund years are already over.

    For a developed country to have a fertility rate above 2.11, placing social and economic onus on non-parents, like closing certain jobs and whatnot for them, should be a priority (not easy in today’s cultural climate, but some countries can pull if off… there’s no alternative, not humane anyway). This will work better than monetary incentives which just can’t match the expenses, monetary and physical, of bringing kids into the world.

    The onus should be such that the advantages of not having children in the 18-30 age bracket is neutered by the benefits of having them. The highschool-university-career pipeline is the main culprit and must be destroyed. Feminism is of secondary importance as far as fertility rate is concerned. This is evident in Iran: universities there have an extremely high female participation, they are replacing family formation in favor of the pipeline, and TFR plummets. Low fertility is not about conservative values. Iran proves this point, and so does Poland. Culture has secondary effects, I agree (e.g. abortion), but the pipeline is the overriding factor. I would go so far as barring, in the name of equality (ahem), both men and women from university until they have at least one biological child. Doing so will place children at the core of the pipeline, and having them will feel as normal as the thought of entering university upon graduating highschool, which a large majority do today.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The highschool-university-career pipeline is the main culprit and must be destroyed.
     
    At least three-quarters of our universities should be shut down. They're not merely useless, they're dangerous. And women do not need a university education.
  60. @Jaakko Raipala
    Civil unions were just a step in the incrementalist plan of the left. They were the foot in the door meant to fool us with a inconsequential sounding plan that they could later swap with the real plan of subverting marriage. "Not being enough" was a part of the plan all along.

    This has nothing at all to do with what the homosexuals want. It's all Marxist subversion using minorities as a cloak. None of the homosexual men that I've met are in a "civil union" or a "marriage" and the number of these "marriages" is a ridiculously small part of the homosexual share of the population. Homosexuals do not want civil unions and homosexuals do not want marriages. They are not monogamous and they're not interested in even pretending that they're interested in monogamous relationships.

    If they politically support gay marriage, it's because they resent normal people with happy families that they can never have if they continue their lifestyle. The real aim, of course, is exactly the same as written in the Communist Manifesto - eliminating marriage as an institution. It's all about building a coalition of permanently resentful groups and there is no way to placate them, ever. No matter how much you give them they will always demand more because they're motivated by hatred of the majority, not by genuine desire for the things that they claim they want.

    Actually there are quite a few married lesbians. But males – this is indeed rare. I’ve heard gays complain that the idea of marriage is ridiculous and “acting straight.”

  61. @AP

    Its numbers are currently very similar to those forecasted for Germany (1.55) and Visegrad (1.47 in Poland; 1.50 in Hungary; 1.53 in Slovakia; 1.67 in Czechia). Note that native German and Visegrad TFRs will also be modestly lower on account of immigrants and Gypsies, respectively.
     
    Quibble: Poland has almost no gypsies, so its ethnic TFR is the same as the national one. Also numbers might be an underestimate because it may include young Poles that don't live within Poland, whose kids born abroad aren't counted.

    In terms of fertility rates, the Ukraine peaked in 2012-15 at ~1.5 children per woman, but this collapsed to 1.37 in 2017 and will probably further decline to 1.31 children per woman in 2018. Worst performance in Slavdom.
     
    As with life expectancy, Ukrainian TFR varies by region. It has declined everywhere but has cratered in the East. Western Ukrainian TFR is comparable to that of the Visegrad nations and Russia.

    As with life expectancy, Ukrainian TFR varies by region. It has declined everywhere but has cratered in the East. Western Ukrainian TFR is comparable to that of the Visegrad nations and Russia.

    So, southern and eastern Ukraine is gradually reverting to its pre-Russian, Wild Fields state? /s

  62. @Anatoly Karlin

    Quibble: Poland has almost no gypsies, so its ethnic TFR is the same as the national one.
     
    Correct, which is why I said Visegrad as a block. Regionally, this will strongly affect Hungary and Slovakia, slightly affect Czechia, and not affect Poland.

    As with life expectancy, Ukrainian TFR varies by region. It has declined everywhere but has cratered in the East.
     
    Agreed. The Ukraine is failing in its duty of care to those people.

    Agreed. The Ukraine is failing in its duty of care to those people.

    A cynic could say that this is all part of the plan. After all, if Novorussians will live longer, then there are going to be more of them–which in turn will mean that there will be less support for pro-Western Ukrainian parties.

    Also, and more importantly, the more that Novorussians reproduce, the less support that pro-Western Ukrainian parties will have (unless it’s the pro-Western Novorussians who are reproducing the most, that is).

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @AP
    Some Western Ukrainian newspaper was actually gloating about the population decline in the west and east, writing about how much smaller those cities were. Apparently Lviv would be Ukraine's second largest city in 2100. This was written in 2013, before recent events.
  63. @songbird
    Wow, that is quite shocking to me that Belarus has a TFR that low.

    If one was to create a cultural connectome of Europe to the US, I think it is nearly safe to say Belarus would be the least connected. So, perhaps the idea of a progressive mind virus spread by Hollywood, doesn't explain the path to low TFR by itself.

    It makes me wonder about the standard of living in Belarus, whether people have the same level of distractions there or not, whether it is purely economic.

    Wow, that is quite shocking to me that Belarus has a TFR that low.

    How would it be different? This is all the same space culturally, linguistically and ethnically as Russia/Ukraine.

    cultural connectome of Europe to the US, I think it is nearly safe to say Belarus would be the least connected

    How would it be less connected? Belarus has difficulties with visa-movement, and a lower than normal average salary (although at the top, there are a lot of rich people). But if you exclude this, it’s just the same as everywhere.

    The last people I talked to from Belarus, was (some years ago) going to concerts of Rihanna in London.

    And of course, Belarus produces a lot of shit rappers they export to Russia.

    So, perhaps the idea of a progressive mind virus spread by Hollywood, doesn’t explain the path to low TFR by itself.

    America has higher fertility than all Europe, except for Republic of Ireland, France and Sweden.

    American cultural influence would, if such influence could, increase fertility. Especially the lifestyle in America TV series – which is mostly about large families living in large houses, not small families living in small apartments like in Europe.

    However, no demographers would believe consumption of media has any effect or correlation with fertility rates. If it did, there would be at least some correlations.

    wonder about the standard of living in Belarus, whether people have the same level of distractions there or not, whether it is purely economic.

    Just looking a job adverts in Belarus for a few minutes (I didn’t investigate average salary or anything), it seems just like Chelyabinsk, or similar Russian city.

    One unusual difference, is the larger number of, comparatively higher salary hi-tech jobs are advertised there for agencies (I guess these agencies are hiring for US, Israeli and EU startups – which are outsourcing a lot of boring work to Belarus).

    • Replies: @songbird
    In the US, Belarus is spoken of like a European NK. No doubt, a ridiculous, super-exaggeration. But still, I think it could plausibly be less connected to the US or Western Europe than any other European country. Not shut off - but less connected all the same.

    Think off it like you are mapping flights (but other things also). Belarus has to be more closely connected to Russia than the Baltics, Ukraine, or Finland. Finland is smack dab next to Sweden, poz capital of the world. Meanwhile, Russia is a big country, with large cosmopolitan cities. So, theoretically, it could be more infected than Belarus, at its head, while still providing a level of insulation from America to Belarus.

    I don't know about media penetration. Could be similar, but that wouldn't mean the infection rate is the same. There are other aspects of it, like universities, and study abroad. Diversity level.

    US TFR is a complicated picture, IMO. I think a map would show it has severe problems in some areas. diversity is bad for TFR. US was just about the most prosperous country for a long time. Arguably, older generations were more prosperous than current, except for technology and its benefits. Media changed considerably. And some things can be linked, like divorce and depictions of divorce.
  64. @Beckow
    Great article, thanks.

    Pro-natalist policies work over time. They re-arrange the incentives and rational people eventually adjust their behavior. People who claim that pro-natalist policies 'don't work', say so because they don't want them to work.

    The relative cost of each additional child for a working family is much higher than it ever used to be. The difference in consumption for people with no kids and those with kids - if left to the market - would be astronomical. That's the main reason families have been collapsing as countries move to a market-consumer economy.

    What Orban is doing is right, even his generous pro-natalist policies don't come close to compensating for having normal families (more than 1 child). The solution is very simple: add enforceable punitive policies for people who voluntarily bail on sustaining the society. Unmarried people, people choosing to have no kids, or have 1 kid, gays, people who don't raise their children are not entitled to any pension or benefits at old age, only basic sustenance. (Exclude people who would migrate for these benefits.)

    There is no such thing as moving money between generations - pensions are paid from current economic activity. If during one's work life a person chooses not to assure that there is next generation, he or she is entitled to nothing or very little. If we would add these simple and fair consequences for people who in effect abandon one's society, they would adjust. You are 80 and had no kids? And no good reason for it? You get enough bread to survive and basic care, but you are the one who chose to separate from the society so we will not pamper you.

    Have we seen any evidence (empirical evidence) that government policies of financial incentives, ever affect “quantum of fertility” rather than merely its tempo?

    In the Gaidar forum video last month,it was effectively admitted the “maternity capital” policy is a good idea because it reduces the poverty rate, even though it doesn’t really affect eventual fertility.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Have we seen any evidence (empirical evidence) that government policies of financial incentives, ever affect “quantum of fertility” rather than merely its tempo?
     
    Why would financial incentives have any effect on a problem that is purely cultural?

    If we want to survive we must change the culture. If we don't change the culture, we die.
    , @Beckow

    ...Have we seen any evidence?
     
    You might as well ask for evidence that lowering shoe prices sells more shoes and not just the 'tempo' of buying shoes. As with shoes there is a bit of both: financial incentives lead to more activity and also adjust the timing.

    Incentives work on the margin. If natalist incentives (e.g. Orban) increase natality by 10% and also shift 10% kids to be born earlier, the cumulative impact is substantial (maybe from 1.5 TFR to 1.7). For anything more I agree that a cultural change is required.

    One example I can give you are the post 1970 incentives in Cecho-Slovakia that increased birth rates by 30-40% in the 70's from the late 60's. That baby boom lasted all the way to 1989. The so-called 'Husak babies' changed the country and are the backbone to this day. The incentives were straightforward and very similar to Orban's today: loans for housing that are written off with more kids. That is both responsible (people have to work), and efficient. I would add financial consequences for free loaders with no kids and we would be half way there.

    I am also skeptical about talk of 'eventual' this or that. Yes, eventually things change, so? We live today, we can only fix today, we will be smart enough to fix it again when the 'eventual' comes.

  65. @Ender
    What makes you think gays will be happy in the long run with marrying, but not being allowed to have kids like everyone else, since for most people, having kids is till the long term aim of marriage.

    Two sodomites shacking up does not a marriage make, much less a family.

  66. @Bardon Kaldian
    Of course reasonable measures should be undertaken to better position re these matters. But, one must have in mind:

    * no (post)modern civilization can have birth rate more than 2.1 per woman. This is irreversible.

    * no powerful modern civilization can go back to religion. Religion (male authority, family) is the only thing that can make a woman desire to have more than 1, max 2 children.

    * women will not go back to the role of housewives. But, they could want to have more children if, say, society pays them more money for half a work. Give them enough money for 3-4 hours long work day. Positive discrimination against men, but for family & nation (which is basically extended family)

    * start discriminating against parasitic fecund undesirables (Gypsies, blacks, Muslims,...). Not openly, but one could devise laws that will destroy both their parasitism & clannishness.

    * short of sci fi projections, where we're not dealing with humans anymore, better thing is to invest in health issues where you can make human life more vital, healthy, functioning,... To hell with back pain, obesity, alcoholism,..

    * give people hope. This is the most important. How, with religion mostly dead? I don't know, but it has to do something with family & nationalism.

    * promote national pride & nationalism, national culture & history, and the continuity with the past.

    * promote fear & loathing of racial & national neighbors. If necessary, instill fear of annihilation & ethnic swamping.

    * carefully study what your nation is good at, and where it is weak or below average. Be realistic & think long term. Don't think people are tabula rasa & they'll suddenly excel in an area they generally don't care about or are weak at

    * focus on media to promote "positive values", but not in a crude fashion because you'll turn out to be a joke.

    * try to inculcate sexual morality that is more conductive to noble female nature, i.e. fight a war against promiscuity & sexual licence. Try to revive elements of religion that are noble, family-oriented & productive to nuclear family & paternity. Suppress laws conductive to lower female nature, welfare dependence, cuckoldry,..

    * again, try to educate people so to give them hope & meaning of life, as much as this is possible

    * ecologically, try seriously to eliminate plastic & other lowering sperm count chemicals.

    At the end- accept that all may be somehow determined & that you need not succeed. But you have tried, at least...

    The situation will be solved, when there are introduced artificial wombs. This technology is something which will be attainable, although probably not very soon.

    It will then be a very direct (if very expensive) way for the government to either buy “artificial womb” production of children for couples (therefore removing one of the disincentives for women to have children), or alternatively direct government and private sector production of children.

    If for nothing else than reasons of long term economic planning, governments will all be motivated to intervene to create a more even population pyramid.

    In increasing fertility rates to at least replacement, from a government perspective, there are short term costs, but medium and long term benefits.

    If we look at the dependency ratio and focus on Russia’s line. Dependency ratio is predicted to increase in the next decades (although this is a bit mitigated with the rise in pension age).

    In the short term, increase in fertility will just rise the red line even more (increase dependency ratio), and worsen the fiscal position. But in the medium and long term, that would be the only path to lower the dependency ratio.

    But a real quantum of fertility increase isn’t easy for a government to intentionally induce (and government will probably not be able to intentionally achieve this until the technology changes).

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    All long-term measures which may have some good short-term effects come to this- you have no more people (or recognizable people).

    As for artificial wombs, this is still sci fi & not in the time distance of 15-30 years. More, it would mean actual dissolution of family, since family bonds are based on females giving birth, which is primeval & most powerful identifier of women. Artifical wombs- if all extremely complicated problems are solved- means disappearance of family & humanity as we know it. Not to speak of human beings thus created- will they be fully human as we consider this term?

    Artificial production of biological human beings means the end of homo sapiens as we know him. I am not saying it won't happen (perhaps humans are obsolete)- but all human existence, comprised of family, tribe, people, loyalties & passions, superstitions, literature, arts, most sciences.... will become extinct.
  67. @Dmitry
    Karlin predicts "Age of Malthusian Industrialism", where European (or at least Western Europe) fertility rates will be above replacement level by the end of the century
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge

    I also think this is likely (maybe not in this timeline), although by a different mechanism: introduction of artificial wombs in the future.

    It sounds heretical, but that kind of possibility, could also encourage "increased government centralized planning". Imagine with artificial wombs and some legal changes - the government would intervene to recreate the replacement fertility rate of the 1980s.

    I also think this is likely (maybe not in this timeline), although by a different mechanism: introduction of artificial wombs in the future.

    Who is going to raise those children? I presume they’ll be raised in the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre. They’ll be even more Borg-like than Millennials today.

    Even assuming that some are lucky enough to get raised by humans there are likely to be problems. Will women feel the same attachment to kids if they don’t give birth to them? Will the children resent their mothers for being vain and selfish?

    If we are to survive we need to rebuild actual families. You know, Mummy and Daddy and several kids, all living under the same roof. I know it sounds radical and bizarre but I’m told it used to work.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Within the current legal situation, it will be privately purchasing this service wealthier women and older women (simply like a much more systematic version of surrogacy today).

    But then government "pro-natalist policy" could become radically effective, if they would pay to produce children this way, for any couples who want one. Removing the inconvenience of pregnancy, will significantly encourage women to have more children and increase fertility rates (perhaps to replacement level).

    -

    However, more radically, all there would need to be is some legal changes, and governments and corporations could then produce children themselves. This could very significant political and social changes, in the fashion of Plato's Republic - so you would hope it would be very cautiously discussed.


    Will women feel the same attachment to kids if they don’t give birth to them?
     
    I'm not sure this is an issue. Surrogacy exists already now, just for very high prices and with legal difficulties. And the children can be genetically their biological children, unlike in the situation of adoption.

    I presume they’ll be raised in the Central London Hatchery
     
    22nd century will probably be a lot weirder than we can imagine.
  68. @dfordoom

    I also think this is likely (maybe not in this timeline), although by a different mechanism: introduction of artificial wombs in the future.
     
    Who is going to raise those children? I presume they'll be raised in the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre. They'll be even more Borg-like than Millennials today.

    Even assuming that some are lucky enough to get raised by humans there are likely to be problems. Will women feel the same attachment to kids if they don't give birth to them? Will the children resent their mothers for being vain and selfish?

    If we are to survive we need to rebuild actual families. You know, Mummy and Daddy and several kids, all living under the same roof. I know it sounds radical and bizarre but I'm told it used to work.

    Within the current legal situation, it will be privately purchasing this service wealthier women and older women (simply like a much more systematic version of surrogacy today).

    But then government “pro-natalist policy” could become radically effective, if they would pay to produce children this way, for any couples who want one. Removing the inconvenience of pregnancy, will significantly encourage women to have more children and increase fertility rates (perhaps to replacement level).

    However, more radically, all there would need to be is some legal changes, and governments and corporations could then produce children themselves. This could very significant political and social changes, in the fashion of Plato’s Republic – so you would hope it would be very cautiously discussed.

    Will women feel the same attachment to kids if they don’t give birth to them?

    I’m not sure this is an issue. Surrogacy exists already now, just for very high prices and with legal difficulties. And the children can be genetically their biological children, unlike in the situation of adoption.

    I presume they’ll be raised in the Central London Hatchery

    22nd century will probably be a lot weirder than we can imagine.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    If you're going to use artificial wombs to increase the FTR, you might as well also use IVF and embryo selection for IQ/gene editing. That way, we will increase the TFR and increase intelligence at the same time.
  69. @Hyperborean

    That sounds too optimistic, maybe 20 percent white or less?
     
    I realise that there exists a certain demographic momentum, but making too extreme predictions is counterproductive.

    Wouldn’t it be more efficient to subject LGBTs to compulsory conversion therapy?
     
    1) This will appear very cruel for most people for something unlikely to work

    2) Requires a lot more effort than simply letting people receive the wages of their choices


    As for the childless people, they tend to have less upkeep cost, so would save more over time, so getting less pensions would not hurt them that much.
     
    If they have too much money even without pensions, apply a bachelor's tax.

    However it is done, the basic solution is easy, just make it more expensive for productive citizens *not* to have children than it is to have children.

    The unfilled pensions contributions from childless peopls will already help pay for the tax exemptions, etc. for people with children.

    Wouldn’t it be more efficient to subject LGBTs to compulsory conversion therapy?

    1) This will appear very cruel for most people for something unlikely to work

    To a sane person it would sound humane. Giving homosexuals the chance of a normal fulfilling life.

    Like any sane proposal it is of course politically impossible.

  70. @AP

    Its numbers are currently very similar to those forecasted for Germany (1.55) and Visegrad (1.47 in Poland; 1.50 in Hungary; 1.53 in Slovakia; 1.67 in Czechia). Note that native German and Visegrad TFRs will also be modestly lower on account of immigrants and Gypsies, respectively.
     
    Quibble: Poland has almost no gypsies, so its ethnic TFR is the same as the national one. Also numbers might be an underestimate because it may include young Poles that don't live within Poland, whose kids born abroad aren't counted.

    In terms of fertility rates, the Ukraine peaked in 2012-15 at ~1.5 children per woman, but this collapsed to 1.37 in 2017 and will probably further decline to 1.31 children per woman in 2018. Worst performance in Slavdom.
     
    As with life expectancy, Ukrainian TFR varies by region. It has declined everywhere but has cratered in the East. Western Ukrainian TFR is comparable to that of the Visegrad nations and Russia.

    This is actually 100% the case. The polish census includes the 2 million-plus Poles (primarily aged below 40) but does not include their children in the annual birth statistics. Considering that this means around 40-45k births (20k in U.K., 15k in Germany and 10k across Italy/Netherlands/France/Ireland etc.) compared to approx. 390k in Poland proper over the last few years – then we can say that Polish TFR is around 0.1-0.15 higher than officially recorded. So actually last year was more realistically around 1.55-1.6

    So there is still a total of around almost 450k Polish ethnic births in EU the last few years, which is higher than the ethnic Italians (around 390k) or the ethnic English (around 380k). So not bad overall.

    • Replies: @AP
    So ethnic Polish TFR surpasses ethnic Russian TFR.
  71. @Dmitry
    The situation will be solved, when there are introduced artificial wombs. This technology is something which will be attainable, although probably not very soon.

    It will then be a very direct (if very expensive) way for the government to either buy "artificial womb" production of children for couples (therefore removing one of the disincentives for women to have children), or alternatively direct government and private sector production of children.

    If for nothing else than reasons of long term economic planning, governments will all be motivated to intervene to create a more even population pyramid.

    -

    In increasing fertility rates to at least replacement, from a government perspective, there are short term costs, but medium and long term benefits.

    If we look at the dependency ratio and focus on Russia's line. Dependency ratio is predicted to increase in the next decades (although this is a bit mitigated with the rise in pension age).

    In the short term, increase in fertility will just rise the red line even more (increase dependency ratio), and worsen the fiscal position. But in the medium and long term, that would be the only path to lower the dependency ratio.

    But a real quantum of fertility increase isn't easy for a government to intentionally induce (and government will probably not be able to intentionally achieve this until the technology changes).


    https://i.imgur.com/FRFFkG7.jpg

    All long-term measures which may have some good short-term effects come to this- you have no more people (or recognizable people).

    As for artificial wombs, this is still sci fi & not in the time distance of 15-30 years. More, it would mean actual dissolution of family, since family bonds are based on females giving birth, which is primeval & most powerful identifier of women. Artifical wombs- if all extremely complicated problems are solved- means disappearance of family & humanity as we know it. Not to speak of human beings thus created- will they be fully human as we consider this term?

    Artificial production of biological human beings means the end of homo sapiens as we know him. I am not saying it won’t happen (perhaps humans are obsolete)- but all human existence, comprised of family, tribe, people, loyalties & passions, superstitions, literature, arts, most sciences…. will become extinct.

    • Replies: @anon

    As for artificial wombs, this is still sci fi & not in the time distance of 15-30 years.
     
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/paper-review-artificial-wombs/

    Not anymore. Check the progress, and remember it is all done on shoestring budget. Imagine what could be done, if large government invested serious, Manhattan Project like resources into research.
    Yes there is no guarantee of success, but trying to revive long dead "moral values" is guarantee of failure.
  72. @Dmitry
    Within the current legal situation, it will be privately purchasing this service wealthier women and older women (simply like a much more systematic version of surrogacy today).

    But then government "pro-natalist policy" could become radically effective, if they would pay to produce children this way, for any couples who want one. Removing the inconvenience of pregnancy, will significantly encourage women to have more children and increase fertility rates (perhaps to replacement level).

    -

    However, more radically, all there would need to be is some legal changes, and governments and corporations could then produce children themselves. This could very significant political and social changes, in the fashion of Plato's Republic - so you would hope it would be very cautiously discussed.


    Will women feel the same attachment to kids if they don’t give birth to them?
     
    I'm not sure this is an issue. Surrogacy exists already now, just for very high prices and with legal difficulties. And the children can be genetically their biological children, unlike in the situation of adoption.

    I presume they’ll be raised in the Central London Hatchery
     
    22nd century will probably be a lot weirder than we can imagine.

    If you’re going to use artificial wombs to increase the FTR, you might as well also use IVF and embryo selection for IQ/gene editing. That way, we will increase the TFR and increase intelligence at the same time.

    • Replies: @songbird
    For me, state-engineered babies are the stuff of nightmares.

    They could make them all race-mixed, or primed for certain politics, or all gay. Possibly they could even shape their instincts on other levels as well.
    , @dfordoom

    That way, we will increase the TFR and increase intelligence at the same time.
     
    Do we really want to increase intelligence? How much intelligence does the average person actually need? If you're not going to be a neurosurgeon or a nuclear physicist how smart do you need to be?

    Pretty much all the social and cultural disasters that have led our civilisation to the brink of ruin have been the products of intelligent people.
  73. @Dmitry

    Wow, that is quite shocking to me that Belarus has a TFR that low.

     

    How would it be different? This is all the same space culturally, linguistically and ethnically as Russia/Ukraine.

    cultural connectome of Europe to the US, I think it is nearly safe to say Belarus would be the least connected

     

    How would it be less connected? Belarus has difficulties with visa-movement, and a lower than normal average salary (although at the top, there are a lot of rich people). But if you exclude this, it's just the same as everywhere.

    The last people I talked to from Belarus, was (some years ago) going to concerts of Rihanna in London.

    And of course, Belarus produces a lot of shit rappers they export to Russia.


    So, perhaps the idea of a progressive mind virus spread by Hollywood, doesn’t explain the path to low TFR by itself.

     

    America has higher fertility than all Europe, except for Republic of Ireland, France and Sweden.

    American cultural influence would, if such influence could, increase fertility. Especially the lifestyle in America TV series - which is mostly about large families living in large houses, not small families living in small apartments like in Europe.

    However, no demographers would believe consumption of media has any effect or correlation with fertility rates. If it did, there would be at least some correlations.


    wonder about the standard of living in Belarus, whether people have the same level of distractions there or not, whether it is purely economic.

     

    Just looking a job adverts in Belarus for a few minutes (I didn't investigate average salary or anything), it seems just like Chelyabinsk, or similar Russian city.

    One unusual difference, is the larger number of, comparatively higher salary hi-tech jobs are advertised there for agencies (I guess these agencies are hiring for US, Israeli and EU startups - which are outsourcing a lot of boring work to Belarus).

    In the US, Belarus is spoken of like a European NK. No doubt, a ridiculous, super-exaggeration. But still, I think it could plausibly be less connected to the US or Western Europe than any other European country. Not shut off – but less connected all the same.

    Think off it like you are mapping flights (but other things also). Belarus has to be more closely connected to Russia than the Baltics, Ukraine, or Finland. Finland is smack dab next to Sweden, poz capital of the world. Meanwhile, Russia is a big country, with large cosmopolitan cities. So, theoretically, it could be more infected than Belarus, at its head, while still providing a level of insulation from America to Belarus.

    I don’t know about media penetration. Could be similar, but that wouldn’t mean the infection rate is the same. There are other aspects of it, like universities, and study abroad. Diversity level.

    US TFR is a complicated picture, IMO. I think a map would show it has severe problems in some areas. diversity is bad for TFR. US was just about the most prosperous country for a long time. Arguably, older generations were more prosperous than current, except for technology and its benefits. Media changed considerably. And some things can be linked, like divorce and depictions of divorce.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    still providing a level of insulation from America
     
    Russia/Ukraine/Belarus - same language, same culture, same people. So it is not surprising, low birthrates are the same in all three countries.

    It would be more surprising if the birthrates were different between them.


    inland is smack dab next to Sweden, poz capital of the world.
     
    Sweden is traditionally (over the last decade) one the highest fertility countries in Europe.

    I don't think their attitude to gays or HIV has a relation to birthrates (gays are too insignificant, as a tiny proportion of the population, to have an impact on national birth-rates).

    Israel is even more in a counter-example. In Israel, there are gay flags all over the streets, gay festivals, ultra liberal attitudes - and yet it has a fertility rate almost twice as high as Iran, where gays are executed.


    media penetration. Could be similar, but that wouldn’t mean the infection rate is the same. There are other aspects of it, like universities, and study abroad. Diversity level.
     
    I'm sure people who listen to American music genres like hip hop and 50 cent, generally have a lot higher fertility rates than people who like non-American classical music, Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.

    People listening to classical music and reading European literature, are obviously having children less often than people who are liking gangster rap. Not with any causal relationship. More simply - birthrate differentials, are mainly in the direction of idiocracy.

  74. anon[265] • Disclaimer says:
    @Beckow
    Great article, thanks.

    Pro-natalist policies work over time. They re-arrange the incentives and rational people eventually adjust their behavior. People who claim that pro-natalist policies 'don't work', say so because they don't want them to work.

    The relative cost of each additional child for a working family is much higher than it ever used to be. The difference in consumption for people with no kids and those with kids - if left to the market - would be astronomical. That's the main reason families have been collapsing as countries move to a market-consumer economy.

    What Orban is doing is right, even his generous pro-natalist policies don't come close to compensating for having normal families (more than 1 child). The solution is very simple: add enforceable punitive policies for people who voluntarily bail on sustaining the society. Unmarried people, people choosing to have no kids, or have 1 kid, gays, people who don't raise their children are not entitled to any pension or benefits at old age, only basic sustenance. (Exclude people who would migrate for these benefits.)

    There is no such thing as moving money between generations - pensions are paid from current economic activity. If during one's work life a person chooses not to assure that there is next generation, he or she is entitled to nothing or very little. If we would add these simple and fair consequences for people who in effect abandon one's society, they would adjust. You are 80 and had no kids? And no good reason for it? You get enough bread to survive and basic care, but you are the one who chose to separate from the society so we will not pamper you.

    Unmarried people, people choosing to have no kids, or have 1 kid, gays, people who don’t raise their children are not entitled to any pension or benefits at old age, only basic sustenance.

    Long term threats and promises are not credible. Who can guarantee that your “patriotic goverment” will be still in charge in 20, 30, 40 years? Remember, Soviet Union was supposed to last for “all eternity”.

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...Long term threats and promises are not credible.
     
    True, there is no reason to wait. I would implement it now and visibly: any pensioner who willingly chose to have no kids would be immediately assessed a social charge and be de-prioritised for medical care. The social charge would be substantial (let's start with half of income) and be used to support families.

    The brutal reality of life is that old people have very little societal value, they literally live off what the young people produce. There is no such thing as 'retirement savings' - it is a promise made to oneself, next generation has never agreed to it and they have no duty to support people who didn't contribute to raising of the next generation.

    A simple example: why should a mother who raised children and because of that has less retirement income get less than a no kids couple who bailed on the next generation and maximised their consumption? It is insane to ask the children of those sacrificing parents to support equally (often more) the selfish no-kids old people.
  75. anon[265] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    All long-term measures which may have some good short-term effects come to this- you have no more people (or recognizable people).

    As for artificial wombs, this is still sci fi & not in the time distance of 15-30 years. More, it would mean actual dissolution of family, since family bonds are based on females giving birth, which is primeval & most powerful identifier of women. Artifical wombs- if all extremely complicated problems are solved- means disappearance of family & humanity as we know it. Not to speak of human beings thus created- will they be fully human as we consider this term?

    Artificial production of biological human beings means the end of homo sapiens as we know him. I am not saying it won't happen (perhaps humans are obsolete)- but all human existence, comprised of family, tribe, people, loyalties & passions, superstitions, literature, arts, most sciences.... will become extinct.

    As for artificial wombs, this is still sci fi & not in the time distance of 15-30 years.

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/paper-review-artificial-wombs/

    Not anymore. Check the progress, and remember it is all done on shoestring budget. Imagine what could be done, if large government invested serious, Manhattan Project like resources into research.
    Yes there is no guarantee of success, but trying to revive long dead “moral values” is guarantee of failure.

  76. @Mr. XYZ
    If you're going to use artificial wombs to increase the FTR, you might as well also use IVF and embryo selection for IQ/gene editing. That way, we will increase the TFR and increase intelligence at the same time.

    For me, state-engineered babies are the stuff of nightmares.

    They could make them all race-mixed, or primed for certain politics, or all gay. Possibly they could even shape their instincts on other levels as well.

  77. @songbird
    In the US, Belarus is spoken of like a European NK. No doubt, a ridiculous, super-exaggeration. But still, I think it could plausibly be less connected to the US or Western Europe than any other European country. Not shut off - but less connected all the same.

    Think off it like you are mapping flights (but other things also). Belarus has to be more closely connected to Russia than the Baltics, Ukraine, or Finland. Finland is smack dab next to Sweden, poz capital of the world. Meanwhile, Russia is a big country, with large cosmopolitan cities. So, theoretically, it could be more infected than Belarus, at its head, while still providing a level of insulation from America to Belarus.

    I don't know about media penetration. Could be similar, but that wouldn't mean the infection rate is the same. There are other aspects of it, like universities, and study abroad. Diversity level.

    US TFR is a complicated picture, IMO. I think a map would show it has severe problems in some areas. diversity is bad for TFR. US was just about the most prosperous country for a long time. Arguably, older generations were more prosperous than current, except for technology and its benefits. Media changed considerably. And some things can be linked, like divorce and depictions of divorce.

    still providing a level of insulation from America

    Russia/Ukraine/Belarus – same language, same culture, same people. So it is not surprising, low birthrates are the same in all three countries.

    It would be more surprising if the birthrates were different between them.

    inland is smack dab next to Sweden, poz capital of the world.

    Sweden is traditionally (over the last decade) one the highest fertility countries in Europe.

    I don’t think their attitude to gays or HIV has a relation to birthrates (gays are too insignificant, as a tiny proportion of the population, to have an impact on national birth-rates).

    Israel is even more in a counter-example. In Israel, there are gay flags all over the streets, gay festivals, ultra liberal attitudes – and yet it has a fertility rate almost twice as high as Iran, where gays are executed.

    media penetration. Could be similar, but that wouldn’t mean the infection rate is the same. There are other aspects of it, like universities, and study abroad. Diversity level.

    I’m sure people who listen to American music genres like hip hop and 50 cent, generally have a lot higher fertility rates than people who like non-American classical music, Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.

    People listening to classical music and reading European literature, are obviously having children less often than people who are liking gangster rap. Not with any causal relationship. More simply – birthrate differentials, are mainly in the direction of idiocracy.

    • Replies: @songbird
    Many of both will deny it, but the English and Irish are two closely related peoples who have the same language and similar culture but had different TFR. Now rapidly converging. Of course, a more radical example, perhaps not strictly applicable in this case, is Korea.

    Gayness seems to feed into diversity in America. That is to say, gay people - and especially those in power seem to push for it. I believe the TFR of whites in America would be much higher under the old demographic breakdown, though obviously there are deeper problems than diversity.

    Israel is an interesting model. Do you think it is possible for Europeans and East Asians to emulate it?

  78. @Mr. XYZ

    Agreed. The Ukraine is failing in its duty of care to those people.
     
    A cynic could say that this is all part of the plan. After all, if Novorussians will live longer, then there are going to be more of them--which in turn will mean that there will be less support for pro-Western Ukrainian parties.

    Also, and more importantly, the more that Novorussians reproduce, the less support that pro-Western Ukrainian parties will have (unless it’s the pro-Western Novorussians who are reproducing the most, that is).

    Some Western Ukrainian newspaper was actually gloating about the population decline in the west and east, writing about how much smaller those cities were. Apparently Lviv would be Ukraine’s second largest city in 2100. This was written in 2013, before recent events.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Do you remember the name of this article?

    Also, having a lot of sparsely populated territory when you have an aggressive neighbor on your borders isn't exactly optimal. Thus, it would probably be best if western Ukrainians had more babies and repopulated southern and eastern Ukraine after their population will decline like crazy.
  79. @Pumblechook
    This is actually 100% the case. The polish census includes the 2 million-plus Poles (primarily aged below 40) but does not include their children in the annual birth statistics. Considering that this means around 40-45k births (20k in U.K., 15k in Germany and 10k across Italy/Netherlands/France/Ireland etc.) compared to approx. 390k in Poland proper over the last few years - then we can say that Polish TFR is around 0.1-0.15 higher than officially recorded. So actually last year was more realistically around 1.55-1.6

    So there is still a total of around almost 450k Polish ethnic births in EU the last few years, which is higher than the ethnic Italians (around 390k) or the ethnic English (around 380k). So not bad overall.

    So ethnic Polish TFR surpasses ethnic Russian TFR.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    To what extent this is actually relevant?

    Polish children born in England/Germany are not going to demographically benefit Poland, unless they are going to go back (if so, this would be incorporated in future demographic statistics anyway). Though this should be good for England and Germany since these Poles constitute high quality human capital that fits in.

    Alternatively, the EU will continue to integrate, with European countries coming to assume the characteristics of US states. But that wouldn't make such adjustments legitimate either. For instance, births to North Dakotan immigrants to Colorado (a +ve net immigration state) are still not counted in the North Dakota (a -ve net immigration state) fertility stats. And there's far, far more mobility between US states than there is between European countries.
  80. @Dmitry

    still providing a level of insulation from America
     
    Russia/Ukraine/Belarus - same language, same culture, same people. So it is not surprising, low birthrates are the same in all three countries.

    It would be more surprising if the birthrates were different between them.


    inland is smack dab next to Sweden, poz capital of the world.
     
    Sweden is traditionally (over the last decade) one the highest fertility countries in Europe.

    I don't think their attitude to gays or HIV has a relation to birthrates (gays are too insignificant, as a tiny proportion of the population, to have an impact on national birth-rates).

    Israel is even more in a counter-example. In Israel, there are gay flags all over the streets, gay festivals, ultra liberal attitudes - and yet it has a fertility rate almost twice as high as Iran, where gays are executed.


    media penetration. Could be similar, but that wouldn’t mean the infection rate is the same. There are other aspects of it, like universities, and study abroad. Diversity level.
     
    I'm sure people who listen to American music genres like hip hop and 50 cent, generally have a lot higher fertility rates than people who like non-American classical music, Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.

    People listening to classical music and reading European literature, are obviously having children less often than people who are liking gangster rap. Not with any causal relationship. More simply - birthrate differentials, are mainly in the direction of idiocracy.

    Many of both will deny it, but the English and Irish are two closely related peoples who have the same language and similar culture but had different TFR. Now rapidly converging. Of course, a more radical example, perhaps not strictly applicable in this case, is Korea.

    Gayness seems to feed into diversity in America. That is to say, gay people – and especially those in power seem to push for it. I believe the TFR of whites in America would be much higher under the old demographic breakdown, though obviously there are deeper problems than diversity.

    Israel is an interesting model. Do you think it is possible for Europeans and East Asians to emulate it?

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    It's possible one contributing reason it is higher in Israel, is because of the violent diversity. Israel has the worse kind of "diversity" in the world - which is to be in permanent (if sometimes partly frozen) war, where the groups at war have to live mixed up together, resulting in weekly murders, rapes, stabbing, hatred, and where the opposing side also has very high birthrates and views it as a potential "asymmetric weapon".

    So perhaps this is not a very representative example, except of other similar religious warzone areas (I wonder if there is a similar situation in Myanmar - before Rohingya ran -, Kashmir or Ceylon).

  81. @AP
    Some Western Ukrainian newspaper was actually gloating about the population decline in the west and east, writing about how much smaller those cities were. Apparently Lviv would be Ukraine's second largest city in 2100. This was written in 2013, before recent events.

    Do you remember the name of this article?

    Also, having a lot of sparsely populated territory when you have an aggressive neighbor on your borders isn’t exactly optimal. Thus, it would probably be best if western Ukrainians had more babies and repopulated southern and eastern Ukraine after their population will decline like crazy.

    • Replies: @AP

    Do you remember the name of this article?
     
    It was too long ago. It just extrapolated demographic trends until 2100. IIRC in 2100 the cities by population would be Kiev, Lviv, Odessa, then Kharkiv.

    Also, having a lot of sparsely populated territory when you have an aggressive neighbor on your borders isn’t exactly optimal.
     
    If the aggressive neighbor's population is also declining (even if at a lower rate) then this doesn't make a big difference.

    It's funny that the same phenomenon makes both Russian and Ukrainian nationalists happy, even if for two very different reasons.
  82. Thank you. ***very*** interesting data.

    Just one little detail: you classify the homicide rate as X per thousand. Isn’t it X per 100,000?

    AK: Yes, ofc. Thx.

  83. @Mr. XYZ
    Do you remember the name of this article?

    Also, having a lot of sparsely populated territory when you have an aggressive neighbor on your borders isn't exactly optimal. Thus, it would probably be best if western Ukrainians had more babies and repopulated southern and eastern Ukraine after their population will decline like crazy.

    Do you remember the name of this article?

    It was too long ago. It just extrapolated demographic trends until 2100. IIRC in 2100 the cities by population would be Kiev, Lviv, Odessa, then Kharkiv.

    Also, having a lot of sparsely populated territory when you have an aggressive neighbor on your borders isn’t exactly optimal.

    If the aggressive neighbor’s population is also declining (even if at a lower rate) then this doesn’t make a big difference.

    It’s funny that the same phenomenon makes both Russian and Ukrainian nationalists happy, even if for two very different reasons.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    It was too long ago. It just extrapolated demographic trends until 2100. IIRC in 2100 the cities by population would be Kiev, Lviv, Odessa, then Kharkiv.
     
    What's city #5? Do you remember?

    If the aggressive neighbor’s population is also declining (even if at a lower rate) then this doesn’t make a big difference.
     
    The rate might be what matters, though. If the Russia-Novorossiya population ratio moves from, say, 7-to-1 to 10-to-1 or even 15-to-1, then it would be easier for Russia to hold Novorossiya in the event that it will ever capture all of it.

    While the people of Novorossiya might not be very thrilled to be outright annexed by Russia, this would be less of a problem if the Russia-Novorossiya population ratio would have moved further in Russia's favor. This is also why it would be easier for Russia to hold onto Mongolia in the event that Russia will capture it in comparison to holding onto Kazakhstan in the event that Russia will capture it.


    It’s funny that the same phenomenon makes both Russian and Ukrainian nationalists happy, even if for two very different reasons.
     
    Yep.
  84. @Ender
    What makes you think gays will be happy in the long run with marrying, but not being allowed to have kids like everyone else, since for most people, having kids is till the long term aim of marriage.

    What makes you think gays will be happy in the long run with marrying, but not being allowed to have kids like everyone else, since for most people, having kids is till the long term aim of marriage.

    They don’t want kids. They also don’t want to get married. They never did. The whole point of homosexual marriage was to undermine marriage, to make it ridiculous.

    The whole point of the homosexual agenda is not to advance homosexual rights but to attack traditional institutions. Like feminism it’s an ideology of hate.

  85. @Bardon Kaldian
    Of course reasonable measures should be undertaken to better position re these matters. But, one must have in mind:

    * no (post)modern civilization can have birth rate more than 2.1 per woman. This is irreversible.

    * no powerful modern civilization can go back to religion. Religion (male authority, family) is the only thing that can make a woman desire to have more than 1, max 2 children.

    * women will not go back to the role of housewives. But, they could want to have more children if, say, society pays them more money for half a work. Give them enough money for 3-4 hours long work day. Positive discrimination against men, but for family & nation (which is basically extended family)

    * start discriminating against parasitic fecund undesirables (Gypsies, blacks, Muslims,...). Not openly, but one could devise laws that will destroy both their parasitism & clannishness.

    * short of sci fi projections, where we're not dealing with humans anymore, better thing is to invest in health issues where you can make human life more vital, healthy, functioning,... To hell with back pain, obesity, alcoholism,..

    * give people hope. This is the most important. How, with religion mostly dead? I don't know, but it has to do something with family & nationalism.

    * promote national pride & nationalism, national culture & history, and the continuity with the past.

    * promote fear & loathing of racial & national neighbors. If necessary, instill fear of annihilation & ethnic swamping.

    * carefully study what your nation is good at, and where it is weak or below average. Be realistic & think long term. Don't think people are tabula rasa & they'll suddenly excel in an area they generally don't care about or are weak at

    * focus on media to promote "positive values", but not in a crude fashion because you'll turn out to be a joke.

    * try to inculcate sexual morality that is more conductive to noble female nature, i.e. fight a war against promiscuity & sexual licence. Try to revive elements of religion that are noble, family-oriented & productive to nuclear family & paternity. Suppress laws conductive to lower female nature, welfare dependence, cuckoldry,..

    * again, try to educate people so to give them hope & meaning of life, as much as this is possible

    * ecologically, try seriously to eliminate plastic & other lowering sperm count chemicals.

    At the end- accept that all may be somehow determined & that you need not succeed. But you have tried, at least...

    women will not go back to the role of housewives. But, they could want to have more children if, say, society pays them more money for half a work.

    Most women are already getting paid for doing pretend jobs. Nice cushy office jobs where you don’t get your hands dirty and you can sit around drinking coffee and gossiping. Most women aren’t in the actual workforce. They work hobby jobs. Middle-class women don’t actually work.

    And there is no sane reason whatsoever for allowing married women to work.

  86. @Joach
    There's enough evidence that these rather modest — compared to the cost of raising children — financial incentives have no substantial impact anywhere. Russia's betting on a failed policy.

    I'll say what works, and why a developed country that adopts this proposal will be the first to reach above replacement-level fertility among its fertile women (aged countries have too many old women holding down the TFR).

    Children are a financial burden today, contrary to the past when they were extra hands, useful in a more agrarian environment. If you're focused on a carefree life or the improvement of your financial condition, you certainly don't want to divert time and resources to the care of children. I must admit I include myself here. The life cycle of most people today consists of being born, going to kindergarten, highschool and then — here is the issue — instead of marrying and forming a family, when they are of an age in which their forebears were married and many with children, they forgo all of this in order to go to university, get a diploma, establish a career path and then, only then, build a family… when their more fecund years are already over.

    For a developed country to have a fertility rate above 2.11, placing social and economic onus on non-parents, like closing certain jobs and whatnot for them, should be a priority (not easy in today’s cultural climate, but some countries can pull if off… there’s no alternative, not humane anyway). This will work better than monetary incentives which just can’t match the expenses, monetary and physical, of bringing kids into the world.

    The onus should be such that the advantages of not having children in the 18-30 age bracket is neutered by the benefits of having them. The highschool-university-career pipeline is the main culprit and must be destroyed. Feminism is of secondary importance as far as fertility rate is concerned. This is evident in Iran: universities there have an extremely high female participation, they are replacing family formation in favor of the pipeline, and TFR plummets. Low fertility is not about conservative values. Iran proves this point, and so does Poland. Culture has secondary effects, I agree (e.g. abortion), but the pipeline is the overriding factor. I would go so far as barring, in the name of equality (ahem), both men and women from university until they have at least one biological child. Doing so will place children at the core of the pipeline, and having them will feel as normal as the thought of entering university upon graduating highschool, which a large majority do today.

    The highschool-university-career pipeline is the main culprit and must be destroyed.

    At least three-quarters of our universities should be shut down. They’re not merely useless, they’re dangerous. And women do not need a university education.

  87. @Dmitry
    Have we seen any evidence (empirical evidence) that government policies of financial incentives, ever affect "quantum of fertility" rather than merely its tempo?

    In the Gaidar forum video last month,it was effectively admitted the "maternity capital" policy is a good idea because it reduces the poverty rate, even though it doesn't really affect eventual fertility.

    Have we seen any evidence (empirical evidence) that government policies of financial incentives, ever affect “quantum of fertility” rather than merely its tempo?

    Why would financial incentives have any effect on a problem that is purely cultural?

    If we want to survive we must change the culture. If we don’t change the culture, we die.

  88. @Mr. XYZ
    If you're going to use artificial wombs to increase the FTR, you might as well also use IVF and embryo selection for IQ/gene editing. That way, we will increase the TFR and increase intelligence at the same time.

    That way, we will increase the TFR and increase intelligence at the same time.

    Do we really want to increase intelligence? How much intelligence does the average person actually need? If you’re not going to be a neurosurgeon or a nuclear physicist how smart do you need to be?

    Pretty much all the social and cultural disasters that have led our civilisation to the brink of ruin have been the products of intelligent people.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    OK. We can try cutting off oxygen in the artificial wombs for a few minutes to get the desired IQ lowering effect.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    Increasing our intelligence would significantly increase our GDP per capita, though. That's something worth doing, IMHO.

    Also, Yes, there is a risk of craziness, but that might simply mean that we should both aim to increase intelligence and also perhaps do gene editing to reduce the risk of craziness. After all, no one wants, say, a renewal of Communism anywhere in the world.
  89. @AP

    Do you remember the name of this article?
     
    It was too long ago. It just extrapolated demographic trends until 2100. IIRC in 2100 the cities by population would be Kiev, Lviv, Odessa, then Kharkiv.

    Also, having a lot of sparsely populated territory when you have an aggressive neighbor on your borders isn’t exactly optimal.
     
    If the aggressive neighbor's population is also declining (even if at a lower rate) then this doesn't make a big difference.

    It's funny that the same phenomenon makes both Russian and Ukrainian nationalists happy, even if for two very different reasons.

    It was too long ago. It just extrapolated demographic trends until 2100. IIRC in 2100 the cities by population would be Kiev, Lviv, Odessa, then Kharkiv.

    What’s city #5? Do you remember?

    If the aggressive neighbor’s population is also declining (even if at a lower rate) then this doesn’t make a big difference.

    The rate might be what matters, though. If the Russia-Novorossiya population ratio moves from, say, 7-to-1 to 10-to-1 or even 15-to-1, then it would be easier for Russia to hold Novorossiya in the event that it will ever capture all of it.

    While the people of Novorossiya might not be very thrilled to be outright annexed by Russia, this would be less of a problem if the Russia-Novorossiya population ratio would have moved further in Russia’s favor. This is also why it would be easier for Russia to hold onto Mongolia in the event that Russia will capture it in comparison to holding onto Kazakhstan in the event that Russia will capture it.

    It’s funny that the same phenomenon makes both Russian and Ukrainian nationalists happy, even if for two very different reasons.

    Yep.

    • Replies: @AP

    The rate might be what matters, though. If the Russia-Novorossiya population ratio moves from, say, 7-to-1 to 10-to-1 or even 15-to-1, then it would be easier for Russia to hold Novorossiya in the event that it will ever capture all of it.
     
    My point is that if Russia itself is emptying out (albeit more slowly) it's not going to have people to spare, to settle lands given that it even now is hardly overcrowded. And since the local population probably wouldn't engage in mass violent resistance (there would be a local IRA-type situation with Azov types) the size of its population wouldn't matter for purposes of occupation.
  90. The Polish equivalent to Novorossiya might be Masuria. Similar to how Russia is unlikely to win the hearts and minds of most Novorussians, Poland does not appear to have won the hearts and minds of many–if not most–Masurians. However, just like Poland acquired Masuria without much of its population, Russian nationalists might hope to eventually acquire a Novorossiya with a greatly shrunken population. After all, Russian nationalists might view the acquisition of a barren Novorossiya as being better than the status quo since at least that way Russia would have more territory–and historical “Russian lands” to boot!

  91. @anon

    Unmarried people, people choosing to have no kids, or have 1 kid, gays, people who don’t raise their children are not entitled to any pension or benefits at old age, only basic sustenance.
     
    Long term threats and promises are not credible. Who can guarantee that your "patriotic goverment" will be still in charge in 20, 30, 40 years? Remember, Soviet Union was supposed to last for "all eternity".

    …Long term threats and promises are not credible.

    True, there is no reason to wait. I would implement it now and visibly: any pensioner who willingly chose to have no kids would be immediately assessed a social charge and be de-prioritised for medical care. The social charge would be substantial (let’s start with half of income) and be used to support families.

    The brutal reality of life is that old people have very little societal value, they literally live off what the young people produce. There is no such thing as ‘retirement savings‘ – it is a promise made to oneself, next generation has never agreed to it and they have no duty to support people who didn’t contribute to raising of the next generation.

    A simple example: why should a mother who raised children and because of that has less retirement income get less than a no kids couple who bailed on the next generation and maximised their consumption? It is insane to ask the children of those sacrificing parents to support equally (often more) the selfish no-kids old people.

    • Replies: @Ender
    Wasn't there a thread by Audacious Epigone that higher education actually does not have that much of an effect on desired fertility on women, and the problem as actual fertility instead?
    , @AP
    Beckow, once again I agree with your entire line of reasoning here.

    I suspect that because you have been influenced by Sovok, you suffer from a specific Ukrainian derangement syndrome regarding that country, while otherwise being reasonable. This is not uncommon among Russian nationalists and also Sovoks (Soviets being an ugly and evil perversion of the generally good Russian world, so inherited this).

    I am off on a holiday for a few days so won't respond for awhile.
  92. @AquariusAnon
    This is why re-Sovokization of Russian millennial culture can help Russia really turn around its fertility.

    Craft beer kills sperm counts. Indian food causes one to be pudgy and hence less able to bang (for both sexes). SWPL also encourages pet dogs, instead of pet humans.

    A Russia with a 2-child policy and culturally an Orthodox Christian (with strong Sovok symbolisms to curate leftist allies) version of Iran will really have the entire alt right/manosphere and the Chavistas/ANC both fully on board.

    This will also significantly bridge a cultural gap with China especially the "conservative" old guard siloviki if Russians are actually interested in deep Sino-Russian ties.

    Indian food causes one to be pudgy and hence less able to bang? India has a TFR of 2.3 while presumably eating Indian food.

    • Replies: @Doogie
    He's just a pissed off idiot. I would like to add that women are supposed to be "pudgy" and fat (while at the same time having a small body size). Only MEN are supposed to be low bodyfat. Low bodyfat women are disgusting and unhealthy.
  93. @Beckow

    ...Long term threats and promises are not credible.
     
    True, there is no reason to wait. I would implement it now and visibly: any pensioner who willingly chose to have no kids would be immediately assessed a social charge and be de-prioritised for medical care. The social charge would be substantial (let's start with half of income) and be used to support families.

    The brutal reality of life is that old people have very little societal value, they literally live off what the young people produce. There is no such thing as 'retirement savings' - it is a promise made to oneself, next generation has never agreed to it and they have no duty to support people who didn't contribute to raising of the next generation.

    A simple example: why should a mother who raised children and because of that has less retirement income get less than a no kids couple who bailed on the next generation and maximised their consumption? It is insane to ask the children of those sacrificing parents to support equally (often more) the selfish no-kids old people.

    Wasn’t there a thread by Audacious Epigone that higher education actually does not have that much of an effect on desired fertility on women, and the problem as actual fertility instead?

  94. @Dmitry
    Have we seen any evidence (empirical evidence) that government policies of financial incentives, ever affect "quantum of fertility" rather than merely its tempo?

    In the Gaidar forum video last month,it was effectively admitted the "maternity capital" policy is a good idea because it reduces the poverty rate, even though it doesn't really affect eventual fertility.

    …Have we seen any evidence?

    You might as well ask for evidence that lowering shoe prices sells more shoes and not just the ‘tempo’ of buying shoes. As with shoes there is a bit of both: financial incentives lead to more activity and also adjust the timing.

    Incentives work on the margin. If natalist incentives (e.g. Orban) increase natality by 10% and also shift 10% kids to be born earlier, the cumulative impact is substantial (maybe from 1.5 TFR to 1.7). For anything more I agree that a cultural change is required.

    One example I can give you are the post 1970 incentives in Cecho-Slovakia that increased birth rates by 30-40% in the 70’s from the late 60’s. That baby boom lasted all the way to 1989. The so-called ‘Husak babies‘ changed the country and are the backbone to this day. The incentives were straightforward and very similar to Orban’s today: loans for housing that are written off with more kids. That is both responsible (people have to work), and efficient. I would add financial consequences for free loaders with no kids and we would be half way there.

    I am also skeptical about talk of ‘eventual‘ this or that. Yes, eventually things change, so? We live today, we can only fix today, we will be smart enough to fix it again when the ‘eventual’ comes.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    You might as well ask for evidence that lowering shoe prices sells more shoes and not just the ‘tempo’ of buying
     
    It's well established that price, affects the quantity of products purchased by consumers.

    But there isn't strong evidence that government financial programs, like "maternity capital", have an affect on the "quantum of fertility" at the national level. The main effect seems to be in the timing of births.

    Politicians will be happy to accept credit for changes in timing of births, as if they were real changes in the eventual number, if this can give them a boost before elections - but some more honest politicians admit it doesn't have a real effect on fertility rates and they like it mainly because it reduces poverty rates (you can see having children is not a rational behaviour like buying shoes, when many in poverty are having children).


    cumulative impact is substantial (maybe from 1.5 TFR to 1.7).
     
    The annual fluctuations have a lot of noise to signal - we have to look at (or ahead of time, at least try to infer about) the eventual (cohort) fertility rate.

    I am also skeptical about talk of ‘eventual‘ this or that.

     

    The important thing is the eventual fertility rate, of the women born in each year. This is the number of children they will have during their life.The "total fertility rate" is catching a lot of noise, which can account for some of the fluctuations, from different changes in timing of births.
  95. @Hyperborean

    Also impossible. Everyone knows these problems only began after Jews undermined white self confidence. Not because of changes in European culture itself.
     
    You also state Romanticism was about 'self-rejection' and 'xenophilia', I don't think you shluld comment on cultural affairs.

    I although I personally believe France was in a uniquely poor position as a result of the defeat during the Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, for the sake of the argument, Édouard Drumont's La France Juive (1886) is over 1200 pages long and quite explicit in naming names.

    It also led to La Russie juive by Calixte de Wolski, L'Algérie juive by Georges Meynié in 1887, followed by L'Autriche juive de François Trocase in 1900 and L'Angleterre juive by Doedalus in 1913.


    You are a disgrace to the alt right.
     
    Since I am not an American, this does not bother me.

    Napoleon was the greatest disaster for France. What did he accomplish besides emancipating Jews and spreading the gospel of emancipation all over Europe?

    • Agree: AP, reiner Tor
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Not as extreme as Hitler for Germany, but he surely was a big negative.
    , @J
    He was a disaster for the Jews too.
  96. @Intelligent Dasein
    This is never going to happen. It is not possible to rejigger the welfare state so as to produce traditional society outcomes, for the welfare state is itself antithetical to the traditional ordering of society, as the latter depends on private property and family honor. Atomized individuals are atomized individuals, whether you pay them to have children or not to have children.

    And pro-natalist policies do not work over time. In fact, I am not away that any pro-natalist policy has ever worked, if by "working" you mean actually reversing a civilizational collapse and bringing sub-replacement fertility above replacement again. In the waning days of the Roman Empire, every possible measure was taken to increase the number of births, culminating in the edict of Pertinax, which simply gave away land to anybody who would bring it under cultivation---all to no effect. What the all-powerful Roman emperors could not accomplish with draconian measures, the wimpy Western welfare states certainly will not accomplish with half-assed measures.

    There is one thing that might just possibly work, not in the sense that it will actually rejuvenate our crumbling society and boost birthrates above replacement, but only in the sense that it will arrest the decline long enough so that we do not suffer total demographic and fiscal calamity, and that is to get rid of the welfare state entirely and replace it by the Prussian, military-style "work-state," organized around St. Paul's simple maxim that "he who does not work, let him not eat." A state managed by Caesars with practical economic experience, wherein goldbricking, laziness, and malingering are punished with the whip and the noose, where welfare is not even an option but any worker can expect his share of daily bread, where oligarchs are crushed and financialization is but a distant memory, would at least provide for a softer landing when our society settles into the post-industrial agrarianism that is our inevitable destiny. The present course will bring us to the same destination, but only after a series of outright disasters.

    …get rid of the welfare state entirely, blabla…

    This is your Achilles heel and the fatal error of most so called ‘conservatives’, libertarians, and other assorted market fanatics. Real conservatives try to preserve the societies they live in, and that means that some kind of what you call ‘welfare’ is required in the modern, complex societies.

    There are five things that no ‘market’ system has ever done well: raising children, medical care, education, housing, and retirement. The reason is very simple: markets work on negotiated transactions, the above core activities happen too infrequently and are too important to behave well in a traditional market. We see all of them failing to some extent or another in the modern societies. They have been gamed by insiders who have created quasi monopolies, there is no real ‘market’ in any of them. It matters because these non-market parts of the economy have grown to 70-80% of all activity. If 70-80% of the economy is non-market, what kind of a capitalist, free enterprise, market system is it?

    You are never going to get rid of ‘welfare’. The goal is to streamline it and make it work for the core group in our societies: native born, working families with kids. Get rid of the freeloading administrators, migrating parasites, and the rent-seeking monopolists.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    This is your Achilles heel and the fatal error of most so called ‘conservatives’, libertarians, and other assorted market fanatics. Real conservatives try to preserve the societies they live in, and that means that some kind of what you call ‘welfare’ is required in the modern, complex societies.
     
    Agreed. But you're assuming that so called ‘conservatives’, libertarians, and assorted market fanatics are sane rational people. They're not. They're as blinded by ideology as the most ardent Marxist. They're also blinded by their hatred of poor people.

    You are never going to get rid of ‘welfare’. The goal is to streamline it and make it work for the core group in our societies: native born, working families with kids. Get rid of the freeloading administrators, migrating parasites, and the rent-seeking monopolists.
     
    That would be sensible.
    , @rkka
    "This is your Achilles heel and the fatal error of most so called ‘conservatives’, libertarians, and other assorted market fanatics. Real conservatives try to preserve the societies they live in, and that means that some kind of what you call ‘welfare’ is required in the modern, complex societies."

    What @Intelligent Dasein also misses is that the Welfare State was the conservative response to the problems of the transition from agriculture to industry, feudalism to capitalism.

    Its inventor was Otto von Bismark, The Iron Chancellor himself, pointy helmet and all. His intention was to push back socialism, by addressing the issues that were driving its political success.

    The Welfare State got its start in the UK from the Boer War, when the British Army tried to recruit from the urban working class, and found astronomical rates of physical unfitness for military service. Dickens, of course understood and wrote about this, but the Free Market ideologues who dominated UK economic though pushed back. "We must not reduce the incentive of the poor to work! Mua-ha-ha-ha-ha!" What the British Army's recruiting data showed was that the urban working class had so much incentive to work that diseases of malnutrition and underdevelopment were rampant among them. So while the Free Market ideologues could argue against Dickens' pen, they couldn't argue with the British Army's recruiting data.

    So what the Free Market ideologue @Intelligent Dasein wants is a return to to the Old Days, of rickets & scurvy.
  97. It seems Russia is in a very positive development in terms of demographics, There is however one metric that is not adressed and wich I would think quite important namely the number of homeless people.
    According to Wikipedias list of homelessness by country more than 5.000.000 people should be homeless in Russia amounting to 3,4 per cent of the entire population.
    Is there any truth to this figure and if yes what is being done about it?

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Seems pretty unlikely considering that Russia (and most of the post-Communist world) has some of the highest rates of home ownership in the world.
  98. @Beckow

    ...Have we seen any evidence?
     
    You might as well ask for evidence that lowering shoe prices sells more shoes and not just the 'tempo' of buying shoes. As with shoes there is a bit of both: financial incentives lead to more activity and also adjust the timing.

    Incentives work on the margin. If natalist incentives (e.g. Orban) increase natality by 10% and also shift 10% kids to be born earlier, the cumulative impact is substantial (maybe from 1.5 TFR to 1.7). For anything more I agree that a cultural change is required.

    One example I can give you are the post 1970 incentives in Cecho-Slovakia that increased birth rates by 30-40% in the 70's from the late 60's. That baby boom lasted all the way to 1989. The so-called 'Husak babies' changed the country and are the backbone to this day. The incentives were straightforward and very similar to Orban's today: loans for housing that are written off with more kids. That is both responsible (people have to work), and efficient. I would add financial consequences for free loaders with no kids and we would be half way there.

    I am also skeptical about talk of 'eventual' this or that. Yes, eventually things change, so? We live today, we can only fix today, we will be smart enough to fix it again when the 'eventual' comes.

    You might as well ask for evidence that lowering shoe prices sells more shoes and not just the ‘tempo’ of buying

    It’s well established that price, affects the quantity of products purchased by consumers.

    But there isn’t strong evidence that government financial programs, like “maternity capital”, have an affect on the “quantum of fertility” at the national level. The main effect seems to be in the timing of births.

    Politicians will be happy to accept credit for changes in timing of births, as if they were real changes in the eventual number, if this can give them a boost before elections – but some more honest politicians admit it doesn’t have a real effect on fertility rates and they like it mainly because it reduces poverty rates (you can see having children is not a rational behaviour like buying shoes, when many in poverty are having children).

    cumulative impact is substantial (maybe from 1.5 TFR to 1.7).

    The annual fluctuations have a lot of noise to signal – we have to look at (or ahead of time, at least try to infer about) the eventual (cohort) fertility rate.

    I am also skeptical about talk of ‘eventual‘ this or that.

    The important thing is the eventual fertility rate, of the women born in each year. This is the number of children they will have during their life.The “total fertility rate” is catching a lot of noise, which can account for some of the fluctuations, from different changes in timing of births.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    I gave you a specific example that I am familiar with when government pro-natality policies worked very well and it has been fully documented (Czecho-Slovakia 1970-1990), that's what you asked for. It is possible that some other policies have not worked, or worked less well - it depends on a lot of factors. But well thought-out policies work.

    The important thing is the eventual fertility rate, of the women born in each year.
     
    I agree. And pro-natality policies often impact the timing more than the total number. But they do impact BOTH. If you have children earlier because of incentives, it is very likely that you will have more - and the incentives (Orban) are very specific about encouraging 3rd, 4th, etc... children more. There is also the incentive with housing: bigger, sooner...

    The way you view the data is impacted by your bias: you don't seem to want pro-natalist policies (in some countries, among some groups), so you say that they 'don't work'. They do. It is a transparent b.s argument similar to what migration enthusiasts say about controlling migration ("borders don't work", "walls don't work", etc...). Your feigned scepticism betrays your bias.

    , @reiner Tor

    But there isn’t strong evidence that government financial programs, like “maternity capital”, have an affect on the “quantum of fertility” at the national level.
     
    In Hungary there was a huge government program in the 1970s. This resulted in the final fertility of the generation of women who reached their fertile years around 1970 being higher than those who reached their fertile years a decade earlier. Then most of the benefits fell victim to inflation, but fertility collapsed when the “leftist” ex-communists (in coalition with left-liberals) axed most of it in the mid-1990s. Orbán reintroduced a lot after 1998 during his first term as prime minister, but here’s the issue: most people now understood the benefits could easily be cut by the next government and so fertility didn’t take off again.

    You don’t have children yourself and obviously you don’t understand that people have to plan for decades ahead of the decision to have a baby, and after the turmoil in the 1990s most people in the former Soviet Bloc expect some sort of turmoil in the next couple of decades. It’s easier to destroy fertility by financial incentives than to increase it.
    , @RadicalCenter
    A baby born a few years earlier will reach reproductive and marriage age a few years earlier as well.

    Even if the baby’s mother has the “same” TFR as before, and the baby has no higher a TFR than that, the total population of the desired people will be at least slightly higher in 30 or 40 years than it would have been otherwise.

    The increase of each European woman’s TFR to at least 2.2 is by far the most important, we will agree there, but even merely moving forward the same number of births, is progress and is worth doing.
  99. @Dmitry

    You might as well ask for evidence that lowering shoe prices sells more shoes and not just the ‘tempo’ of buying
     
    It's well established that price, affects the quantity of products purchased by consumers.

    But there isn't strong evidence that government financial programs, like "maternity capital", have an affect on the "quantum of fertility" at the national level. The main effect seems to be in the timing of births.

    Politicians will be happy to accept credit for changes in timing of births, as if they were real changes in the eventual number, if this can give them a boost before elections - but some more honest politicians admit it doesn't have a real effect on fertility rates and they like it mainly because it reduces poverty rates (you can see having children is not a rational behaviour like buying shoes, when many in poverty are having children).


    cumulative impact is substantial (maybe from 1.5 TFR to 1.7).
     
    The annual fluctuations have a lot of noise to signal - we have to look at (or ahead of time, at least try to infer about) the eventual (cohort) fertility rate.

    I am also skeptical about talk of ‘eventual‘ this or that.

     

    The important thing is the eventual fertility rate, of the women born in each year. This is the number of children they will have during their life.The "total fertility rate" is catching a lot of noise, which can account for some of the fluctuations, from different changes in timing of births.

    I gave you a specific example that I am familiar with when government pro-natality policies worked very well and it has been fully documented (Czecho-Slovakia 1970-1990), that’s what you asked for. It is possible that some other policies have not worked, or worked less well – it depends on a lot of factors. But well thought-out policies work.

    The important thing is the eventual fertility rate, of the women born in each year.

    I agree. And pro-natality policies often impact the timing more than the total number. But they do impact BOTH. If you have children earlier because of incentives, it is very likely that you will have more – and the incentives (Orban) are very specific about encouraging 3rd, 4th, etc… children more. There is also the incentive with housing: bigger, sooner…

    The way you view the data is impacted by your bias: you don’t seem to want pro-natalist policies (in some countries, among some groups), so you say that they ‘don’t work’. They do. It is a transparent b.s argument similar to what migration enthusiasts say about controlling migration (“borders don’t work”, “walls don’t work”, etc…). Your feigned scepticism betrays your bias.

    • Replies: @Ender
    Dmitry is a libertarian right?
    , @Dmitry

    The way you view the data is impacted by your bias: you don’t seem to want pro-natalist policies (in some countries, among some groups), so you say that they ‘don’t work’. They do.
     
    I support the policies because it clearly (and this is what the politicians were opening admitting now), reduces the poverty rate. It seems like a way to not fuck up psychologically part of the next generation by reducing poverty rates in which the next generation is growing up.

    But I have not read any strong evidence it will change the eventual fertility rate.


    government pro-natality policies worked very well and it has been fully documented (Czecho-Slovakia 1970-1990), that’s what you asked for.
     
    Feel free to post the study from Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. But for example, in USSR, I read clearly the slightly boost of the 1980s was strongly related just to changes in timing.

    If you have children earlier because of incentives, it is very likely that you will have more – and the incentives (Orban) are very specific about encouraging 3rd, 4th, etc… children more.
     
    Because it sounds in your mind (and not just yours, but also many voters) like it "will be effective". But largescale fertility behaviour is not following financial incentives like this.

    The maternity capital in Russia, is probably much more significant financially (relative to lower incomes) program in history. It is the second largest social commitment after pensions.

    It is only paid after the 2nd children. But it does not seem to increase "second birth risk".

    Demographers and statisticians, do not think it makes a significant different .

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259551657_The_Apparent_Failure_of_Russia's_Pronatalist_Family_Policies


    There was one supportive study by Biryukova, but it only showed larger families are more likely to have another child.


    . They claimed that the chances that parents
    with two children had a 3rd or a subsequent child were larger than the probability of 1st time parents
    having a 2nd child in the 2007-2011 interval. This however does not prove a positive effect on the
    fertility rate. It only points out that larger families were more prone to increase the family size than
    smaller families. The authors’ conclusion about the positive effect of the 2007 policy is therefore
    faulty. In addition, their finding is inconclusive because the authors do not take timing into account. It
    might be just that women are having their next child more quickly than in the pre-reform period.
     
    Others found there was no impact of maternity capital on probability of having a second child.
  100. @songbird
    Many of both will deny it, but the English and Irish are two closely related peoples who have the same language and similar culture but had different TFR. Now rapidly converging. Of course, a more radical example, perhaps not strictly applicable in this case, is Korea.

    Gayness seems to feed into diversity in America. That is to say, gay people - and especially those in power seem to push for it. I believe the TFR of whites in America would be much higher under the old demographic breakdown, though obviously there are deeper problems than diversity.

    Israel is an interesting model. Do you think it is possible for Europeans and East Asians to emulate it?

    It’s possible one contributing reason it is higher in Israel, is because of the violent diversity. Israel has the worse kind of “diversity” in the world – which is to be in permanent (if sometimes partly frozen) war, where the groups at war have to live mixed up together, resulting in weekly murders, rapes, stabbing, hatred, and where the opposing side also has very high birthrates and views it as a potential “asymmetric weapon”.

    So perhaps this is not a very representative example, except of other similar religious warzone areas (I wonder if there is a similar situation in Myanmar – before Rohingya ran -, Kashmir or Ceylon).

  101. @Beckow
    I gave you a specific example that I am familiar with when government pro-natality policies worked very well and it has been fully documented (Czecho-Slovakia 1970-1990), that's what you asked for. It is possible that some other policies have not worked, or worked less well - it depends on a lot of factors. But well thought-out policies work.

    The important thing is the eventual fertility rate, of the women born in each year.
     
    I agree. And pro-natality policies often impact the timing more than the total number. But they do impact BOTH. If you have children earlier because of incentives, it is very likely that you will have more - and the incentives (Orban) are very specific about encouraging 3rd, 4th, etc... children more. There is also the incentive with housing: bigger, sooner...

    The way you view the data is impacted by your bias: you don't seem to want pro-natalist policies (in some countries, among some groups), so you say that they 'don't work'. They do. It is a transparent b.s argument similar to what migration enthusiasts say about controlling migration ("borders don't work", "walls don't work", etc...). Your feigned scepticism betrays your bias.

    Dmitry is a libertarian right?

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    In this topic though, for whatever reason, people are not behaving like an "economic man". Having children is not like buying shoes.

    Maternity capital is very generous (and it pays to the population around $5 billion of cash a year), but it has been found to have no increase in probability of eligible parents having a second birth, compared to before its introduction (so the chance of mothers having a second child has not been changed, but rather families are just receiving the money as a kind of support, without their decision being affected).


    -

    The other thing is the government fertility program, is now very focusing on the idea of policies of preferential mortgages for families with second and third children. This seems to be popular inside the government now, with Golikova passionate about it (Golikova has no children). It seems also a government support to the construction industry and the banks.

    , @Beckow
    Not sure. I generally let people identify themselves...
  102. @Beckow
    I gave you a specific example that I am familiar with when government pro-natality policies worked very well and it has been fully documented (Czecho-Slovakia 1970-1990), that's what you asked for. It is possible that some other policies have not worked, or worked less well - it depends on a lot of factors. But well thought-out policies work.

    The important thing is the eventual fertility rate, of the women born in each year.
     
    I agree. And pro-natality policies often impact the timing more than the total number. But they do impact BOTH. If you have children earlier because of incentives, it is very likely that you will have more - and the incentives (Orban) are very specific about encouraging 3rd, 4th, etc... children more. There is also the incentive with housing: bigger, sooner...

    The way you view the data is impacted by your bias: you don't seem to want pro-natalist policies (in some countries, among some groups), so you say that they 'don't work'. They do. It is a transparent b.s argument similar to what migration enthusiasts say about controlling migration ("borders don't work", "walls don't work", etc...). Your feigned scepticism betrays your bias.

    The way you view the data is impacted by your bias: you don’t seem to want pro-natalist policies (in some countries, among some groups), so you say that they ‘don’t work’. They do.

    I support the policies because it clearly (and this is what the politicians were opening admitting now), reduces the poverty rate. It seems like a way to not fuck up psychologically part of the next generation by reducing poverty rates in which the next generation is growing up.

    But I have not read any strong evidence it will change the eventual fertility rate.

    government pro-natality policies worked very well and it has been fully documented (Czecho-Slovakia 1970-1990), that’s what you asked for.

    Feel free to post the study from Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. But for example, in USSR, I read clearly the slightly boost of the 1980s was strongly related just to changes in timing.

    If you have children earlier because of incentives, it is very likely that you will have more – and the incentives (Orban) are very specific about encouraging 3rd, 4th, etc… children more.

    Because it sounds in your mind (and not just yours, but also many voters) like it “will be effective”. But largescale fertility behaviour is not following financial incentives like this.

    The maternity capital in Russia, is probably much more significant financially (relative to lower incomes) program in history. It is the second largest social commitment after pensions.

    It is only paid after the 2nd children. But it does not seem to increase “second birth risk”.

    Demographers and statisticians, do not think it makes a significant different .

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259551657_The_Apparent_Failure_of_Russia’s_Pronatalist_Family_Policies

    There was one supportive study by Biryukova, but it only showed larger families are more likely to have another child.

    . They claimed that the chances that parents
    with two children had a 3rd or a subsequent child were larger than the probability of 1st time parents
    having a 2nd child in the 2007-2011 interval. This however does not prove a positive effect on the
    fertility rate. It only points out that larger families were more prone to increase the family size than
    smaller families. The authors’ conclusion about the positive effect of the 2007 policy is therefore
    faulty. In addition, their finding is inconclusive because the authors do not take timing into account. It
    might be just that women are having their next child more quickly than in the pre-reform period.

    Others found there was no impact of maternity capital on probability of having a second child.

    • Replies: @Gerard2

    I support the policies because it clearly (and this is what the politicians were opening admitting now), reduces the poverty rate. It seems like a way to not fuck up psychologically part of the next generation by reducing poverty rates in which the next generation is growing up.

    But I have not read any strong evidence it will change the eventual fertility rate.
     
    Low birth rate, I think is because of two obvious issues - in the 90's ( i.e children of which now are at or are approaching the age of being parents) the fewest amount of people were born, plus abortions - many possibly badly done left a higher than normal level of women unable to give birth to children - leading to even less children.

    I also genuinely believe people are less mature at an earlier age of adulthood/different job dynamic, compared to previous generations... and they get married and want children later on in their life - in this respect Russian mentality and lifestyle is in life with the west at the moment

    Ii do expect the birth rate to shoot up massively compared to western countries though in the medium-term.
  103. @Ender
    Dmitry is a libertarian right?

    In this topic though, for whatever reason, people are not behaving like an “economic man”. Having children is not like buying shoes.

    Maternity capital is very generous (and it pays to the population around $5 billion of cash a year), but it has been found to have no increase in probability of eligible parents having a second birth, compared to before its introduction (so the chance of mothers having a second child has not been changed, but rather families are just receiving the money as a kind of support, without their decision being affected).

    The other thing is the government fertility program, is now very focusing on the idea of policies of preferential mortgages for families with second and third children. This seems to be popular inside the government now, with Golikova passionate about it (Golikova has no children). It seems also a government support to the construction industry and the banks.

    • Replies: @Dmitry

    The other thing is the government fertility program, is now very focusing on the idea of policies of preferential mortgages for families with second and third children. This seems to be popular inside the government now, with Golikova
     
    One area they might be actually trying to go for the target - to fund "formal daycare".

    https://i.imgur.com/79q5WEC.jpg


    http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/257131468000013801/pdf/99503-WP-P143700-PUBLIC-Box393204B-Family-Policies-in-Russia-final-cover.pdf
  104. @Beckow

    ...Long term threats and promises are not credible.
     
    True, there is no reason to wait. I would implement it now and visibly: any pensioner who willingly chose to have no kids would be immediately assessed a social charge and be de-prioritised for medical care. The social charge would be substantial (let's start with half of income) and be used to support families.

    The brutal reality of life is that old people have very little societal value, they literally live off what the young people produce. There is no such thing as 'retirement savings' - it is a promise made to oneself, next generation has never agreed to it and they have no duty to support people who didn't contribute to raising of the next generation.

    A simple example: why should a mother who raised children and because of that has less retirement income get less than a no kids couple who bailed on the next generation and maximised their consumption? It is insane to ask the children of those sacrificing parents to support equally (often more) the selfish no-kids old people.

    Beckow, once again I agree with your entire line of reasoning here.

    I suspect that because you have been influenced by Sovok, you suffer from a specific Ukrainian derangement syndrome regarding that country, while otherwise being reasonable. This is not uncommon among Russian nationalists and also Sovoks (Soviets being an ugly and evil perversion of the generally good Russian world, so inherited this).

    I am off on a holiday for a few days so won’t respond for awhile.

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...once again I agree with your entire line of reasoning here.
     
    I am getting worried, could it be that we are both wrong? :)

    Regarding 'Sovok', I genuinely have no idea what or who it is, different times, different place.

    My issue with Ukrainian nationalists goes back to Bandera bands that my grandpa fought as they were burning-killing their way across Czech-Slovakia after WWII. Ugly story.

    I also have a rational outlook and when something is not going to work, it is better for all involved to realize it. Maidan, as it was conceived, has not worked and has made things worse. You can label it in any way you want. Enjoy your holidays...

  105. Orban’s policy of allowing women who have 4 children to never pay taxes is brilliant. This is much better than giving money to women who have many children, because tax savings only applies to potential tax payers (people who work). So gypsies or others living off the system don’t benefit from such a policy.

    I would be good if this policy applies to families, because many women with 4 kids might not work as much but their husbands would. This would also encourage families to stay intact, which is good for child development.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I agree with this.

    One caveat, though (as the liberal Hungarian redditors on /r/europe pointed out) - Hungary has a low flat income tax rate. However, its standard VAT (27%) is the highest in the world. This must be financially crippling for multiple children families. It seems it should think about reducing VAT (and spending, naturally).
    , @reiner Tor

    So gypsies or others living off the system don’t benefit from such a policy.
     
    They will somehow game it (or at least try to do so) for money laundering. But Orbán always wanted to give tax benefits instead of gibsmedats, and overall, yes it’s a much better approach.
    , @Mr. XYZ

    This would also encourage families to stay intact, which is good for child development.
     
    I'm actually unsure if this is actually the case. After all, it's possible that couples who remain intact simply have better genes than couples who break up--which in turn would mean that the children of intact couples would inherit better genes than the children of couples who break up. In other words, it might not be the breaking up of couples which is harmful to children's development, but rather the fact that couples who break up might have worse genes than couples who remain together--genes which they end up passing onto their children.
  106. @Mr. XYZ

    It was too long ago. It just extrapolated demographic trends until 2100. IIRC in 2100 the cities by population would be Kiev, Lviv, Odessa, then Kharkiv.
     
    What's city #5? Do you remember?

    If the aggressive neighbor’s population is also declining (even if at a lower rate) then this doesn’t make a big difference.
     
    The rate might be what matters, though. If the Russia-Novorossiya population ratio moves from, say, 7-to-1 to 10-to-1 or even 15-to-1, then it would be easier for Russia to hold Novorossiya in the event that it will ever capture all of it.

    While the people of Novorossiya might not be very thrilled to be outright annexed by Russia, this would be less of a problem if the Russia-Novorossiya population ratio would have moved further in Russia's favor. This is also why it would be easier for Russia to hold onto Mongolia in the event that Russia will capture it in comparison to holding onto Kazakhstan in the event that Russia will capture it.


    It’s funny that the same phenomenon makes both Russian and Ukrainian nationalists happy, even if for two very different reasons.
     
    Yep.

    The rate might be what matters, though. If the Russia-Novorossiya population ratio moves from, say, 7-to-1 to 10-to-1 or even 15-to-1, then it would be easier for Russia to hold Novorossiya in the event that it will ever capture all of it.

    My point is that if Russia itself is emptying out (albeit more slowly) it’s not going to have people to spare, to settle lands given that it even now is hardly overcrowded. And since the local population probably wouldn’t engage in mass violent resistance (there would be a local IRA-type situation with Azov types) the size of its population wouldn’t matter for purposes of occupation.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ

    My point is that if Russia itself is emptying out (albeit more slowly) it’s not going to have people to spare, to settle lands given that it even now is hardly overcrowded.
     
    It's not going to be the end of the world for Russia if several million of its own people will move to Novorossiya, though. For instance, Czechia survived when 1.5 million of its population moved to the Sudetenland after the end of WWII in order to replace the expelled Germans there.

    Also, if one wants to be fair, one does not actually have to settle territory that one is occupying. For instance, the Soviet Union occupied Eastern Europe for almost half a century after the end of WWII and yet did not send large numbers of its own settlers to Eastern Europe (I am not counting the Baltic states here, since they were outright annexed to the Soviet Union whereas Eastern Europe was not).

    And since the local population probably wouldn’t engage in mass violent resistance (there would be a local IRA-type situation with Azov types) the size of its population wouldn’t matter for purposes of occupation.
     
    Even something like a mass strike could be destabilizing if the population is large enough, though. For instance, in a historical context, mass strikes were able to defeat the Kapp Putsch in Germany back in 1920.

    AFAIK, Novorossiya also became much more hostile to Russia after Russia's intervention in Ukraine (as evidenced by the fall in the vote that the Opposition Bloc got there relative to the Party of Regions, et cetera). Thus, something like a mass Novorussian strike at some point in time after a Russian occupation of Novorossiya should not be completely excluded. Sure, Novorussians are unlikely to engage in violent resistance en masse (even with the massively increased anti-Russian sentiment there over the last several years), but large-scale non-violent resistance could theoretically happen--especially if Russia severely pisses off the Novorussians.
  107. I have not read any strong evidence it will change the eventual fertility rate.

    I pointed out to you that using the term ‘eventual’ is meaningless, it is a weasel term, same as ‘strong evidence’. What matters is what happens now, to us, and what we can observe. The weasel words are used to obfuscate what is often obvious. For example, the stupid statements by Macron-Juncker that ‘migration is inevitable, blabla…’. People see what they want to see.

    The only thing that matters are actual numbers now. Orban is right and the others should follow.

    Feel free to post the study from Czechoslovakia

    I doubt you can read the language. There is plenty of English documentation if you look at any population statistic. During 70’s natality rose by 30-40%, peaked in the late 70’s and then stayed high till 1990. Then it collapsed – the policies were discontinued. One reason was that there was a partial echo effect of the original baby boom (post-WWII), but per woman TFR also went up, family size increased (people had 3th and 4th kids because housing was much better and free-cheap for larger families).

    Don’t get caught up in details that can be gamed to show almost anything. Even the fact that pro-natalist policies improve poverty rates is a sufficient reason to support it.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    I pointed out to you that using the term ‘eventual’ is meaningless, it is a weasel term, same as ‘strong evidence’. What matters is what happens now, to us, and what we can observe.
     
    The eventual rate, is what will predict natural population replacement. Sure, it's epistemically inaccessible until some years later, and this is the problem for our discussion - but we can still posit it as the real (ontological) thing we should be trying to predict (signal, not noise).

    So the problem is our current situation, the information is incomplete and we have to guess for more recent cohorts from partial amount of their fertile years have been crossed.

    https://i.imgur.com/KlHarzp.jpg


    If we look above at the data for the 1965-69 birth cohort - this is the last one where the data is almost complete by 2011. (only 0.01 will be added). So for women born 1965-69, we knew the eventual fertility of them by 2011.

    And then for the women born after 1969, the future births have to be predicted.

    But for women born since 1970, with the partial data of 2011, they were predicted there as very stable at 1,58-1,59.

    If this prediction becomes true, then cohort fertility rate is was totally stable across the 1990s-2000s - as not changed by difference between 1990s and 2000s (even though political and economic conditions were very different - much better in the 2000s).

  108. @Ender
    Dmitry is a libertarian right?

    Not sure. I generally let people identify themselves…

  109. @Dmitry
    In this topic though, for whatever reason, people are not behaving like an "economic man". Having children is not like buying shoes.

    Maternity capital is very generous (and it pays to the population around $5 billion of cash a year), but it has been found to have no increase in probability of eligible parents having a second birth, compared to before its introduction (so the chance of mothers having a second child has not been changed, but rather families are just receiving the money as a kind of support, without their decision being affected).


    -

    The other thing is the government fertility program, is now very focusing on the idea of policies of preferential mortgages for families with second and third children. This seems to be popular inside the government now, with Golikova passionate about it (Golikova has no children). It seems also a government support to the construction industry and the banks.

    The other thing is the government fertility program, is now very focusing on the idea of policies of preferential mortgages for families with second and third children. This seems to be popular inside the government now, with Golikova

    One area they might be actually trying to go for the target – to fund “formal daycare”.

    http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/257131468000013801/pdf/99503-WP-P143700-PUBLIC-Box393204B-Family-Policies-in-Russia-final-cover.pdf

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    One area they might be actually trying to go for the target – to fund “formal daycare”.
     
    Daycare is one of the worst ideas in history.
  110. @AP
    Beckow, once again I agree with your entire line of reasoning here.

    I suspect that because you have been influenced by Sovok, you suffer from a specific Ukrainian derangement syndrome regarding that country, while otherwise being reasonable. This is not uncommon among Russian nationalists and also Sovoks (Soviets being an ugly and evil perversion of the generally good Russian world, so inherited this).

    I am off on a holiday for a few days so won't respond for awhile.

    …once again I agree with your entire line of reasoning here.

    I am getting worried, could it be that we are both wrong? 🙂

    Regarding ‘Sovok’, I genuinely have no idea what or who it is, different times, different place.

    My issue with Ukrainian nationalists goes back to Bandera bands that my grandpa fought as they were burning-killing their way across Czech-Slovakia after WWII. Ugly story.

    I also have a rational outlook and when something is not going to work, it is better for all involved to realize it. Maidan, as it was conceived, has not worked and has made things worse. You can label it in any way you want. Enjoy your holidays…

    • Replies: @AP

    My issue with Ukrainian nationalists goes back to Bandera bands that my grandpa fought as they were burning-killing their way across Czech-Slovakia after WWII. Ugly story.
     
    I don't like Bandera either. Do you have links about this?

    I also have a rational outlook and when something is not going to work, it is better for all involved to realize it. Maidan, as it was conceived, has not worked and has made things worse.
     
    As you know, I disagree and the evidence points to me being right, but I don't have time to get into this now (nor do I wish to derail this discussion page, AK will post later on Ukraine I'm sure).

    Enjoy your holidays…
     
    Thank you.
  111. @Beckow

    ...once again I agree with your entire line of reasoning here.
     
    I am getting worried, could it be that we are both wrong? :)

    Regarding 'Sovok', I genuinely have no idea what or who it is, different times, different place.

    My issue with Ukrainian nationalists goes back to Bandera bands that my grandpa fought as they were burning-killing their way across Czech-Slovakia after WWII. Ugly story.

    I also have a rational outlook and when something is not going to work, it is better for all involved to realize it. Maidan, as it was conceived, has not worked and has made things worse. You can label it in any way you want. Enjoy your holidays...

    My issue with Ukrainian nationalists goes back to Bandera bands that my grandpa fought as they were burning-killing their way across Czech-Slovakia after WWII. Ugly story.

    I don’t like Bandera either. Do you have links about this?

    I also have a rational outlook and when something is not going to work, it is better for all involved to realize it. Maidan, as it was conceived, has not worked and has made things worse.

    As you know, I disagree and the evidence points to me being right, but I don’t have time to get into this now (nor do I wish to derail this discussion page, AK will post later on Ukraine I’m sure).

    Enjoy your holidays…

    Thank you.

  112. @Beckow

    I have not read any strong evidence it will change the eventual fertility rate.
     
    I pointed out to you that using the term 'eventual' is meaningless, it is a weasel term, same as 'strong evidence'. What matters is what happens now, to us, and what we can observe. The weasel words are used to obfuscate what is often obvious. For example, the stupid statements by Macron-Juncker that 'migration is inevitable, blabla...'. People see what they want to see.

    The only thing that matters are actual numbers now. Orban is right and the others should follow.


    Feel free to post the study from Czechoslovakia
     
    I doubt you can read the language. There is plenty of English documentation if you look at any population statistic. During 70's natality rose by 30-40%, peaked in the late 70's and then stayed high till 1990. Then it collapsed - the policies were discontinued. One reason was that there was a partial echo effect of the original baby boom (post-WWII), but per woman TFR also went up, family size increased (people had 3th and 4th kids because housing was much better and free-cheap for larger families).

    Don't get caught up in details that can be gamed to show almost anything. Even the fact that pro-natalist policies improve poverty rates is a sufficient reason to support it.

    I pointed out to you that using the term ‘eventual’ is meaningless, it is a weasel term, same as ‘strong evidence’. What matters is what happens now, to us, and what we can observe.

    The eventual rate, is what will predict natural population replacement. Sure, it’s epistemically inaccessible until some years later, and this is the problem for our discussion – but we can still posit it as the real (ontological) thing we should be trying to predict (signal, not noise).

    So the problem is our current situation, the information is incomplete and we have to guess for more recent cohorts from partial amount of their fertile years have been crossed.

    If we look above at the data for the 1965-69 birth cohort – this is the last one where the data is almost complete by 2011. (only 0.01 will be added). So for women born 1965-69, we knew the eventual fertility of them by 2011.

    And then for the women born after 1969, the future births have to be predicted.

    But for women born since 1970, with the partial data of 2011, they were predicted there as very stable at 1,58-1,59.

    If this prediction becomes true, then cohort fertility rate is was totally stable across the 1990s-2000s – as not changed by difference between 1990s and 2000s (even though political and economic conditions were very different – much better in the 2000s).

    • Replies: @Beckow
    I don't disagree with your specific analysis, but I still think that pro-natality policies (in European societies) are worth trying. It is not all about the long-term increase in fertility, although that would help. There are many other benefits: it alleviates poverty (as you pointed out), it promotes fairness among generations, it helps some of the most deserving members of the society. It also sends a strong message that we are here to stay.

    All policies - all ideas - are implemented in specific time and place, and drawing analogies has limits. E.g. the overriding cultural and economic changes a generation ago were maybe stronger than any pro-natality incentives. Today, with more space, more opportunities, more experience, they might work better. The biggest mental block we have are the constant false analogies. We have too much data and too many reference points - and we often don't see the obvious.

    The alternative to pro-natality policies is to effectively give up and watch a slow collapse of Europe and its civilization. Orban is right, and as far as I am concerned if he wants to build another white elephant football stadium in his native village, more power to him. We need to separate what is important and what is just noise...

  113. @AP
    So ethnic Polish TFR surpasses ethnic Russian TFR.

    To what extent this is actually relevant?

    Polish children born in England/Germany are not going to demographically benefit Poland, unless they are going to go back (if so, this would be incorporated in future demographic statistics anyway). Though this should be good for England and Germany since these Poles constitute high quality human capital that fits in.

    Alternatively, the EU will continue to integrate, with European countries coming to assume the characteristics of US states. But that wouldn’t make such adjustments legitimate either. For instance, births to North Dakotan immigrants to Colorado (a +ve net immigration state) are still not counted in the North Dakota (a -ve net immigration state) fertility stats. And there’s far, far more mobility between US states than there is between European countries.

    • Replies: @AP

    To what extent this is actually relevant?

    Polish children born in England/Germany are not going to demographically benefit Poland, unless they are going to go back (if so, this would be incorporated in future demographic statistics anyway).
     
    Correct, it just means that Poland's official TFR figures artifically underrepresent the actual fertility of Poles, because young adults are counted but their kids, born abroad, are not.
  114. @Sven Lystbæk
    It seems Russia is in a very positive development in terms of demographics, There is however one metric that is not adressed and wich I would think quite important namely the number of homeless people.
    According to Wikipedias list of homelessness by country more than 5.000.000 people should be homeless in Russia amounting to 3,4 per cent of the entire population.
    Is there any truth to this figure and if yes what is being done about it?

    Seems pretty unlikely considering that Russia (and most of the post-Communist world) has some of the highest rates of home ownership in the world.

  115. @AP
    Orban’s policy of allowing women who have 4 children to never pay taxes is brilliant. This is much better than giving money to women who have many children, because tax savings only applies to potential tax payers (people who work). So gypsies or others living off the system don’t benefit from such a policy.

    I would be good if this policy applies to families, because many women with 4 kids might not work as much but their husbands would. This would also encourage families to stay intact, which is good for child development.

    I agree with this.

    One caveat, though (as the liberal Hungarian redditors on /r/europe pointed out) – Hungary has a low flat income tax rate. However, its standard VAT (27%) is the highest in the world. This must be financially crippling for multiple children families. It seems it should think about reducing VAT (and spending, naturally).

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Hungary has for decades very pro-natalist labour and fiscal policies. So this will be "law of diminishing returns".

    Hungary had some of the more effective policies (like maternity leave), but these are already there. (And things like tax breaks have less good evidence for an impact).

    https://i.imgur.com/r6nLXq0.jpg

    -


    Statistically, bonus for women with 4 children won't affect the overall fertility rate, as these families are too small in number.

    Moreover, the number of such women who work or will care about tax break on their income is even less, as working and wanting a second child is already inversely correlated (so reaching 4 children, such women interested in tax breaks for their income will be very few).

    It seems that policy proposal is either intentionally not serious, or it is simply marketing.

    These are the expressed preferences:
    https://i.imgur.com/gbyoFBt.jpg

    -


    If timing of births is "moved forward" within the next few years, then politicians will receive votes for these "tempo affects" in the next election - journalists report about the total period fertility rate, not the cohort fertility rate.

    As for the general topic:

    If you believe "questionnaires" (which are only "stated not expressed preferences"), effective policies are perhaps like "increasing day care for children".

    https://i.imgur.com/0i2gxc8.jpg

    , @g2k
    It depends on what's exempt. In Britain food and childrens' clothes always were, not sure about now though.

    Anyway, this is OT, but thought ypu might appreciate:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-47265467
    , @reiner Tor
    I think most basic necessities and things like strollers etc. have a much lower VAT rate.
  116. @Anatoly Karlin
    To what extent this is actually relevant?

    Polish children born in England/Germany are not going to demographically benefit Poland, unless they are going to go back (if so, this would be incorporated in future demographic statistics anyway). Though this should be good for England and Germany since these Poles constitute high quality human capital that fits in.

    Alternatively, the EU will continue to integrate, with European countries coming to assume the characteristics of US states. But that wouldn't make such adjustments legitimate either. For instance, births to North Dakotan immigrants to Colorado (a +ve net immigration state) are still not counted in the North Dakota (a -ve net immigration state) fertility stats. And there's far, far more mobility between US states than there is between European countries.

    To what extent this is actually relevant?

    Polish children born in England/Germany are not going to demographically benefit Poland, unless they are going to go back (if so, this would be incorporated in future demographic statistics anyway).

    Correct, it just means that Poland’s official TFR figures artifically underrepresent the actual fertility of Poles, because young adults are counted but their kids, born abroad, are not.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Maybe the sensible thing for countries such as Poland to do would be not to count adults who emigrate in their official population statistics?
  117. @utu
    Napoleon was the greatest disaster for France. What did he accomplish besides emancipating Jews and spreading the gospel of emancipation all over Europe?

    Not as extreme as Hitler for Germany, but he surely was a big negative.

  118. @Dmitry

    You might as well ask for evidence that lowering shoe prices sells more shoes and not just the ‘tempo’ of buying
     
    It's well established that price, affects the quantity of products purchased by consumers.

    But there isn't strong evidence that government financial programs, like "maternity capital", have an affect on the "quantum of fertility" at the national level. The main effect seems to be in the timing of births.

    Politicians will be happy to accept credit for changes in timing of births, as if they were real changes in the eventual number, if this can give them a boost before elections - but some more honest politicians admit it doesn't have a real effect on fertility rates and they like it mainly because it reduces poverty rates (you can see having children is not a rational behaviour like buying shoes, when many in poverty are having children).


    cumulative impact is substantial (maybe from 1.5 TFR to 1.7).
     
    The annual fluctuations have a lot of noise to signal - we have to look at (or ahead of time, at least try to infer about) the eventual (cohort) fertility rate.

    I am also skeptical about talk of ‘eventual‘ this or that.

     

    The important thing is the eventual fertility rate, of the women born in each year. This is the number of children they will have during their life.The "total fertility rate" is catching a lot of noise, which can account for some of the fluctuations, from different changes in timing of births.

    But there isn’t strong evidence that government financial programs, like “maternity capital”, have an affect on the “quantum of fertility” at the national level.

    In Hungary there was a huge government program in the 1970s. This resulted in the final fertility of the generation of women who reached their fertile years around 1970 being higher than those who reached their fertile years a decade earlier. Then most of the benefits fell victim to inflation, but fertility collapsed when the “leftist” ex-communists (in coalition with left-liberals) axed most of it in the mid-1990s. Orbán reintroduced a lot after 1998 during his first term as prime minister, but here’s the issue: most people now understood the benefits could easily be cut by the next government and so fertility didn’t take off again.

    You don’t have children yourself and obviously you don’t understand that people have to plan for decades ahead of the decision to have a baby, and after the turmoil in the 1990s most people in the former Soviet Bloc expect some sort of turmoil in the next couple of decades. It’s easier to destroy fertility by financial incentives than to increase it.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Look at the cohort data for Russia. Our parents' generation were already below replacement rate.

    My parents are born in 1960s - their fertility rate was only slightly higher than people today.

    For anyone born after 1964, it has been almost been fixed. (I don't think variation of 0,06 children per women is significant).

    So all these political and economic change - from stable, to unstable, to stable again (in the 2000s). But there is almost no difference in the end for women born after 1964.

    Even the age of childbirth in this time was rising, then fell significantly, then reversed, and is now increasing. But the number of children per women is very constantly around 1,6.

  119. @Anatoly Karlin
    I agree with this.

    One caveat, though (as the liberal Hungarian redditors on /r/europe pointed out) - Hungary has a low flat income tax rate. However, its standard VAT (27%) is the highest in the world. This must be financially crippling for multiple children families. It seems it should think about reducing VAT (and spending, naturally).

    Hungary has for decades very pro-natalist labour and fiscal policies. So this will be “law of diminishing returns”.

    Hungary had some of the more effective policies (like maternity leave), but these are already there. (And things like tax breaks have less good evidence for an impact).

    Statistically, bonus for women with 4 children won’t affect the overall fertility rate, as these families are too small in number.

    Moreover, the number of such women who work or will care about tax break on their income is even less, as working and wanting a second child is already inversely correlated (so reaching 4 children, such women interested in tax breaks for their income will be very few).

    It seems that policy proposal is either intentionally not serious, or it is simply marketing.

    These are the expressed preferences:

    If timing of births is “moved forward” within the next few years, then politicians will receive votes for these “tempo affects” in the next election – journalists report about the total period fertility rate, not the cohort fertility rate.

    As for the general topic:

    If you believe “questionnaires” (which are only “stated not expressed preferences”), effective policies are perhaps like “increasing day care for children”.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    If timing of births is “moved forward”
     
    Then it will be higher, because some couples wait too long, and then either they break up or have fertility issues.

    I’ve known a couple - both wanted to have multiple children, but wanted to wait a few years, and then the marriage went south for other reasons, and they divorced. Then the woman died in a motorbike accident. (Which likely would never have happened, had she had children.) If you could convince them to move the children forward, then a woman who died childless would’ve had children.

    Some women try to conceive in their late thirties, and they are already too old. My mom wanted to have a third child when she was forty, but she couldn’t conceive. Of course they wanted to make sure they have enough money for three children on one income, and so they first paid back their mortgage.

    A friend of mine got convinced to have a third baby when the new tax breaks for children were reintroduced by Orbán in 2010. My cousin had the third child after Orbán introduced them in 1998.
  120. @AP
    Orban’s policy of allowing women who have 4 children to never pay taxes is brilliant. This is much better than giving money to women who have many children, because tax savings only applies to potential tax payers (people who work). So gypsies or others living off the system don’t benefit from such a policy.

    I would be good if this policy applies to families, because many women with 4 kids might not work as much but their husbands would. This would also encourage families to stay intact, which is good for child development.

    So gypsies or others living off the system don’t benefit from such a policy.

    They will somehow game it (or at least try to do so) for money laundering. But Orbán always wanted to give tax benefits instead of gibsmedats, and overall, yes it’s a much better approach.

  121. @reiner Tor

    But there isn’t strong evidence that government financial programs, like “maternity capital”, have an affect on the “quantum of fertility” at the national level.
     
    In Hungary there was a huge government program in the 1970s. This resulted in the final fertility of the generation of women who reached their fertile years around 1970 being higher than those who reached their fertile years a decade earlier. Then most of the benefits fell victim to inflation, but fertility collapsed when the “leftist” ex-communists (in coalition with left-liberals) axed most of it in the mid-1990s. Orbán reintroduced a lot after 1998 during his first term as prime minister, but here’s the issue: most people now understood the benefits could easily be cut by the next government and so fertility didn’t take off again.

    You don’t have children yourself and obviously you don’t understand that people have to plan for decades ahead of the decision to have a baby, and after the turmoil in the 1990s most people in the former Soviet Bloc expect some sort of turmoil in the next couple of decades. It’s easier to destroy fertility by financial incentives than to increase it.

    Look at the cohort data for Russia. Our parents’ generation were already below replacement rate.

    My parents are born in 1960s – their fertility rate was only slightly higher than people today.

    For anyone born after 1964, it has been almost been fixed. (I don’t think variation of 0,06 children per women is significant).

    So all these political and economic change – from stable, to unstable, to stable again (in the 2000s). But there is almost no difference in the end for women born after 1964.

    Even the age of childbirth in this time was rising, then fell significantly, then reversed, and is now increasing. But the number of children per women is very constantly around 1,6.

  122. @AaronB

    there was a widespread pessimism in the country.
     
    In 1891? Impossible.

    Pessimism only started after Jews undermined European civilization, after America gained cultural hegemony of the Western world.

    You are committing an alt-right heresy.

    Quite wrong you are. La Civita Cattolica published its article ‘The Jewish Question in Europe’ in 1890. This then-mainstream Catholic article argued that those who abandoned Catholic civilization (As France did during the Revolution) would inevitably come to be ruled by the Jews. La Civita Cattolica, at that time, was the perfectly orthodox magazine of the Jesuits in Rome, and its article in 1890 reflected the kind of century-long pessimism that Mr. Hyperborean mentions. ‘The Jewish Question in Europe’ was very much about conditions in France.

    EDIT: I see that Hyperborean has himself listed several articles from France to disprove your twaddle.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Was the French Revolution, 100 years before, which tried to enthrone the Goddess Reason, also caused by the Jews...who were emancipated by Napoleon, after the Revolution?

    As I am informed by the scholarly and erudite alt-right, Europe was happily Christian until the Jews began to undermine Christianity.

    So I suppose yes, the Jews did cause the anti-Christian and secularizing French Revolution, as well as the anti-Christisn rationalism of the Enlightenment, and the Scientific Revolution as well which undermined faith.

    I believe the alt-right theory is that Spinoza is responsible for all these phenomena, even the ones that pre-date him...Europe spellbound by one Jew, whose power extends to the past, imagine what millionss could do! White gentiles are powerless, simply putty in our hands.

    Why even bother fighting us? We have merely to open our mouths or pen a hasty paragraph and you rush to obey, like quivering masses of jelly.

    And it is all utterly genetic of course, the result of your peaceful altruistic natures, (Sailer has done good work showing the distinctive European phenotype, blond and blue eyed, is especially docile and naive, a truism amply burned out by the unusually pacific and docile history of the blond blue eyed Germanic and Celtic tribes, famed throughout history as passive domesticated people who never strayed far from their domestic hearths).

    Oh to be sure, a handful of you blind and blue eyed saps are on to us, but the masses of your uniquely naive brethren are genetically programmed to fall for our machinations every time.

    So do your self a favor and save yourself the time. It is enshrined in stone. HBD. It's the truth.
  123. @Jaakko Raipala
    Civil unions were just a step in the incrementalist plan of the left. They were the foot in the door meant to fool us with a inconsequential sounding plan that they could later swap with the real plan of subverting marriage. "Not being enough" was a part of the plan all along.

    This has nothing at all to do with what the homosexuals want. It's all Marxist subversion using minorities as a cloak. None of the homosexual men that I've met are in a "civil union" or a "marriage" and the number of these "marriages" is a ridiculously small part of the homosexual share of the population. Homosexuals do not want civil unions and homosexuals do not want marriages. They are not monogamous and they're not interested in even pretending that they're interested in monogamous relationships.

    If they politically support gay marriage, it's because they resent normal people with happy families that they can never have if they continue their lifestyle. The real aim, of course, is exactly the same as written in the Communist Manifesto - eliminating marriage as an institution. It's all about building a coalition of permanently resentful groups and there is no way to placate them, ever. No matter how much you give them they will always demand more because they're motivated by hatred of the majority, not by genuine desire for the things that they claim they want.

    This is good, I would only quibble with you in that the homosexual’s deepest hatred, even if but an unconscious one, is not for the majority, per se, but for the LOGOS, in which Christian civilization claimed to believe.

  124. @Dmitry
    Hungary has for decades very pro-natalist labour and fiscal policies. So this will be "law of diminishing returns".

    Hungary had some of the more effective policies (like maternity leave), but these are already there. (And things like tax breaks have less good evidence for an impact).

    https://i.imgur.com/r6nLXq0.jpg

    -


    Statistically, bonus for women with 4 children won't affect the overall fertility rate, as these families are too small in number.

    Moreover, the number of such women who work or will care about tax break on their income is even less, as working and wanting a second child is already inversely correlated (so reaching 4 children, such women interested in tax breaks for their income will be very few).

    It seems that policy proposal is either intentionally not serious, or it is simply marketing.

    These are the expressed preferences:
    https://i.imgur.com/gbyoFBt.jpg

    -


    If timing of births is "moved forward" within the next few years, then politicians will receive votes for these "tempo affects" in the next election - journalists report about the total period fertility rate, not the cohort fertility rate.

    As for the general topic:

    If you believe "questionnaires" (which are only "stated not expressed preferences"), effective policies are perhaps like "increasing day care for children".

    https://i.imgur.com/0i2gxc8.jpg

    If timing of births is “moved forward”

    Then it will be higher, because some couples wait too long, and then either they break up or have fertility issues.

    I’ve known a couple – both wanted to have multiple children, but wanted to wait a few years, and then the marriage went south for other reasons, and they divorced. Then the woman died in a motorbike accident. (Which likely would never have happened, had she had children.) If you could convince them to move the children forward, then a woman who died childless would’ve had children.

    Some women try to conceive in their late thirties, and they are already too old. My mom wanted to have a third child when she was forty, but she couldn’t conceive. Of course they wanted to make sure they have enough money for three children on one income, and so they first paid back their mortgage.

    A friend of mine got convinced to have a third baby when the new tax breaks for children were reintroduced by Orbán in 2010. My cousin had the third child after Orbán introduced them in 1998.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Women who die in motorcycle (or other) accidents, before their childbirth is brought forward, I believe will not be common enough to change the cohort fertility.

    Women who "bring forward" births because of announced financial incentives, and then would otherwise have been unknowingly infertile due to age if they hadn't brought forward their births because of the incentives? These will exist, but I doubt the number will be very significant when they counted nationally. (We'll surely see this all when the data is later calculated).

    To provide government funding for fertility treatment, egg freezing, etc, for older women, might have better results on the cohort fertility rate.

    What is true is that women generally don't decide they want a 2nd child while they are age 40-44.

    https://imgur.com/a/lOv9jOO

  125. @Intelligent Dasein
    You know he was joking, right?

    Well, if he was joking, then Hyperborean at least is not alone in misreading him. 🙂

  126. @Bardon Kaldian
    Of course reasonable measures should be undertaken to better position re these matters. But, one must have in mind:

    * no (post)modern civilization can have birth rate more than 2.1 per woman. This is irreversible.

    * no powerful modern civilization can go back to religion. Religion (male authority, family) is the only thing that can make a woman desire to have more than 1, max 2 children.

    * women will not go back to the role of housewives. But, they could want to have more children if, say, society pays them more money for half a work. Give them enough money for 3-4 hours long work day. Positive discrimination against men, but for family & nation (which is basically extended family)

    * start discriminating against parasitic fecund undesirables (Gypsies, blacks, Muslims,...). Not openly, but one could devise laws that will destroy both their parasitism & clannishness.

    * short of sci fi projections, where we're not dealing with humans anymore, better thing is to invest in health issues where you can make human life more vital, healthy, functioning,... To hell with back pain, obesity, alcoholism,..

    * give people hope. This is the most important. How, with religion mostly dead? I don't know, but it has to do something with family & nationalism.

    * promote national pride & nationalism, national culture & history, and the continuity with the past.

    * promote fear & loathing of racial & national neighbors. If necessary, instill fear of annihilation & ethnic swamping.

    * carefully study what your nation is good at, and where it is weak or below average. Be realistic & think long term. Don't think people are tabula rasa & they'll suddenly excel in an area they generally don't care about or are weak at

    * focus on media to promote "positive values", but not in a crude fashion because you'll turn out to be a joke.

    * try to inculcate sexual morality that is more conductive to noble female nature, i.e. fight a war against promiscuity & sexual licence. Try to revive elements of religion that are noble, family-oriented & productive to nuclear family & paternity. Suppress laws conductive to lower female nature, welfare dependence, cuckoldry,..

    * again, try to educate people so to give them hope & meaning of life, as much as this is possible

    * ecologically, try seriously to eliminate plastic & other lowering sperm count chemicals.

    At the end- accept that all may be somehow determined & that you need not succeed. But you have tried, at least...

    You think we can win people with nationalism in the absence of religion?

    Good luck with that.

    • Replies: @Ender
    Maybe use white nationalism as a substitute for religion?
    , @Bardon Kaldian
    No, I am just trying to be realistic about religion. I think we, whites, should try to revive our religions, but in a more restricted sense, because: a) loony universalism destroys our historical identities, b) orthodox religions are silly for modern people who will rebel against them & try to eradicate them (see early phases of Soviet regime).

    We should try to revive them, along with hope in afterlife & "deep" meaning of life & all that (sexual ethics, family, children, ...), because they are essential to our identities (Nietzsche's raving about Christianity looks, now, immature). Also, fierce religionists among Westerners are not likely to succeed, and we must be aware of this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl_8r7WG3g4
  127. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    You think we can win people with nationalism in the absence of religion?

    Good luck with that.

    Maybe use white nationalism as a substitute for religion?

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Maybe use white nationalism as a substitute for religion?
     
    White nationalism doesn't even exist. It's too vague and it means nothing to 99% of white people. And it never will.

    Outside of a few strange corners of the internet like this I've never herd a white person express the slightest interest in white nationalism.

    You need a belief system to motivate people. That means a religion or a political ideology.
  128. @reiner Tor

    If timing of births is “moved forward”
     
    Then it will be higher, because some couples wait too long, and then either they break up or have fertility issues.

    I’ve known a couple - both wanted to have multiple children, but wanted to wait a few years, and then the marriage went south for other reasons, and they divorced. Then the woman died in a motorbike accident. (Which likely would never have happened, had she had children.) If you could convince them to move the children forward, then a woman who died childless would’ve had children.

    Some women try to conceive in their late thirties, and they are already too old. My mom wanted to have a third child when she was forty, but she couldn’t conceive. Of course they wanted to make sure they have enough money for three children on one income, and so they first paid back their mortgage.

    A friend of mine got convinced to have a third baby when the new tax breaks for children were reintroduced by Orbán in 2010. My cousin had the third child after Orbán introduced them in 1998.

    Women who die in motorcycle (or other) accidents, before their childbirth is brought forward, I believe will not be common enough to change the cohort fertility.

    Women who “bring forward” births because of announced financial incentives, and then would otherwise have been unknowingly infertile due to age if they hadn’t brought forward their births because of the incentives? These will exist, but I doubt the number will be very significant when they counted nationally. (We’ll surely see this all when the data is later calculated).

    To provide government funding for fertility treatment, egg freezing, etc, for older women, might have better results on the cohort fertility rate.

    What is true is that women generally don’t decide they want a 2nd child while they are age 40-44.

    View post on imgur.com

  129. If the TFR in the United States converges with that of many European countries it will weaken a theory I’ve had, namely that high student loan debts in the US inhibit childbearing.

  130. Anatoly, I thought you might enjoy this collection of nineteenth century photographs of Russians.

    http://19thcenturyphotos.com/index.cfm?curcatID=154&nav=products

  131. @Anatoly Karlin
    I agree with this.

    One caveat, though (as the liberal Hungarian redditors on /r/europe pointed out) - Hungary has a low flat income tax rate. However, its standard VAT (27%) is the highest in the world. This must be financially crippling for multiple children families. It seems it should think about reducing VAT (and spending, naturally).

    It depends on what’s exempt. In Britain food and childrens’ clothes always were, not sure about now though.

    Anyway, this is OT, but thought ypu might appreciate:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-47265467

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  132. @Anatoly Karlin
    I agree with this.

    One caveat, though (as the liberal Hungarian redditors on /r/europe pointed out) - Hungary has a low flat income tax rate. However, its standard VAT (27%) is the highest in the world. This must be financially crippling for multiple children families. It seems it should think about reducing VAT (and spending, naturally).

    I think most basic necessities and things like strollers etc. have a much lower VAT rate.

  133. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    Quite wrong you are. La Civita Cattolica published its article 'The Jewish Question in Europe' in 1890. This then-mainstream Catholic article argued that those who abandoned Catholic civilization (As France did during the Revolution) would inevitably come to be ruled by the Jews. La Civita Cattolica, at that time, was the perfectly orthodox magazine of the Jesuits in Rome, and its article in 1890 reflected the kind of century-long pessimism that Mr. Hyperborean mentions. 'The Jewish Question in Europe' was very much about conditions in France.

    EDIT: I see that Hyperborean has himself listed several articles from France to disprove your twaddle.

    Was the French Revolution, 100 years before, which tried to enthrone the Goddess Reason, also caused by the Jews…who were emancipated by Napoleon, after the Revolution?

    As I am informed by the scholarly and erudite alt-right, Europe was happily Christian until the Jews began to undermine Christianity.

    So I suppose yes, the Jews did cause the anti-Christian and secularizing French Revolution, as well as the anti-Christisn rationalism of the Enlightenment, and the Scientific Revolution as well which undermined faith.

    I believe the alt-right theory is that Spinoza is responsible for all these phenomena, even the ones that pre-date him…Europe spellbound by one Jew, whose power extends to the past, imagine what millionss could do! White gentiles are powerless, simply putty in our hands.

    Why even bother fighting us? We have merely to open our mouths or pen a hasty paragraph and you rush to obey, like quivering masses of jelly.

    And it is all utterly genetic of course, the result of your peaceful altruistic natures, (Sailer has done good work showing the distinctive European phenotype, blond and blue eyed, is especially docile and naive, a truism amply burned out by the unusually pacific and docile history of the blond blue eyed Germanic and Celtic tribes, famed throughout history as passive domesticated people who never strayed far from their domestic hearths).

    Oh to be sure, a handful of you blind and blue eyed saps are on to us, but the masses of your uniquely naive brethren are genetically programmed to fall for our machinations every time.

    So do your self a favor and save yourself the time. It is enshrined in stone. HBD. It’s the truth.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Whites have oscillated between radical left wing ideologies and conservatism/race realism. Until the Jews started to tilt the balance permanently in favor of radical leftism.

    You also don’t seem to understand HBD much.
  134. @dfordoom

    That way, we will increase the TFR and increase intelligence at the same time.
     
    Do we really want to increase intelligence? How much intelligence does the average person actually need? If you're not going to be a neurosurgeon or a nuclear physicist how smart do you need to be?

    Pretty much all the social and cultural disasters that have led our civilisation to the brink of ruin have been the products of intelligent people.

    OK. We can try cutting off oxygen in the artificial wombs for a few minutes to get the desired IQ lowering effect.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    OK. We can try cutting off oxygen in the artificial wombs for a few minutes to get the desired IQ lowering effect.
     
    Now you're thinking constructively!
  135. @Intelligent Dasein
    This is never going to happen. It is not possible to rejigger the welfare state so as to produce traditional society outcomes, for the welfare state is itself antithetical to the traditional ordering of society, as the latter depends on private property and family honor. Atomized individuals are atomized individuals, whether you pay them to have children or not to have children.

    And pro-natalist policies do not work over time. In fact, I am not away that any pro-natalist policy has ever worked, if by "working" you mean actually reversing a civilizational collapse and bringing sub-replacement fertility above replacement again. In the waning days of the Roman Empire, every possible measure was taken to increase the number of births, culminating in the edict of Pertinax, which simply gave away land to anybody who would bring it under cultivation---all to no effect. What the all-powerful Roman emperors could not accomplish with draconian measures, the wimpy Western welfare states certainly will not accomplish with half-assed measures.

    There is one thing that might just possibly work, not in the sense that it will actually rejuvenate our crumbling society and boost birthrates above replacement, but only in the sense that it will arrest the decline long enough so that we do not suffer total demographic and fiscal calamity, and that is to get rid of the welfare state entirely and replace it by the Prussian, military-style "work-state," organized around St. Paul's simple maxim that "he who does not work, let him not eat." A state managed by Caesars with practical economic experience, wherein goldbricking, laziness, and malingering are punished with the whip and the noose, where welfare is not even an option but any worker can expect his share of daily bread, where oligarchs are crushed and financialization is but a distant memory, would at least provide for a softer landing when our society settles into the post-industrial agrarianism that is our inevitable destiny. The present course will bring us to the same destination, but only after a series of outright disasters.

    It is not possible to rejigger the welfare state

    If we can’t rejigger it, can we at least ‘de-jigger’ it?

  136. Anonymous[256] • Disclaimer says:

    The best way to boost fertility is to ensure sustained economic growth above world average rates. But of course, that would involve getting rid of the mafia in government, so that’s a no–no.

    New ‘national projects’ are a joke in a country which is one of the most corrupt in the world, more corrupt than latin america, on par with some–sub saharan african nations. This ensures the embezzlement of that money and the resulting inefficacy.
    Besides, remember what happened to the first “national projects”? Protip: they failed to achieve their KPIs, some failed disastrously. Now, surely, the second round will be different!

  137. This is another period in Soviet demographics. This story has been hijacked by Ukraine so only half gets onto the screen. Jones stopped over in Saratov en-route to Ukraine. There was starvation there too.

    https://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/sight-sound-magazine/reviews-recommendations/mr-jones-agnieszka-holland-gareth-jones-biopic-reenactment-holodomor-ukraine-famine-genocide-reporting

  138. @AP

    The rate might be what matters, though. If the Russia-Novorossiya population ratio moves from, say, 7-to-1 to 10-to-1 or even 15-to-1, then it would be easier for Russia to hold Novorossiya in the event that it will ever capture all of it.
     
    My point is that if Russia itself is emptying out (albeit more slowly) it's not going to have people to spare, to settle lands given that it even now is hardly overcrowded. And since the local population probably wouldn't engage in mass violent resistance (there would be a local IRA-type situation with Azov types) the size of its population wouldn't matter for purposes of occupation.

    My point is that if Russia itself is emptying out (albeit more slowly) it’s not going to have people to spare, to settle lands given that it even now is hardly overcrowded.

    It’s not going to be the end of the world for Russia if several million of its own people will move to Novorossiya, though. For instance, Czechia survived when 1.5 million of its population moved to the Sudetenland after the end of WWII in order to replace the expelled Germans there.

    Also, if one wants to be fair, one does not actually have to settle territory that one is occupying. For instance, the Soviet Union occupied Eastern Europe for almost half a century after the end of WWII and yet did not send large numbers of its own settlers to Eastern Europe (I am not counting the Baltic states here, since they were outright annexed to the Soviet Union whereas Eastern Europe was not).

    And since the local population probably wouldn’t engage in mass violent resistance (there would be a local IRA-type situation with Azov types) the size of its population wouldn’t matter for purposes of occupation.

    Even something like a mass strike could be destabilizing if the population is large enough, though. For instance, in a historical context, mass strikes were able to defeat the Kapp Putsch in Germany back in 1920.

    AFAIK, Novorossiya also became much more hostile to Russia after Russia’s intervention in Ukraine (as evidenced by the fall in the vote that the Opposition Bloc got there relative to the Party of Regions, et cetera). Thus, something like a mass Novorussian strike at some point in time after a Russian occupation of Novorossiya should not be completely excluded. Sure, Novorussians are unlikely to engage in violent resistance en masse (even with the massively increased anti-Russian sentiment there over the last several years), but large-scale non-violent resistance could theoretically happen–especially if Russia severely pisses off the Novorussians.

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    I don't see why you persist in calling the people that live in the southern Ukrainian territories 'Novorusians'? As far as I know, the vast majority of people that live in theses lands think of themselves as Ukrainians and their territory as Ukraine. Although the region that you have in mind was originally settled by a lot of different ethnic groups, the largest group always was comprised of Ukrainians and still is. The feeble attempt to revive this nomenclature along with trying to enlist the sympathies of the locals fizzled out quite dramatically in 2014.

    As you can see for yourself, quite a few locals in the formerly called city of Dniepropetrovsk were not satisfied with the renaming of their city to the less sovok 'Dnipro' and would prefer the more Ukrainian historic name 'Sicheslav':

    https://youtu.be/OPmxn6D2gck?t=58
  139. @AP
    Orban’s policy of allowing women who have 4 children to never pay taxes is brilliant. This is much better than giving money to women who have many children, because tax savings only applies to potential tax payers (people who work). So gypsies or others living off the system don’t benefit from such a policy.

    I would be good if this policy applies to families, because many women with 4 kids might not work as much but their husbands would. This would also encourage families to stay intact, which is good for child development.

    This would also encourage families to stay intact, which is good for child development.

    I’m actually unsure if this is actually the case. After all, it’s possible that couples who remain intact simply have better genes than couples who break up–which in turn would mean that the children of intact couples would inherit better genes than the children of couples who break up. In other words, it might not be the breaking up of couples which is harmful to children’s development, but rather the fact that couples who break up might have worse genes than couples who remain together–genes which they end up passing onto their children.

  140. @Beckow

    ...get rid of the welfare state entirely, blabla...
     
    This is your Achilles heel and the fatal error of most so called 'conservatives', libertarians, and other assorted market fanatics. Real conservatives try to preserve the societies they live in, and that means that some kind of what you call 'welfare' is required in the modern, complex societies.

    There are five things that no 'market' system has ever done well: raising children, medical care, education, housing, and retirement. The reason is very simple: markets work on negotiated transactions, the above core activities happen too infrequently and are too important to behave well in a traditional market. We see all of them failing to some extent or another in the modern societies. They have been gamed by insiders who have created quasi monopolies, there is no real 'market' in any of them. It matters because these non-market parts of the economy have grown to 70-80% of all activity. If 70-80% of the economy is non-market, what kind of a capitalist, free enterprise, market system is it?

    You are never going to get rid of 'welfare'. The goal is to streamline it and make it work for the core group in our societies: native born, working families with kids. Get rid of the freeloading administrators, migrating parasites, and the rent-seeking monopolists.

    This is your Achilles heel and the fatal error of most so called ‘conservatives’, libertarians, and other assorted market fanatics. Real conservatives try to preserve the societies they live in, and that means that some kind of what you call ‘welfare’ is required in the modern, complex societies.

    Agreed. But you’re assuming that so called ‘conservatives’, libertarians, and assorted market fanatics are sane rational people. They’re not. They’re as blinded by ideology as the most ardent Marxist. They’re also blinded by their hatred of poor people.

    You are never going to get rid of ‘welfare’. The goal is to streamline it and make it work for the core group in our societies: native born, working families with kids. Get rid of the freeloading administrators, migrating parasites, and the rent-seeking monopolists.

    That would be sensible.

  141. @Dmitry

    The other thing is the government fertility program, is now very focusing on the idea of policies of preferential mortgages for families with second and third children. This seems to be popular inside the government now, with Golikova
     
    One area they might be actually trying to go for the target - to fund "formal daycare".

    https://i.imgur.com/79q5WEC.jpg


    http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/257131468000013801/pdf/99503-WP-P143700-PUBLIC-Box393204B-Family-Policies-in-Russia-final-cover.pdf

    One area they might be actually trying to go for the target – to fund “formal daycare”.

    Daycare is one of the worst ideas in history.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Why? It’s pretty natural to share the burden of looking after children in the community.
  142. @Ender
    Maybe use white nationalism as a substitute for religion?

    Maybe use white nationalism as a substitute for religion?

    White nationalism doesn’t even exist. It’s too vague and it means nothing to 99% of white people. And it never will.

    Outside of a few strange corners of the internet like this I’ve never herd a white person express the slightest interest in white nationalism.

    You need a belief system to motivate people. That means a religion or a political ideology.

  143. @Hippopotamusdrome
    OK. We can try cutting off oxygen in the artificial wombs for a few minutes to get the desired IQ lowering effect.

    OK. We can try cutting off oxygen in the artificial wombs for a few minutes to get the desired IQ lowering effect.

    Now you’re thinking constructively!

  144. @dfordoom

    That way, we will increase the TFR and increase intelligence at the same time.
     
    Do we really want to increase intelligence? How much intelligence does the average person actually need? If you're not going to be a neurosurgeon or a nuclear physicist how smart do you need to be?

    Pretty much all the social and cultural disasters that have led our civilisation to the brink of ruin have been the products of intelligent people.

    Increasing our intelligence would significantly increase our GDP per capita, though. That’s something worth doing, IMHO.

    Also, Yes, there is a risk of craziness, but that might simply mean that we should both aim to increase intelligence and also perhaps do gene editing to reduce the risk of craziness. After all, no one wants, say, a renewal of Communism anywhere in the world.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Increasing our intelligence would significantly increase our GDP per capita, though.
     
    Would it really? How?
  145. @AP

    To what extent this is actually relevant?

    Polish children born in England/Germany are not going to demographically benefit Poland, unless they are going to go back (if so, this would be incorporated in future demographic statistics anyway).
     
    Correct, it just means that Poland's official TFR figures artifically underrepresent the actual fertility of Poles, because young adults are counted but their kids, born abroad, are not.

    Maybe the sensible thing for countries such as Poland to do would be not to count adults who emigrate in their official population statistics?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    It’s complicated. They still have an official address, and it’s difficult to distinguish between someone who just left for a few months or years and a permanent emigrant.
  146. @Mr. XYZ

    My point is that if Russia itself is emptying out (albeit more slowly) it’s not going to have people to spare, to settle lands given that it even now is hardly overcrowded.
     
    It's not going to be the end of the world for Russia if several million of its own people will move to Novorossiya, though. For instance, Czechia survived when 1.5 million of its population moved to the Sudetenland after the end of WWII in order to replace the expelled Germans there.

    Also, if one wants to be fair, one does not actually have to settle territory that one is occupying. For instance, the Soviet Union occupied Eastern Europe for almost half a century after the end of WWII and yet did not send large numbers of its own settlers to Eastern Europe (I am not counting the Baltic states here, since they were outright annexed to the Soviet Union whereas Eastern Europe was not).

    And since the local population probably wouldn’t engage in mass violent resistance (there would be a local IRA-type situation with Azov types) the size of its population wouldn’t matter for purposes of occupation.
     
    Even something like a mass strike could be destabilizing if the population is large enough, though. For instance, in a historical context, mass strikes were able to defeat the Kapp Putsch in Germany back in 1920.

    AFAIK, Novorossiya also became much more hostile to Russia after Russia's intervention in Ukraine (as evidenced by the fall in the vote that the Opposition Bloc got there relative to the Party of Regions, et cetera). Thus, something like a mass Novorussian strike at some point in time after a Russian occupation of Novorossiya should not be completely excluded. Sure, Novorussians are unlikely to engage in violent resistance en masse (even with the massively increased anti-Russian sentiment there over the last several years), but large-scale non-violent resistance could theoretically happen--especially if Russia severely pisses off the Novorussians.

    I don’t see why you persist in calling the people that live in the southern Ukrainian territories ‘Novorusians’? As far as I know, the vast majority of people that live in theses lands think of themselves as Ukrainians and their territory as Ukraine. Although the region that you have in mind was originally settled by a lot of different ethnic groups, the largest group always was comprised of Ukrainians and still is. The feeble attempt to revive this nomenclature along with trying to enlist the sympathies of the locals fizzled out quite dramatically in 2014.

    As you can see for yourself, quite a few locals in the formerly called city of Dniepropetrovsk were not satisfied with the renaming of their city to the less sovok ‘Dnipro’ and would prefer the more Ukrainian historic name ‘Sicheslav’:

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Novorossiya is a good shorthand for the area which might conceivably be annexed or coveted by Russia in the future. Your interlocutor already mentioned that its population didn’t like Russia since 2014.

    The name Sicheslav is pretty lame. The city was not called that until the 20th century. It’s just that the Ukrainians are insecure and so don’t want to use its original name. Which was Yekaterinoslav.
    , @Mr. XYZ
    I certainly didn't dispute that they were Ukrainians, now did I? However, when I am talking about a specific region, I apply the relevant term for the people of this region. For instance, the people of Wallachia are Romanians, but more specifically, they are also Wallachians. Likewise, the people of Texas are White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, et cetera, but they are also Texans.

    If Ukrainian nationalists such as yourself dislike the term Novorossiya, you are more than welcome to come up with a new, better term to describe the region which compromises southern and eastern Ukraine. Perhaps "the former Wild Fields" would have a less pro-Russian bias?
  147. @dfordoom

    One area they might be actually trying to go for the target – to fund “formal daycare”.
     
    Daycare is one of the worst ideas in history.

    Why? It’s pretty natural to share the burden of looking after children in the community.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Why? It’s pretty natural to share the burden of looking after children in the community.
     
    Informal arrangements between mothers and various relatives are a very good idea.

    Government-subsidised daycare is a way of encouraging women to stay in the workforce instead of raising their children. It's a Brave New World kind of idea that we accept because when an evil has been around long enough it gets taken for granted.

    Children should be raised by their mothers, with assistance from the fathers and from female relatives. I believe in the old-fashioned type of daycare - we used to call them families.
  148. @Mr. XYZ
    Maybe the sensible thing for countries such as Poland to do would be not to count adults who emigrate in their official population statistics?

    It’s complicated. They still have an official address, and it’s difficult to distinguish between someone who just left for a few months or years and a permanent emigrant.

  149. Whats the African situation in Russia?

    • Replies: @melanf

    Whats the African situation in Russia?
     
    In Russia there are no Africans (or rather they exist but in homeopathic doses).
  150. @Mr. Hack
    I don't see why you persist in calling the people that live in the southern Ukrainian territories 'Novorusians'? As far as I know, the vast majority of people that live in theses lands think of themselves as Ukrainians and their territory as Ukraine. Although the region that you have in mind was originally settled by a lot of different ethnic groups, the largest group always was comprised of Ukrainians and still is. The feeble attempt to revive this nomenclature along with trying to enlist the sympathies of the locals fizzled out quite dramatically in 2014.

    As you can see for yourself, quite a few locals in the formerly called city of Dniepropetrovsk were not satisfied with the renaming of their city to the less sovok 'Dnipro' and would prefer the more Ukrainian historic name 'Sicheslav':

    https://youtu.be/OPmxn6D2gck?t=58

    Novorossiya is a good shorthand for the area which might conceivably be annexed or coveted by Russia in the future. Your interlocutor already mentioned that its population didn’t like Russia since 2014.

    The name Sicheslav is pretty lame. The city was not called that until the 20th century. It’s just that the Ukrainians are insecure and so don’t want to use its original name. Which was Yekaterinoslav.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Robjil
    The US annexed Ukraine in 2014. US ukraine votes the same as the US for almost every vote at the UN. It is not allowed any independent international policies. The US deep state rules US ukraine with an iron fist. US ukraine should de-annex itself from the US and become an independent nation again. Crimea and Donetsk/Lugansk did not want to be part of a US deep state dictatorship.
  151. @Tony
    Whats the African situation in Russia?

    Whats the African situation in Russia?

    In Russia there are no Africans (or rather they exist but in homeopathic doses).

    • Replies: @Tony
    Lucky them.
  152. @AaronB
    Was the French Revolution, 100 years before, which tried to enthrone the Goddess Reason, also caused by the Jews...who were emancipated by Napoleon, after the Revolution?

    As I am informed by the scholarly and erudite alt-right, Europe was happily Christian until the Jews began to undermine Christianity.

    So I suppose yes, the Jews did cause the anti-Christian and secularizing French Revolution, as well as the anti-Christisn rationalism of the Enlightenment, and the Scientific Revolution as well which undermined faith.

    I believe the alt-right theory is that Spinoza is responsible for all these phenomena, even the ones that pre-date him...Europe spellbound by one Jew, whose power extends to the past, imagine what millionss could do! White gentiles are powerless, simply putty in our hands.

    Why even bother fighting us? We have merely to open our mouths or pen a hasty paragraph and you rush to obey, like quivering masses of jelly.

    And it is all utterly genetic of course, the result of your peaceful altruistic natures, (Sailer has done good work showing the distinctive European phenotype, blond and blue eyed, is especially docile and naive, a truism amply burned out by the unusually pacific and docile history of the blond blue eyed Germanic and Celtic tribes, famed throughout history as passive domesticated people who never strayed far from their domestic hearths).

    Oh to be sure, a handful of you blind and blue eyed saps are on to us, but the masses of your uniquely naive brethren are genetically programmed to fall for our machinations every time.

    So do your self a favor and save yourself the time. It is enshrined in stone. HBD. It's the truth.

    Whites have oscillated between radical left wing ideologies and conservatism/race realism. Until the Jews started to tilt the balance permanently in favor of radical leftism.

    You also don’t seem to understand HBD much.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Well this is progress. You now admit whites weren't merely passive putty in the hands of hypnotically irresistible Jews but actually played an active role in the demise of their traditional culture.

    This is progress.

    And I admit Jews played a significant role in accelerating existing trends in European culture, especially beginning in the late 19th century.

    But your idea that the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the ideals of the French Revolution might merely have been a "phase" without Jews is wishful thinking.

    They are the core of modern white, gentile, European culture.

    You also don’t seem to understand HBD much.
     
    Standard boilerplate response when someone points out the actual silly implications of a-historical HBD.
  153. @Mr. Hack
    I don't see why you persist in calling the people that live in the southern Ukrainian territories 'Novorusians'? As far as I know, the vast majority of people that live in theses lands think of themselves as Ukrainians and their territory as Ukraine. Although the region that you have in mind was originally settled by a lot of different ethnic groups, the largest group always was comprised of Ukrainians and still is. The feeble attempt to revive this nomenclature along with trying to enlist the sympathies of the locals fizzled out quite dramatically in 2014.

    As you can see for yourself, quite a few locals in the formerly called city of Dniepropetrovsk were not satisfied with the renaming of their city to the less sovok 'Dnipro' and would prefer the more Ukrainian historic name 'Sicheslav':

    https://youtu.be/OPmxn6D2gck?t=58

    I certainly didn’t dispute that they were Ukrainians, now did I? However, when I am talking about a specific region, I apply the relevant term for the people of this region. For instance, the people of Wallachia are Romanians, but more specifically, they are also Wallachians. Likewise, the people of Texas are White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, et cetera, but they are also Texans.

    If Ukrainian nationalists such as yourself dislike the term Novorossiya, you are more than welcome to come up with a new, better term to describe the region which compromises southern and eastern Ukraine. Perhaps “the former Wild Fields” would have a less pro-Russian bias?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    the former Wild Fields
     
    It’s long and cumbersome. I don’t like it when peoples start fighting about names, and then force me to choose. They just want to make it impossible for outsiders to stay neutral.
    , @Mr. Hack
    Well, the Ukrainians of the area have come up with a name that more closely mirrors their anti-imperial sentiments, that also reflects the Ukrainian cossack character of the area,'Sicheslav'. There were 4-5 historic Cossack encampments in this area, belying its Ukrainian character. The name Ekaterinoslav is too demeaning for these proud citizens and would only serve to remind these people of their unfortunate past position of servitude. Many cossacks from this are were carted off to the swamps around St. Petersberg in chains to be used as slave labor to clear the area for the new imperial project - nothing but bad memories for these Ukrainians.
    , @Mr. Hack

    For instance, the people of Wallachia are Romanians, but more specifically, they are also Wallachians. Likewise, the people of Texas are White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, et cetera, but they are also Texans.
     
    The difference between the examples that you site and the one where the Southern portion of Ukraine is referred to as 'NovoRosisya' is that the Ukrainian inhabitants of this area do not wish for it to be called 'NovoRossiya' and its usage is found to be an affront, whereas say the Romanians living in Wallachia do not. Also, it's an anachronistic term that has long been discarded and deserves to stay in the dustbin of history. Those living in the area soundly rejected the name and what it stands for in 2014.
  154. @Mr. XYZ
    I certainly didn't dispute that they were Ukrainians, now did I? However, when I am talking about a specific region, I apply the relevant term for the people of this region. For instance, the people of Wallachia are Romanians, but more specifically, they are also Wallachians. Likewise, the people of Texas are White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, et cetera, but they are also Texans.

    If Ukrainian nationalists such as yourself dislike the term Novorossiya, you are more than welcome to come up with a new, better term to describe the region which compromises southern and eastern Ukraine. Perhaps "the former Wild Fields" would have a less pro-Russian bias?

    the former Wild Fields

    It’s long and cumbersome. I don’t like it when peoples start fighting about names, and then force me to choose. They just want to make it impossible for outsiders to stay neutral.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    What about Novoukraina?
  155. @reiner Tor

    the former Wild Fields
     
    It’s long and cumbersome. I don’t like it when peoples start fighting about names, and then force me to choose. They just want to make it impossible for outsiders to stay neutral.

    What about Novoukraina?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Still the issue about forcing me to choose sides.
  156. @Mr. XYZ
    What about Novoukraina?

    Still the issue about forcing me to choose sides.

  157. @reiner Tor
    Whites have oscillated between radical left wing ideologies and conservatism/race realism. Until the Jews started to tilt the balance permanently in favor of radical leftism.

    You also don’t seem to understand HBD much.

    Well this is progress. You now admit whites weren’t merely passive putty in the hands of hypnotically irresistible Jews but actually played an active role in the demise of their traditional culture.

    This is progress.

    And I admit Jews played a significant role in accelerating existing trends in European culture, especially beginning in the late 19th century.

    But your idea that the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the ideals of the French Revolution might merely have been a “phase” without Jews is wishful thinking.

    They are the core of modern white, gentile, European culture.

    You also don’t seem to understand HBD much.

    Standard boilerplate response when someone points out the actual silly implications of a-historical HBD.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    The funny thing is you probably think I am attempting to "defend" Jews. I could care less about that.

    My desire is to restore a sense of agency and personal responsibility to whites. As every good psychologist knows, a sense of personal agency and responsibility is essential to healthy self-esteem. White cultural recovery is predicated on shedding this passive fatalism and taking responsibility once again.

    (Cue utu making some sarcastic comment about how dare I be so megalomaniacal.)
    , @reiner Tor

    But your idea that the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the ideals of the French Revolution might merely have been a “phase” without Jews
     
    This is not my idea, I never expressed it. I never even considered the Scientific Revolution to be a problem. Or, it might be a problem, but I don't think it's possible to discard it.

    Anyway, it's obvious that after Napolean Europe was politically conservative for decades, and the same is true after 1848. Europe right now is actively suicidal, which is quite different from occasionally engaging in self-destructive behavior. There is a world of difference between a heavy drinker and smoker and someone who is cutting his own wrist.

    If Europe took those humanist Enlightenment values seriously, however distorted they are, they would be engaging in a crusade against Muslims worldwide, and they would take away children from Muslim or black immigrants who don't live up to nice white upper middle class parenting standards. In fact, Enlightenment values (LGBTQWERTY rights, the environment, etc.) are discarded whenever they would be beneficial to white Europeans, i.e. whenever they could be used to limit mass immigration.

    There is nothing in European history up to 1945 to suggest that Europe was moving in a permanently left-wing direction. Nor was "left-wing" as actively self-destructive as it is now.


    Standard boilerplate response when someone points out the actual silly implications of a-historical HBD.
     
    Well, that's what you wrote:

    It is enshrined in stone. HBD. It’s the truth.
     
    This is idiotic, of course. For example it could be true that one MMA fighter is genetically stronger than the other, but that's just one factor, and it doesn't mean that the thus advantaged fighter's victory is "enshrined in stone." It's a straw man argument.
  158. @AaronB
    Well this is progress. You now admit whites weren't merely passive putty in the hands of hypnotically irresistible Jews but actually played an active role in the demise of their traditional culture.

    This is progress.

    And I admit Jews played a significant role in accelerating existing trends in European culture, especially beginning in the late 19th century.

    But your idea that the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the ideals of the French Revolution might merely have been a "phase" without Jews is wishful thinking.

    They are the core of modern white, gentile, European culture.

    You also don’t seem to understand HBD much.
     
    Standard boilerplate response when someone points out the actual silly implications of a-historical HBD.

    The funny thing is you probably think I am attempting to “defend” Jews. I could care less about that.

    My desire is to restore a sense of agency and personal responsibility to whites. As every good psychologist knows, a sense of personal agency and responsibility is essential to healthy self-esteem. White cultural recovery is predicated on shedding this passive fatalism and taking responsibility once again.

    (Cue utu making some sarcastic comment about how dare I be so megalomaniacal.)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Maybe you should stop arguing with a strawman in your head if you want to change someone's mind.
    , @Beckow

    ...My desire is to restore a sense of agency and personal responsibility to whites.
     
    I think most of us would like for people of all kinds to be more engaged, more responsible. The question for European native white population - as they embrace their sense of agency - is how do some specific external factors influence the well-being and destiny of Europe.

    We can list a number of sustained negative influences: mutual fighting, Ottoman colonialism and invasion that destroyed south-eastern Europe, uncontrolled migrations by very different cultures, the elite betrayal. There are many others, e.g. what looks like an attempt by the gradually declining American outpost of the European civilization to export its fatal flaws to Europe in order to prolong its current dominance. And there is the influence of Jewish elites, especially after WWII. We can argue how dominant it is and how harmful it is, but there are two things that are hardly in dispute:

    - Generic Jewish interest is in suppressing (even demonizing) any national power centers in Europe. This is natural for any group whose well-being is based on mediating finance, trade, culture, power among different states. National states and any kind of localism are the obvious enemy.
    - The over-representation among the elite groups in media, culture, finance, politics.

    If you are in favor of restoring agency among native, Christian Europeans the above factors will have to be addressed. You cannot have a small elite group aggressively advocating self-serving policies without an eventual backlash. So your support for restoring European agency is appreciated, but you also need to think through the consequences. One cannot have one without the other.

  159. @AaronB
    The funny thing is you probably think I am attempting to "defend" Jews. I could care less about that.

    My desire is to restore a sense of agency and personal responsibility to whites. As every good psychologist knows, a sense of personal agency and responsibility is essential to healthy self-esteem. White cultural recovery is predicated on shedding this passive fatalism and taking responsibility once again.

    (Cue utu making some sarcastic comment about how dare I be so megalomaniacal.)

    Maybe you should stop arguing with a strawman in your head if you want to change someone’s mind.

  160. @Dmitry

    I pointed out to you that using the term ‘eventual’ is meaningless, it is a weasel term, same as ‘strong evidence’. What matters is what happens now, to us, and what we can observe.
     
    The eventual rate, is what will predict natural population replacement. Sure, it's epistemically inaccessible until some years later, and this is the problem for our discussion - but we can still posit it as the real (ontological) thing we should be trying to predict (signal, not noise).

    So the problem is our current situation, the information is incomplete and we have to guess for more recent cohorts from partial amount of their fertile years have been crossed.

    https://i.imgur.com/KlHarzp.jpg


    If we look above at the data for the 1965-69 birth cohort - this is the last one where the data is almost complete by 2011. (only 0.01 will be added). So for women born 1965-69, we knew the eventual fertility of them by 2011.

    And then for the women born after 1969, the future births have to be predicted.

    But for women born since 1970, with the partial data of 2011, they were predicted there as very stable at 1,58-1,59.

    If this prediction becomes true, then cohort fertility rate is was totally stable across the 1990s-2000s - as not changed by difference between 1990s and 2000s (even though political and economic conditions were very different - much better in the 2000s).

    I don’t disagree with your specific analysis, but I still think that pro-natality policies (in European societies) are worth trying. It is not all about the long-term increase in fertility, although that would help. There are many other benefits: it alleviates poverty (as you pointed out), it promotes fairness among generations, it helps some of the most deserving members of the society. It also sends a strong message that we are here to stay.

    All policies – all ideas – are implemented in specific time and place, and drawing analogies has limits. E.g. the overriding cultural and economic changes a generation ago were maybe stronger than any pro-natality incentives. Today, with more space, more opportunities, more experience, they might work better. The biggest mental block we have are the constant false analogies. We have too much data and too many reference points – and we often don’t see the obvious.

    The alternative to pro-natality policies is to effectively give up and watch a slow collapse of Europe and its civilization. Orban is right, and as far as I am concerned if he wants to build another white elephant football stadium in his native village, more power to him. We need to separate what is important and what is just noise…

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    It's "worth trying" because it will reduce poverty rates, as they said in Gaidar Forum last month. This will be helpful for political stability.

    The problem is politicians are poor sources of information - and in this area they pretend they are responsible for the sun rising up, and hope people listening to them do not investigate for 5 minutes the topic by themselves.

    In Russia, eventual fertility rate of reproductive women has really not changed much for 30 years.

    Whereas if you listened to discourse and television, you would think it is all the time changing wildly. What changes wildly is noise, not signal. The reality (the eventual fertility rate) almost does not change.

    (Because I did not invest 5 minutes to investigate - I was mislead by the noise, and didn't realize women born in the 1955-1959, were already so below replacement)

    The most optimistic demographers, who are cited by the government experts, think that maternity capital could potentially 0.15 increase to fertility rates. This is disputed by others, who think that there is no difference of probability of second child before and after maternity capital.

    Also, eventual fertility has been almost not oscillating for the last 30 years.

    Maybe mothers born in the 1970s, will have up to 0,1 lower fertility rates than the 1980s generation will eventually have? Although personally , I would probably bet eventual rates for women born in the 1980s, might be closer to 1,6 (closer to the far right column) - so without statistically important differences from 1970s born women.

    https://i.imgur.com/Fraod4F.jpg


    The weird thing, is the consistency of human behaviour. Countries can collapse, and economies boom and bust - yet the behaviour has been almost not varying for women born in the last few generations.

    , @dfordoom

    I don’t disagree with your specific analysis, but I still think that pro-natality policies (in European societies) are worth trying.
     
    Financial incentives are worth trying because they're the only measure that is politically feasible in the short term.
  161. @reiner Tor
    Novorossiya is a good shorthand for the area which might conceivably be annexed or coveted by Russia in the future. Your interlocutor already mentioned that its population didn’t like Russia since 2014.

    The name Sicheslav is pretty lame. The city was not called that until the 20th century. It’s just that the Ukrainians are insecure and so don’t want to use its original name. Which was Yekaterinoslav.

    The US annexed Ukraine in 2014. US ukraine votes the same as the US for almost every vote at the UN. It is not allowed any independent international policies. The US deep state rules US ukraine with an iron fist. US ukraine should de-annex itself from the US and become an independent nation again. Crimea and Donetsk/Lugansk did not want to be part of a US deep state dictatorship.

  162. @Mr. XYZ
    I certainly didn't dispute that they were Ukrainians, now did I? However, when I am talking about a specific region, I apply the relevant term for the people of this region. For instance, the people of Wallachia are Romanians, but more specifically, they are also Wallachians. Likewise, the people of Texas are White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, et cetera, but they are also Texans.

    If Ukrainian nationalists such as yourself dislike the term Novorossiya, you are more than welcome to come up with a new, better term to describe the region which compromises southern and eastern Ukraine. Perhaps "the former Wild Fields" would have a less pro-Russian bias?

    Well, the Ukrainians of the area have come up with a name that more closely mirrors their anti-imperial sentiments, that also reflects the Ukrainian cossack character of the area,’Sicheslav’. There were 4-5 historic Cossack encampments in this area, belying its Ukrainian character. The name Ekaterinoslav is too demeaning for these proud citizens and would only serve to remind these people of their unfortunate past position of servitude. Many cossacks from this are were carted off to the swamps around St. Petersberg in chains to be used as slave labor to clear the area for the new imperial project – nothing but bad memories for these Ukrainians.

    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    The name Ekaterinoslav is too demeaning for these proud citizens and would only serve to remind these people of their unfortunate past position of servitude. Many cossacks from this are were carted off to the swamps around St. Petersberg in chains to be used as slave labor to clear the area for the new imperial project – nothing but bad memories for these Ukrainians.
     
    Lame.

    There are a lot of Iberian places with Arab-derived or Arabic-distorted names, yet Spanish and Portuguese Catholics and Nationalists never bothered to make a fuss about it.

    They even kept "Mosque" before "Cathedral" in the Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba, despite the fact that Saracens are even today forbidden to pray in the Cathedral by the Spanish clerical authorities and the Vatican.

    https://iberianature.com/spain_culture/2009/03/14/arabic-placenames-in-spain/
  163. @Mr. XYZ
    I certainly didn't dispute that they were Ukrainians, now did I? However, when I am talking about a specific region, I apply the relevant term for the people of this region. For instance, the people of Wallachia are Romanians, but more specifically, they are also Wallachians. Likewise, the people of Texas are White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, et cetera, but they are also Texans.

    If Ukrainian nationalists such as yourself dislike the term Novorossiya, you are more than welcome to come up with a new, better term to describe the region which compromises southern and eastern Ukraine. Perhaps "the former Wild Fields" would have a less pro-Russian bias?

    For instance, the people of Wallachia are Romanians, but more specifically, they are also Wallachians. Likewise, the people of Texas are White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, et cetera, but they are also Texans.

    The difference between the examples that you site and the one where the Southern portion of Ukraine is referred to as ‘NovoRosisya’ is that the Ukrainian inhabitants of this area do not wish for it to be called ‘NovoRossiya’ and its usage is found to be an affront, whereas say the Romanians living in Wallachia do not. Also, it’s an anachronistic term that has long been discarded and deserves to stay in the dustbin of history. Those living in the area soundly rejected the name and what it stands for in 2014.

  164. @AaronB
    The funny thing is you probably think I am attempting to "defend" Jews. I could care less about that.

    My desire is to restore a sense of agency and personal responsibility to whites. As every good psychologist knows, a sense of personal agency and responsibility is essential to healthy self-esteem. White cultural recovery is predicated on shedding this passive fatalism and taking responsibility once again.

    (Cue utu making some sarcastic comment about how dare I be so megalomaniacal.)

    …My desire is to restore a sense of agency and personal responsibility to whites.

    I think most of us would like for people of all kinds to be more engaged, more responsible. The question for European native white population – as they embrace their sense of agency – is how do some specific external factors influence the well-being and destiny of Europe.

    We can list a number of sustained negative influences: mutual fighting, Ottoman colonialism and invasion that destroyed south-eastern Europe, uncontrolled migrations by very different cultures, the elite betrayal. There are many others, e.g. what looks like an attempt by the gradually declining American outpost of the European civilization to export its fatal flaws to Europe in order to prolong its current dominance. And there is the influence of Jewish elites, especially after WWII. We can argue how dominant it is and how harmful it is, but there are two things that are hardly in dispute:

    – Generic Jewish interest is in suppressing (even demonizing) any national power centers in Europe. This is natural for any group whose well-being is based on mediating finance, trade, culture, power among different states. National states and any kind of localism are the obvious enemy.
    – The over-representation among the elite groups in media, culture, finance, politics.

    If you are in favor of restoring agency among native, Christian Europeans the above factors will have to be addressed. You cannot have a small elite group aggressively advocating self-serving policies without an eventual backlash. So your support for restoring European agency is appreciated, but you also need to think through the consequences. One cannot have one without the other.

    • Replies: @AaronB

    Generic Jewish interest is in suppressing (even demonizing) any national power centers in Europe. This is natural for any group whose well-being is based on mediating finance, trade, culture, power among different states. National states and any kind of localism are the obvious enemy.
    – The over-representation among the elite groups in media, culture, finance, politics
     
    I agree with this. The question is, why are Jews so dominant despite having so many fewer highly intelligent people than whites?

    1) they are more motivated than whites 2) they practice ethnic nepotism

    And the reason they are more motivated and stick together is because Jews have not bought into Enlightenment culture, which is a white gentile product.

    Jews don't believe in the Goddes Reason. Whites, on some level, do.

    And the Goddess Reason destroys the emotional bases of motivation and creates atomized individuals who can't band together.

    So can whites address Jewish dominance without addressing their own culture? In my opinion, no. And if white culture changes, the Jewish question will naturally solve itself.

    And of course, Jews are only one factor. White elites themselves have bought into a bad philosophy, and without their cooperation, Jews would be pretty powerless.

    So on every level, the problem is cultural, philosophical, almost religious.
    , @AaronB

    Generic Jewish interest is in suppressing (even demonizing) any national power centers in Europe. This is natural for any group whose well-being is based on mediating finance, trade, culture, power among different states. National states and any kind of localism are the obvious enemy.
    – The over-representation among the elite groups in media, culture, finance, politics
     
    I agree with this. The question is, why are Jews so dominant despite having so many fewer highly intelligent people than whites?

    1) they are more motivated than whites 2) they practice ethnic nepotism

    And the reason they are more motivated and stick together is because Jews have not bought into Enlightenment culture, which is a white gentile product.

    Jews don't believe in the Goddes Reason. Whites, on some level, do.

    And the Goddess Reason destroys the emotional bases of motivation and creates atomized individuals who can't band together.

    So can whites address Jewish dominance without addressing their own culture? In my opinion, no. And if white culture changes, the Jewish question will naturally solve itself.

    And of course, Jews are only one factor. White elites themselves have bought into a bad philosophy, and without their cooperation, Jews would be pretty powerless.

    So on every level, the problem is cultural, philosophical, almost religious.
  165. @Mr. Hack
    Well, the Ukrainians of the area have come up with a name that more closely mirrors their anti-imperial sentiments, that also reflects the Ukrainian cossack character of the area,'Sicheslav'. There were 4-5 historic Cossack encampments in this area, belying its Ukrainian character. The name Ekaterinoslav is too demeaning for these proud citizens and would only serve to remind these people of their unfortunate past position of servitude. Many cossacks from this are were carted off to the swamps around St. Petersberg in chains to be used as slave labor to clear the area for the new imperial project - nothing but bad memories for these Ukrainians.

    The name Ekaterinoslav is too demeaning for these proud citizens and would only serve to remind these people of their unfortunate past position of servitude. Many cossacks from this are were carted off to the swamps around St. Petersberg in chains to be used as slave labor to clear the area for the new imperial project – nothing but bad memories for these Ukrainians.

    Lame.

    There are a lot of Iberian places with Arab-derived or Arabic-distorted names, yet Spanish and Portuguese Catholics and Nationalists never bothered to make a fuss about it.

    They even kept “Mosque” before “Cathedral” in the Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba, despite the fact that Saracens are even today forbidden to pray in the Cathedral by the Spanish clerical authorities and the Vatican.

    https://iberianature.com/spain_culture/2009/03/14/arabic-placenames-in-spain/

    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    There are a lot of Iberian places with Arab-derived or Arabic-distorted names, yet Spanish and Portuguese Catholics and Nationalists never bothered to make a fuss about it.
     
    I don't see how the fact that these Catholics never made a fuss over changing the Arabic place names has any bearing whatsoever over what goes on in Southern Ukraine? Besides, the nomenclature of 'NovoRossija' was discarded in 1917 by the Ukrainian National Republic, and I don't see any public outcry by the local inhabitants to change the name back to this outdated legacy of Russian imperialism in the Ukrainian steppe?
  166. @Hyperborean

    The name Ekaterinoslav is too demeaning for these proud citizens and would only serve to remind these people of their unfortunate past position of servitude. Many cossacks from this are were carted off to the swamps around St. Petersberg in chains to be used as slave labor to clear the area for the new imperial project – nothing but bad memories for these Ukrainians.
     
    Lame.

    There are a lot of Iberian places with Arab-derived or Arabic-distorted names, yet Spanish and Portuguese Catholics and Nationalists never bothered to make a fuss about it.

    They even kept "Mosque" before "Cathedral" in the Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba, despite the fact that Saracens are even today forbidden to pray in the Cathedral by the Spanish clerical authorities and the Vatican.

    https://iberianature.com/spain_culture/2009/03/14/arabic-placenames-in-spain/

    There are a lot of Iberian places with Arab-derived or Arabic-distorted names, yet Spanish and Portuguese Catholics and Nationalists never bothered to make a fuss about it.

    I don’t see how the fact that these Catholics never made a fuss over changing the Arabic place names has any bearing whatsoever over what goes on in Southern Ukraine? Besides, the nomenclature of ‘NovoRossija’ was discarded in 1917 by the Ukrainian National Republic, and I don’t see any public outcry by the local inhabitants to change the name back to this outdated legacy of Russian imperialism in the Ukrainian steppe?

    • Replies: @Robjil
    Ukraine is an outdated legacy too. Ukraine means borderlands. It is the borderlands of Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Russia - all countries that it got bits of land from.
  167. @Annatar
    It will be interesting to see how Russia's fertility evolves going forward, just taking Rosstat projections, if one assumes net migration stays at 150k p.a. and LE rises to 78 by 2030 then the difference between having a TFR of 1.57 between 2018-30 vs 1.75 would be between the population declining by 1.9 million vs growing by 100k, a difference of 2 million.

    Regarding the global fertility decline, it looks like last year for the first time Norway's fertility rate dropped below 1.6, taking the data for the first nine months and extrapolating it, Norway had a TFR of 1.56 last year. Sweden also had its fertility rate drop to 1.75 last year. So much for the high fertility of Scandinavia.

    Something of note perhaps, Canada is about to set a record for being the first Anglo colony settled by the British to have less then 50% of its births be from Europeans. TFR fell to 1.49 in 2017 in Canada, For White Canadians, TFR is down to 1.4, the way things are going, the White Canadian share of total births will fall below 50% in the next few years. There were around 390k births a year on average in the late 1980's and early 1990's of which 85% were white, so 330k white births a year, 25-35 years later those 330k sized generation is having around 220k children due to a TFR of 1.4, accounting for around 60% of Canada's 380k births every year.

    By the late 1990's, early 2000's total births in Canada averaged around 340k of which at most 80% were to European Canadians, or 270k a year, this generation when it starts having kids in the mid 2020's will produce around 180k children a year, less then 50% of current births, the overall number of births should remain stable as migration will be sufficient to offset the effect of declining cohorts. It is truly remarkable that Canada which for its entire history was far less diverse then America will in a few years basically be equal to it in terms of the composition of births next decade, perhaps the most rapid demographic transformation of any society in recent history.

    While I agree about the massive demographic transition overall, I don’t believe that White Canadian births are at 50%. On the 2016 Census results it showed that 69% of people aged 0-4 were white.

    I’m telling you – most immigrants have few children – and the 2nd or 3rd generation nonwhites have almost none. They were too busy acting like Drake.

    Canada is browning at a shocking rate, on account of immigration only. Nonwhites here are blinded by materialism and black culture and do not reproduce.

  168. @Mr. Hack

    There are a lot of Iberian places with Arab-derived or Arabic-distorted names, yet Spanish and Portuguese Catholics and Nationalists never bothered to make a fuss about it.
     
    I don't see how the fact that these Catholics never made a fuss over changing the Arabic place names has any bearing whatsoever over what goes on in Southern Ukraine? Besides, the nomenclature of 'NovoRossija' was discarded in 1917 by the Ukrainian National Republic, and I don't see any public outcry by the local inhabitants to change the name back to this outdated legacy of Russian imperialism in the Ukrainian steppe?

    Ukraine is an outdated legacy too. Ukraine means borderlands. It is the borderlands of Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Russia – all countries that it got bits of land from.

  169. @Beckow
    I don't disagree with your specific analysis, but I still think that pro-natality policies (in European societies) are worth trying. It is not all about the long-term increase in fertility, although that would help. There are many other benefits: it alleviates poverty (as you pointed out), it promotes fairness among generations, it helps some of the most deserving members of the society. It also sends a strong message that we are here to stay.

    All policies - all ideas - are implemented in specific time and place, and drawing analogies has limits. E.g. the overriding cultural and economic changes a generation ago were maybe stronger than any pro-natality incentives. Today, with more space, more opportunities, more experience, they might work better. The biggest mental block we have are the constant false analogies. We have too much data and too many reference points - and we often don't see the obvious.

    The alternative to pro-natality policies is to effectively give up and watch a slow collapse of Europe and its civilization. Orban is right, and as far as I am concerned if he wants to build another white elephant football stadium in his native village, more power to him. We need to separate what is important and what is just noise...

    It’s “worth trying” because it will reduce poverty rates, as they said in Gaidar Forum last month. This will be helpful for political stability.

    The problem is politicians are poor sources of information – and in this area they pretend they are responsible for the sun rising up, and hope people listening to them do not investigate for 5 minutes the topic by themselves.

    In Russia, eventual fertility rate of reproductive women has really not changed much for 30 years.

    Whereas if you listened to discourse and television, you would think it is all the time changing wildly. What changes wildly is noise, not signal. The reality (the eventual fertility rate) almost does not change.

    (Because I did not invest 5 minutes to investigate – I was mislead by the noise, and didn’t realize women born in the 1955-1959, were already so below replacement)

    The most optimistic demographers, who are cited by the government experts, think that maternity capital could potentially 0.15 increase to fertility rates. This is disputed by others, who think that there is no difference of probability of second child before and after maternity capital.

    Also, eventual fertility has been almost not oscillating for the last 30 years.

    Maybe mothers born in the 1970s, will have up to 0,1 lower fertility rates than the 1980s generation will eventually have? Although personally , I would probably bet eventual rates for women born in the 1980s, might be closer to 1,6 (closer to the far right column) – so without statistically important differences from 1970s born women.

    The weird thing, is the consistency of human behaviour. Countries can collapse, and economies boom and bust – yet the behaviour has been almost not varying for women born in the last few generations.

  170. @Dmitry

    You might as well ask for evidence that lowering shoe prices sells more shoes and not just the ‘tempo’ of buying
     
    It's well established that price, affects the quantity of products purchased by consumers.

    But there isn't strong evidence that government financial programs, like "maternity capital", have an affect on the "quantum of fertility" at the national level. The main effect seems to be in the timing of births.

    Politicians will be happy to accept credit for changes in timing of births, as if they were real changes in the eventual number, if this can give them a boost before elections - but some more honest politicians admit it doesn't have a real effect on fertility rates and they like it mainly because it reduces poverty rates (you can see having children is not a rational behaviour like buying shoes, when many in poverty are having children).


    cumulative impact is substantial (maybe from 1.5 TFR to 1.7).
     
    The annual fluctuations have a lot of noise to signal - we have to look at (or ahead of time, at least try to infer about) the eventual (cohort) fertility rate.

    I am also skeptical about talk of ‘eventual‘ this or that.

     

    The important thing is the eventual fertility rate, of the women born in each year. This is the number of children they will have during their life.The "total fertility rate" is catching a lot of noise, which can account for some of the fluctuations, from different changes in timing of births.

    A baby born a few years earlier will reach reproductive and marriage age a few years earlier as well.

    Even if the baby’s mother has the “same” TFR as before, and the baby has no higher a TFR than that, the total population of the desired people will be at least slightly higher in 30 or 40 years than it would have been otherwise.

    The increase of each European woman’s TFR to at least 2.2 is by far the most important, we will agree there, but even merely moving forward the same number of births, is progress and is worth doing.

    • Replies: @Aly
    I agree with this. This is correct. Of course time of birth is very important. Current TFR is what's important, more than eventual fertility of specific cohort.
  171. @melanf

    Whats the African situation in Russia?
     
    In Russia there are no Africans (or rather they exist but in homeopathic doses).

    Lucky them.

  172. @Sid973
    Indian food causes one to be pudgy and hence less able to bang? India has a TFR of 2.3 while presumably eating Indian food.

    He’s just a pissed off idiot. I would like to add that women are supposed to be “pudgy” and fat (while at the same time having a small body size). Only MEN are supposed to be low bodyfat. Low bodyfat women are disgusting and unhealthy.

  173. @Mr. XYZ
    Increasing our intelligence would significantly increase our GDP per capita, though. That's something worth doing, IMHO.

    Also, Yes, there is a risk of craziness, but that might simply mean that we should both aim to increase intelligence and also perhaps do gene editing to reduce the risk of craziness. After all, no one wants, say, a renewal of Communism anywhere in the world.

    Increasing our intelligence would significantly increase our GDP per capita, though.

    Would it really? How?

  174. @reiner Tor
    Why? It’s pretty natural to share the burden of looking after children in the community.

    Why? It’s pretty natural to share the burden of looking after children in the community.

    Informal arrangements between mothers and various relatives are a very good idea.

    Government-subsidised daycare is a way of encouraging women to stay in the workforce instead of raising their children. It’s a Brave New World kind of idea that we accept because when an evil has been around long enough it gets taken for granted.

    Children should be raised by their mothers, with assistance from the fathers and from female relatives. I believe in the old-fashioned type of daycare – we used to call them families.

  175. @Beckow
    I don't disagree with your specific analysis, but I still think that pro-natality policies (in European societies) are worth trying. It is not all about the long-term increase in fertility, although that would help. There are many other benefits: it alleviates poverty (as you pointed out), it promotes fairness among generations, it helps some of the most deserving members of the society. It also sends a strong message that we are here to stay.

    All policies - all ideas - are implemented in specific time and place, and drawing analogies has limits. E.g. the overriding cultural and economic changes a generation ago were maybe stronger than any pro-natality incentives. Today, with more space, more opportunities, more experience, they might work better. The biggest mental block we have are the constant false analogies. We have too much data and too many reference points - and we often don't see the obvious.

    The alternative to pro-natality policies is to effectively give up and watch a slow collapse of Europe and its civilization. Orban is right, and as far as I am concerned if he wants to build another white elephant football stadium in his native village, more power to him. We need to separate what is important and what is just noise...

    I don’t disagree with your specific analysis, but I still think that pro-natality policies (in European societies) are worth trying.

    Financial incentives are worth trying because they’re the only measure that is politically feasible in the short term.

  176. @Beckow

    ...My desire is to restore a sense of agency and personal responsibility to whites.
     
    I think most of us would like for people of all kinds to be more engaged, more responsible. The question for European native white population - as they embrace their sense of agency - is how do some specific external factors influence the well-being and destiny of Europe.

    We can list a number of sustained negative influences: mutual fighting, Ottoman colonialism and invasion that destroyed south-eastern Europe, uncontrolled migrations by very different cultures, the elite betrayal. There are many others, e.g. what looks like an attempt by the gradually declining American outpost of the European civilization to export its fatal flaws to Europe in order to prolong its current dominance. And there is the influence of Jewish elites, especially after WWII. We can argue how dominant it is and how harmful it is, but there are two things that are hardly in dispute:

    - Generic Jewish interest is in suppressing (even demonizing) any national power centers in Europe. This is natural for any group whose well-being is based on mediating finance, trade, culture, power among different states. National states and any kind of localism are the obvious enemy.
    - The over-representation among the elite groups in media, culture, finance, politics.

    If you are in favor of restoring agency among native, Christian Europeans the above factors will have to be addressed. You cannot have a small elite group aggressively advocating self-serving policies without an eventual backlash. So your support for restoring European agency is appreciated, but you also need to think through the consequences. One cannot have one without the other.

    Generic Jewish interest is in suppressing (even demonizing) any national power centers in Europe. This is natural for any group whose well-being is based on mediating finance, trade, culture, power among different states. National states and any kind of localism are the obvious enemy.
    – The over-representation among the elite groups in media, culture, finance, politics

    I agree with this. The question is, why are Jews so dominant despite having so many fewer highly intelligent people than whites?

    1) they are more motivated than whites 2) they practice ethnic nepotism

    And the reason they are more motivated and stick together is because Jews have not bought into Enlightenment culture, which is a white gentile product.

    Jews don’t believe in the Goddes Reason. Whites, on some level, do.

    And the Goddess Reason destroys the emotional bases of motivation and creates atomized individuals who can’t band together.

    So can whites address Jewish dominance without addressing their own culture? In my opinion, no. And if white culture changes, the Jewish question will naturally solve itself.

    And of course, Jews are only one factor. White elites themselves have bought into a bad philosophy, and without their cooperation, Jews would be pretty powerless.

    So on every level, the problem is cultural, philosophical, almost religious.

  177. @Beckow

    ...My desire is to restore a sense of agency and personal responsibility to whites.
     
    I think most of us would like for people of all kinds to be more engaged, more responsible. The question for European native white population - as they embrace their sense of agency - is how do some specific external factors influence the well-being and destiny of Europe.

    We can list a number of sustained negative influences: mutual fighting, Ottoman colonialism and invasion that destroyed south-eastern Europe, uncontrolled migrations by very different cultures, the elite betrayal. There are many others, e.g. what looks like an attempt by the gradually declining American outpost of the European civilization to export its fatal flaws to Europe in order to prolong its current dominance. And there is the influence of Jewish elites, especially after WWII. We can argue how dominant it is and how harmful it is, but there are two things that are hardly in dispute:

    - Generic Jewish interest is in suppressing (even demonizing) any national power centers in Europe. This is natural for any group whose well-being is based on mediating finance, trade, culture, power among different states. National states and any kind of localism are the obvious enemy.
    - The over-representation among the elite groups in media, culture, finance, politics.

    If you are in favor of restoring agency among native, Christian Europeans the above factors will have to be addressed. You cannot have a small elite group aggressively advocating self-serving policies without an eventual backlash. So your support for restoring European agency is appreciated, but you also need to think through the consequences. One cannot have one without the other.

    Generic Jewish interest is in suppressing (even demonizing) any national power centers in Europe. This is natural for any group whose well-being is based on mediating finance, trade, culture, power among different states. National states and any kind of localism are the obvious enemy.
    – The over-representation among the elite groups in media, culture, finance, politics

    I agree with this. The question is, why are Jews so dominant despite having so many fewer highly intelligent people than whites?

    1) they are more motivated than whites 2) they practice ethnic nepotism

    And the reason they are more motivated and stick together is because Jews have not bought into Enlightenment culture, which is a white gentile product.

    Jews don’t believe in the Goddes Reason. Whites, on some level, do.

    And the Goddess Reason destroys the emotional bases of motivation and creates atomized individuals who can’t band together.

    So can whites address Jewish dominance without addressing their own culture? In my opinion, no. And if white culture changes, the Jewish question will naturally solve itself.

    And of course, Jews are only one factor. White elites themselves have bought into a bad philosophy, and without their cooperation, Jews would be pretty powerless.

    So on every level, the problem is cultural, philosophical, almost religious.

    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...1) they are more motivated than whites 2) they practice ethnic nepotism
     
    There is some 1), but it varies and other groups have it too (sometimes). It is mostly 2), especially once a critical mass is reached within some institution or areas. There is a verse in the Bible: 'many are able, but only a few are called upon'. Who gets called on is not random, it is always driven by proximity and blood ties, in other words by tribalism.

    I agree with you that the European civilization has bought into a dysfunctional philosophy, the enlightenment in a naive way posited 'individualism' and 'rational objectivity' as ultimate values - both are desirable under ideal circumstances. But the human environment is never ideal. Over time a number of less naive groups have simply taken over most of the elite roles. Jews have been by far the most visible due to their high in-group trust and nepotism. But for a while inbred Anglos and other former elites also did quite well. Lately new groups have eagerly been taking advantage of their own nepotistic networks, from Asia, Middle East, etc...this is a downward spiral for the unconnected native Europeans.

    We have a saying 'alone you are nothing, not to be alone is very hard'. Most natives unable to take advantage of their numerical dominance, it is actually a negative. They either act as auxiliary allies of the entrenched nepotistic groups, or they act in minuscule family alliances (it ends with the usual brother-in-law), or they have given up.

    Any open system in nature is by definition open to abuse, open to attack by external parasites - that's is simply an evolutionary rule. The thriving nepotistic groups have gone overboard in the last few decades by also massively dominating all the allowed public narratives, they have caught the hubris disease. When the % of producers in Hollywood is over 90% Jewish, the product is mostly lame 'virtue' preaching and self-referential sacharine nonsense, and the market is starting to reject it - it is time to think about where this is going.

    White elites have become dysfunctional (see the likes of Macron). They have no families, no sense of identity, they are basically throw-away opportunists with no thought of future, culture, or who their compatriots are. They repeat like mantra the same moronic slogans about 'values', equality, etc...But my point is that the groups that have moved in on the thriving European civilization and took advantage of its self-imposed openness and weakness, also have some responsibility.
  178. @AaronB

    Generic Jewish interest is in suppressing (even demonizing) any national power centers in Europe. This is natural for any group whose well-being is based on mediating finance, trade, culture, power among different states. National states and any kind of localism are the obvious enemy.
    – The over-representation among the elite groups in media, culture, finance, politics
     
    I agree with this. The question is, why are Jews so dominant despite having so many fewer highly intelligent people than whites?

    1) they are more motivated than whites 2) they practice ethnic nepotism

    And the reason they are more motivated and stick together is because Jews have not bought into Enlightenment culture, which is a white gentile product.

    Jews don't believe in the Goddes Reason. Whites, on some level, do.

    And the Goddess Reason destroys the emotional bases of motivation and creates atomized individuals who can't band together.

    So can whites address Jewish dominance without addressing their own culture? In my opinion, no. And if white culture changes, the Jewish question will naturally solve itself.

    And of course, Jews are only one factor. White elites themselves have bought into a bad philosophy, and without their cooperation, Jews would be pretty powerless.

    So on every level, the problem is cultural, philosophical, almost religious.

    …1) they are more motivated than whites 2) they practice ethnic nepotism

    There is some 1), but it varies and other groups have it too (sometimes). It is mostly 2), especially once a critical mass is reached within some institution or areas. There is a verse in the Bible: ‘many are able, but only a few are called upon‘. Who gets called on is not random, it is always driven by proximity and blood ties, in other words by tribalism.

    I agree with you that the European civilization has bought into a dysfunctional philosophy, the enlightenment in a naive way posited ‘individualism‘ and ‘rational objectivity‘ as ultimate values – both are desirable under ideal circumstances. But the human environment is never ideal. Over time a number of less naive groups have simply taken over most of the elite roles. Jews have been by far the most visible due to their high in-group trust and nepotism. But for a while inbred Anglos and other former elites also did quite well. Lately new groups have eagerly been taking advantage of their own nepotistic networks, from Asia, Middle East, etc…this is a downward spiral for the unconnected native Europeans.

    We have a saying ‘alone you are nothing, not to be alone is very hard‘. Most natives unable to take advantage of their numerical dominance, it is actually a negative. They either act as auxiliary allies of the entrenched nepotistic groups, or they act in minuscule family alliances (it ends with the usual brother-in-law), or they have given up.

    Any open system in nature is by definition open to abuse, open to attack by external parasites – that’s is simply an evolutionary rule. The thriving nepotistic groups have gone overboard in the last few decades by also massively dominating all the allowed public narratives, they have caught the hubris disease. When the % of producers in Hollywood is over 90% Jewish, the product is mostly lame ‘virtue’ preaching and self-referential sacharine nonsense, and the market is starting to reject it – it is time to think about where this is going.

    White elites have become dysfunctional (see the likes of Macron). They have no families, no sense of identity, they are basically throw-away opportunists with no thought of future, culture, or who their compatriots are. They repeat like mantra the same moronic slogans about ‘values’, equality, etc…But my point is that the groups that have moved in on the thriving European civilization and took advantage of its self-imposed openness and weakness, also have some responsibility.

    • Agree: jbwilson24
    • Replies: @AaronB
    I mostly agree with your comment, except that I think there really is an enormous motivation differential between Jews and whites.

    I don't believe you can pick ethnic nepotism as a tactic. That kind of thing goes very deep into ones world view. And it goes along with a whole value sysrem. If you practice ethnic nepotism, you will get a bunch of other things with it. Or at least, you can't get it alone.

    There are "value bundles" that go together - high motivation, ethnic nepotism, and optimism are a bundle. Notice they are all emotion based. They are part of what the Greeks called the thymotic part of man. Not the intellect. Notice all the highly motivated groups like Asians and Jews are also ethnically cohesive.

    The Western value bundle would be - individualism, rationalism, low motivation, disconnected from emotion, fatalism.

    Individualism, for instance, cannot be separated from rationalism. It only makes sense rationally but is emotionally against human nature. Individualism is a triumph of reason.

    Notice the main difference is that healthy groups have not adopted rationality as their only standard. They remain motivated by entirely irrational factors. And they use reason as a tool.

    As for Jews being a contributing factor, I agree with that. But the main factors are the changes in European culture that created modernity.

    It doesn't make sense to focus on a contributing factor but leave the main factor unaddressed. Moreover, under the regime of Enlightenment rationalism you will never convince people to blame the Jews. The first thing the Enlightenment did almost was emancipate the Jews. According to the Enlightenment, people are abstract entities that are interchangeable and operate rationally.
  179. @Beckow

    ...1) they are more motivated than whites 2) they practice ethnic nepotism
     
    There is some 1), but it varies and other groups have it too (sometimes). It is mostly 2), especially once a critical mass is reached within some institution or areas. There is a verse in the Bible: 'many are able, but only a few are called upon'. Who gets called on is not random, it is always driven by proximity and blood ties, in other words by tribalism.

    I agree with you that the European civilization has bought into a dysfunctional philosophy, the enlightenment in a naive way posited 'individualism' and 'rational objectivity' as ultimate values - both are desirable under ideal circumstances. But the human environment is never ideal. Over time a number of less naive groups have simply taken over most of the elite roles. Jews have been by far the most visible due to their high in-group trust and nepotism. But for a while inbred Anglos and other former elites also did quite well. Lately new groups have eagerly been taking advantage of their own nepotistic networks, from Asia, Middle East, etc...this is a downward spiral for the unconnected native Europeans.

    We have a saying 'alone you are nothing, not to be alone is very hard'. Most natives unable to take advantage of their numerical dominance, it is actually a negative. They either act as auxiliary allies of the entrenched nepotistic groups, or they act in minuscule family alliances (it ends with the usual brother-in-law), or they have given up.

    Any open system in nature is by definition open to abuse, open to attack by external parasites - that's is simply an evolutionary rule. The thriving nepotistic groups have gone overboard in the last few decades by also massively dominating all the allowed public narratives, they have caught the hubris disease. When the % of producers in Hollywood is over 90% Jewish, the product is mostly lame 'virtue' preaching and self-referential sacharine nonsense, and the market is starting to reject it - it is time to think about where this is going.

    White elites have become dysfunctional (see the likes of Macron). They have no families, no sense of identity, they are basically throw-away opportunists with no thought of future, culture, or who their compatriots are. They repeat like mantra the same moronic slogans about 'values', equality, etc...But my point is that the groups that have moved in on the thriving European civilization and took advantage of its self-imposed openness and weakness, also have some responsibility.

    I mostly agree with your comment, except that I think there really is an enormous motivation differential between Jews and whites.

    I don’t believe you can pick ethnic nepotism as a tactic. That kind of thing goes very deep into ones world view. And it goes along with a whole value sysrem. If you practice ethnic nepotism, you will get a bunch of other things with it. Or at least, you can’t get it alone.

    There are “value bundles” that go together – high motivation, ethnic nepotism, and optimism are a bundle. Notice they are all emotion based. They are part of what the Greeks called the thymotic part of man. Not the intellect. Notice all the highly motivated groups like Asians and Jews are also ethnically cohesive.

    The Western value bundle would be – individualism, rationalism, low motivation, disconnected from emotion, fatalism.

    Individualism, for instance, cannot be separated from rationalism. It only makes sense rationally but is emotionally against human nature. Individualism is a triumph of reason.

    Notice the main difference is that healthy groups have not adopted rationality as their only standard. They remain motivated by entirely irrational factors. And they use reason as a tool.

    As for Jews being a contributing factor, I agree with that. But the main factors are the changes in European culture that created modernity.

    It doesn’t make sense to focus on a contributing factor but leave the main factor unaddressed. Moreover, under the regime of Enlightenment rationalism you will never convince people to blame the Jews. The first thing the Enlightenment did almost was emancipate the Jews. According to the Enlightenment, people are abstract entities that are interchangeable and operate rationally.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    This is not about blame. Most groups we are comparing have more variance within the group, than variance with other groups. So blaming groups - and not individuals - is not very rational (see how I fall in that trap).

    You are correct about the devastating impact that rationalism - and its accompanying individualism - has had on the European society.

    ...healthy groups have not adopted rationality as their only standard. They remain motivated by entirely irrational factors. And they use reason as a tool.
     
    That is very true and I have not thought of it before (see, every day I learn there something new). I am motivated by an irrational desire to preserve what I consider the best civilization that has ever existed. Unfortunately I can see how the very things that have made that civilization so great are also among the current reasons for its slow downfall.

    Regarding ethnic nepotism: the only way to evaluate any phenomenon is by its results. For example, the current globalist liberalism has everything on its side - the academic theory, almost all elites, culture, etc... - and yet the fact that globalism doesn't work is the only thing that really matters. Similarly whether the Jewish minorities success in taking over very large percentage of elite slots in the West is caused by nepotistic tactics, optimism, irrational attachment to their tribe, or luck, doesn't really matter - it is the indisputable result that will drive the social dynamics. The extreme case of the Hollywood producers (90%+) cannot be explained by skills. And there are many similar other examples. If it is not nepotistic self-promotion, what else could it possibly be?

    If other groups also take apart Western societies via ethnic nepotism, there will eventually be a backlash. There are still over 500 million native white Christian Europeans left - as they are forced to the margins and demonised, something will give. Our discussions about Enlightenment and its discontents won't make much difference.
    , @m___
    Very well exposed. To put it along other lines: White values: conceptual-ism, the individual. Resulting in progress minus derivatives. The one step ahead in the long term.

    The two steps backwards. Ethnic centricities and their culprits, most other ethnic groups at large, collectivism based on relative arguments (who rules (on a pile of shit or a civil marvel being no issue), practicality, the short term.

    The biggest excesses of White civilization: elitism inside the larger collective, turning into elites of own stock selling out. The lack of individual exceptionals, their strength, as compared to the collective stress of other groups. Quality versus numbers.

    To carry this one step ahead, for what it may be worth, turning breeding into a White man's tool, religion solutioning what rational thinking cannot solve, a dead end. Nature is on the White rational individual's side.

    From the hip, late as always.
  180. @AaronB
    I mostly agree with your comment, except that I think there really is an enormous motivation differential between Jews and whites.

    I don't believe you can pick ethnic nepotism as a tactic. That kind of thing goes very deep into ones world view. And it goes along with a whole value sysrem. If you practice ethnic nepotism, you will get a bunch of other things with it. Or at least, you can't get it alone.

    There are "value bundles" that go together - high motivation, ethnic nepotism, and optimism are a bundle. Notice they are all emotion based. They are part of what the Greeks called the thymotic part of man. Not the intellect. Notice all the highly motivated groups like Asians and Jews are also ethnically cohesive.

    The Western value bundle would be - individualism, rationalism, low motivation, disconnected from emotion, fatalism.

    Individualism, for instance, cannot be separated from rationalism. It only makes sense rationally but is emotionally against human nature. Individualism is a triumph of reason.

    Notice the main difference is that healthy groups have not adopted rationality as their only standard. They remain motivated by entirely irrational factors. And they use reason as a tool.

    As for Jews being a contributing factor, I agree with that. But the main factors are the changes in European culture that created modernity.

    It doesn't make sense to focus on a contributing factor but leave the main factor unaddressed. Moreover, under the regime of Enlightenment rationalism you will never convince people to blame the Jews. The first thing the Enlightenment did almost was emancipate the Jews. According to the Enlightenment, people are abstract entities that are interchangeable and operate rationally.

    This is not about blame. Most groups we are comparing have more variance within the group, than variance with other groups. So blaming groups – and not individuals – is not very rational (see how I fall in that trap).

    You are correct about the devastating impact that rationalism – and its accompanying individualism – has had on the European society.

    …healthy groups have not adopted rationality as their only standard. They remain motivated by entirely irrational factors. And they use reason as a tool.

    That is very true and I have not thought of it before (see, every day I learn there something new). I am motivated by an irrational desire to preserve what I consider the best civilization that has ever existed. Unfortunately I can see how the very things that have made that civilization so great are also among the current reasons for its slow downfall.

    Regarding ethnic nepotism: the only way to evaluate any phenomenon is by its results. For example, the current globalist liberalism has everything on its side – the academic theory, almost all elites, culture, etc… – and yet the fact that globalism doesn’t work is the only thing that really matters. Similarly whether the Jewish minorities success in taking over very large percentage of elite slots in the West is caused by nepotistic tactics, optimism, irrational attachment to their tribe, or luck, doesn’t really matter – it is the indisputable result that will drive the social dynamics. The extreme case of the Hollywood producers (90%+) cannot be explained by skills. And there are many similar other examples. If it is not nepotistic self-promotion, what else could it possibly be?

    If other groups also take apart Western societies via ethnic nepotism, there will eventually be a backlash. There are still over 500 million native white Christian Europeans left – as they are forced to the margins and demonised, something will give. Our discussions about Enlightenment and its discontents won’t make much difference.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    Good comment. I generally agree with it (sorry was travelling the past few days so couldn't answer).

    Yes, if whites get seriously attacked, theory will be thrown out the window and survival will become the main concern. It won't matter why things got to such a bad state.

    But that may be far in the future, or may never happen. Despite all the attacks on whites and all the self limiting beliefs, whites remain a high ability group who are immensely successful even if mediocre compared to their ancestors.

    Things may continue to just muddle along, or get slightly worse.

    But it may take a catastrophe to restore a sense of responsibility and agency to today's demoralized whites.
  181. @AaronB
    Well this is progress. You now admit whites weren't merely passive putty in the hands of hypnotically irresistible Jews but actually played an active role in the demise of their traditional culture.

    This is progress.

    And I admit Jews played a significant role in accelerating existing trends in European culture, especially beginning in the late 19th century.

    But your idea that the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the ideals of the French Revolution might merely have been a "phase" without Jews is wishful thinking.

    They are the core of modern white, gentile, European culture.

    You also don’t seem to understand HBD much.
     
    Standard boilerplate response when someone points out the actual silly implications of a-historical HBD.

    But your idea that the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the ideals of the French Revolution might merely have been a “phase” without Jews

    This is not my idea, I never expressed it. I never even considered the Scientific Revolution to be a problem. Or, it might be a problem, but I don’t think it’s possible to discard it.

    Anyway, it’s obvious that after Napolean Europe was politically conservative for decades, and the same is true after 1848. Europe right now is actively suicidal, which is quite different from occasionally engaging in self-destructive behavior. There is a world of difference between a heavy drinker and smoker and someone who is cutting his own wrist.

    If Europe took those humanist Enlightenment values seriously, however distorted they are, they would be engaging in a crusade against Muslims worldwide, and they would take away children from Muslim or black immigrants who don’t live up to nice white upper middle class parenting standards. In fact, Enlightenment values (LGBTQWERTY rights, the environment, etc.) are discarded whenever they would be beneficial to white Europeans, i.e. whenever they could be used to limit mass immigration.

    There is nothing in European history up to 1945 to suggest that Europe was moving in a permanently left-wing direction. Nor was “left-wing” as actively self-destructive as it is now.

    Standard boilerplate response when someone points out the actual silly implications of a-historical HBD.

    Well, that’s what you wrote:

    It is enshrined in stone. HBD. It’s the truth.

    This is idiotic, of course. For example it could be true that one MMA fighter is genetically stronger than the other, but that’s just one factor, and it doesn’t mean that the thus advantaged fighter’s victory is “enshrined in stone.” It’s a straw man argument.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    I think this is a mistaken and ignorant view of European history.

    But the real point is, seeing oneself as a victim is not healthy. You are acting like blacks who blame whites.

    Yes, a contributing cause to black problems was racism, but the main factor was their own culture of refusing to take responsibility for themselves.

    Yes, a contributing cause to white decline was Jewish aggression, but the main cause was the way whites were developing their culture.

    Psychologically, being a victim is no good. Its not a place you want to be.

    But it's up to you Reiner tor. If you want to be a victim go ahead. I'm just saying a political program that focuses on victimhood is not going to be the engine through which the West recovers.

    And a system which focuses on limitations rather than possibilities, which us what HBD does, is again not going to restore Western cultures ability to accomplish great things again and compete with cultures that focus more on possibility.
  182. @RadicalCenter
    A baby born a few years earlier will reach reproductive and marriage age a few years earlier as well.

    Even if the baby’s mother has the “same” TFR as before, and the baby has no higher a TFR than that, the total population of the desired people will be at least slightly higher in 30 or 40 years than it would have been otherwise.

    The increase of each European woman’s TFR to at least 2.2 is by far the most important, we will agree there, but even merely moving forward the same number of births, is progress and is worth doing.

    I agree with this. This is correct. Of course time of birth is very important. Current TFR is what’s important, more than eventual fertility of specific cohort.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    It's not and this is known by the literature on stable population theory.

    The purpose and design of "total fertility rate" is to try to predict what is eventual fertility rate. It's useful to the extent it can predict this. And eventual cohort fertility rate is the relevant measure for us to look at in sub-replacement situations.

    (If you want to see how many children are born in a year, then the relevant measure is the births per thousand in any year.)

    Fertility rate, is useful to see the extent to which the population is replaced, expanded, or declined, between generations - it only makes sense as a construct of stable population theory.

    Question is it useful to have the generations spaced more closely together, or further away?

    If age of birth is rising in replacement cohort fertility, then present population will fall, as the population is being stretched into the future. It results that fewer people are alive in any moment, although each person will be replaced and once the new birth age is established - the population will then be stable.

    In sub-replacement fertility, stable population theory proved, that the eventual population will be larger if the space between generations is larger (if age of birth is older), than if the space between generations is smaller.

    In this case, tempo effects forestall population decline in the sense that the ‘reverse compound interestʼ rate of below replacement fertility will be lower.

    Think about it in terms of dependency ratio to make it simple to visualise.

    If the cycle of generations is happening faster at below replacement rate, then population will later age at a comparatively faster rate - once those born in below replacement cohorts pass median age of the population - than if those same generations were cycled more slowly.

    In Russia, the eventual fertility rate for women born since the 1960s, is very consistent and only varies by 0,17. But the birthrate, varies quite a lot - partly due to historical imbalances, and also collective changes in birth timing.

    Counterintuitively, at this subreplacement rate, tempo effect (postpone of birth to an older age), will result in a significantly larger total population size in the future ceteris paribus. So if tempo postponement effects begin at least from the mid-1990s (and especially are repeated by future generations), this will eventually result in larger total population size compared to control situation without tempo effects.
  183. @Aly
    I agree with this. This is correct. Of course time of birth is very important. Current TFR is what's important, more than eventual fertility of specific cohort.

    It’s not and this is known by the literature on stable population theory.

    The purpose and design of “total fertility rate” is to try to predict what is eventual fertility rate. It’s useful to the extent it can predict this. And eventual cohort fertility rate is the relevant measure for us to look at in sub-replacement situations.

    (If you want to see how many children are born in a year, then the relevant measure is the births per thousand in any year.)

    Fertility rate, is useful to see the extent to which the population is replaced, expanded, or declined, between generations – it only makes sense as a construct of stable population theory.

    Question is it useful to have the generations spaced more closely together, or further away?

    If age of birth is rising in replacement cohort fertility, then present population will fall, as the population is being stretched into the future. It results that fewer people are alive in any moment, although each person will be replaced and once the new birth age is established – the population will then be stable.

    In sub-replacement fertility, stable population theory proved, that the eventual population will be larger if the space between generations is larger (if age of birth is older), than if the space between generations is smaller.

    In this case, tempo effects forestall population decline in the sense that the ‘reverse compound interestʼ rate of below replacement fertility will be lower.

    Think about it in terms of dependency ratio to make it simple to visualise.

    If the cycle of generations is happening faster at below replacement rate, then population will later age at a comparatively faster rate – once those born in below replacement cohorts pass median age of the population – than if those same generations were cycled more slowly.

    In Russia, the eventual fertility rate for women born since the 1960s, is very consistent and only varies by 0,17. But the birthrate, varies quite a lot – partly due to historical imbalances, and also collective changes in birth timing.

    Counterintuitively, at this subreplacement rate, tempo effect (postpone of birth to an older age), will result in a significantly larger total population size in the future ceteris paribus. So if tempo postponement effects begin at least from the mid-1990s (and especially are repeated by future generations), this will eventually result in larger total population size compared to control situation without tempo effects.

  184. As long as they can keep the Poz out Russia will be fine.

  185. @Dmitry

    The way you view the data is impacted by your bias: you don’t seem to want pro-natalist policies (in some countries, among some groups), so you say that they ‘don’t work’. They do.
     
    I support the policies because it clearly (and this is what the politicians were opening admitting now), reduces the poverty rate. It seems like a way to not fuck up psychologically part of the next generation by reducing poverty rates in which the next generation is growing up.

    But I have not read any strong evidence it will change the eventual fertility rate.


    government pro-natality policies worked very well and it has been fully documented (Czecho-Slovakia 1970-1990), that’s what you asked for.
     
    Feel free to post the study from Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. But for example, in USSR, I read clearly the slightly boost of the 1980s was strongly related just to changes in timing.

    If you have children earlier because of incentives, it is very likely that you will have more – and the incentives (Orban) are very specific about encouraging 3rd, 4th, etc… children more.
     
    Because it sounds in your mind (and not just yours, but also many voters) like it "will be effective". But largescale fertility behaviour is not following financial incentives like this.

    The maternity capital in Russia, is probably much more significant financially (relative to lower incomes) program in history. It is the second largest social commitment after pensions.

    It is only paid after the 2nd children. But it does not seem to increase "second birth risk".

    Demographers and statisticians, do not think it makes a significant different .

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259551657_The_Apparent_Failure_of_Russia's_Pronatalist_Family_Policies


    There was one supportive study by Biryukova, but it only showed larger families are more likely to have another child.


    . They claimed that the chances that parents
    with two children had a 3rd or a subsequent child were larger than the probability of 1st time parents
    having a 2nd child in the 2007-2011 interval. This however does not prove a positive effect on the
    fertility rate. It only points out that larger families were more prone to increase the family size than
    smaller families. The authors’ conclusion about the positive effect of the 2007 policy is therefore
    faulty. In addition, their finding is inconclusive because the authors do not take timing into account. It
    might be just that women are having their next child more quickly than in the pre-reform period.
     
    Others found there was no impact of maternity capital on probability of having a second child.

    I support the policies because it clearly (and this is what the politicians were opening admitting now), reduces the poverty rate. It seems like a way to not fuck up psychologically part of the next generation by reducing poverty rates in which the next generation is growing up.

    But I have not read any strong evidence it will change the eventual fertility rate.

    Low birth rate, I think is because of two obvious issues – in the 90’s ( i.e children of which now are at or are approaching the age of being parents) the fewest amount of people were born, plus abortions – many possibly badly done left a higher than normal level of women unable to give birth to children – leading to even less children.

    I also genuinely believe people are less mature at an earlier age of adulthood/different job dynamic, compared to previous generations… and they get married and want children later on in their life – in this respect Russian mentality and lifestyle is in life with the west at the moment

    Ii do expect the birth rate to shoot up massively compared to western countries though in the medium-term.

  186. @Beckow
    This is not about blame. Most groups we are comparing have more variance within the group, than variance with other groups. So blaming groups - and not individuals - is not very rational (see how I fall in that trap).

    You are correct about the devastating impact that rationalism - and its accompanying individualism - has had on the European society.

    ...healthy groups have not adopted rationality as their only standard. They remain motivated by entirely irrational factors. And they use reason as a tool.
     
    That is very true and I have not thought of it before (see, every day I learn there something new). I am motivated by an irrational desire to preserve what I consider the best civilization that has ever existed. Unfortunately I can see how the very things that have made that civilization so great are also among the current reasons for its slow downfall.

    Regarding ethnic nepotism: the only way to evaluate any phenomenon is by its results. For example, the current globalist liberalism has everything on its side - the academic theory, almost all elites, culture, etc... - and yet the fact that globalism doesn't work is the only thing that really matters. Similarly whether the Jewish minorities success in taking over very large percentage of elite slots in the West is caused by nepotistic tactics, optimism, irrational attachment to their tribe, or luck, doesn't really matter - it is the indisputable result that will drive the social dynamics. The extreme case of the Hollywood producers (90%+) cannot be explained by skills. And there are many similar other examples. If it is not nepotistic self-promotion, what else could it possibly be?

    If other groups also take apart Western societies via ethnic nepotism, there will eventually be a backlash. There are still over 500 million native white Christian Europeans left - as they are forced to the margins and demonised, something will give. Our discussions about Enlightenment and its discontents won't make much difference.

    Good comment. I generally agree with it (sorry was travelling the past few days so couldn’t answer).

    Yes, if whites get seriously attacked, theory will be thrown out the window and survival will become the main concern. It won’t matter why things got to such a bad state.

    But that may be far in the future, or may never happen. Despite all the attacks on whites and all the self limiting beliefs, whites remain a high ability group who are immensely successful even if mediocre compared to their ancestors.

    Things may continue to just muddle along, or get slightly worse.

    But it may take a catastrophe to restore a sense of responsibility and agency to today’s demoralized whites.

  187. @reiner Tor

    But your idea that the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the ideals of the French Revolution might merely have been a “phase” without Jews
     
    This is not my idea, I never expressed it. I never even considered the Scientific Revolution to be a problem. Or, it might be a problem, but I don't think it's possible to discard it.

    Anyway, it's obvious that after Napolean Europe was politically conservative for decades, and the same is true after 1848. Europe right now is actively suicidal, which is quite different from occasionally engaging in self-destructive behavior. There is a world of difference between a heavy drinker and smoker and someone who is cutting his own wrist.

    If Europe took those humanist Enlightenment values seriously, however distorted they are, they would be engaging in a crusade against Muslims worldwide, and they would take away children from Muslim or black immigrants who don't live up to nice white upper middle class parenting standards. In fact, Enlightenment values (LGBTQWERTY rights, the environment, etc.) are discarded whenever they would be beneficial to white Europeans, i.e. whenever they could be used to limit mass immigration.

    There is nothing in European history up to 1945 to suggest that Europe was moving in a permanently left-wing direction. Nor was "left-wing" as actively self-destructive as it is now.


    Standard boilerplate response when someone points out the actual silly implications of a-historical HBD.
     
    Well, that's what you wrote:

    It is enshrined in stone. HBD. It’s the truth.
     
    This is idiotic, of course. For example it could be true that one MMA fighter is genetically stronger than the other, but that's just one factor, and it doesn't mean that the thus advantaged fighter's victory is "enshrined in stone." It's a straw man argument.

    I think this is a mistaken and ignorant view of European history.

    But the real point is, seeing oneself as a victim is not healthy. You are acting like blacks who blame whites.

    Yes, a contributing cause to black problems was racism, but the main factor was their own culture of refusing to take responsibility for themselves.

    Yes, a contributing cause to white decline was Jewish aggression, but the main cause was the way whites were developing their culture.

    Psychologically, being a victim is no good. Its not a place you want to be.

    But it’s up to you Reiner tor. If you want to be a victim go ahead. I’m just saying a political program that focuses on victimhood is not going to be the engine through which the West recovers.

    And a system which focuses on limitations rather than possibilities, which us what HBD does, is again not going to restore Western cultures ability to accomplish great things again and compete with cultures that focus more on possibility.

  188. @Beckow

    ...get rid of the welfare state entirely, blabla...
     
    This is your Achilles heel and the fatal error of most so called 'conservatives', libertarians, and other assorted market fanatics. Real conservatives try to preserve the societies they live in, and that means that some kind of what you call 'welfare' is required in the modern, complex societies.

    There are five things that no 'market' system has ever done well: raising children, medical care, education, housing, and retirement. The reason is very simple: markets work on negotiated transactions, the above core activities happen too infrequently and are too important to behave well in a traditional market. We see all of them failing to some extent or another in the modern societies. They have been gamed by insiders who have created quasi monopolies, there is no real 'market' in any of them. It matters because these non-market parts of the economy have grown to 70-80% of all activity. If 70-80% of the economy is non-market, what kind of a capitalist, free enterprise, market system is it?

    You are never going to get rid of 'welfare'. The goal is to streamline it and make it work for the core group in our societies: native born, working families with kids. Get rid of the freeloading administrators, migrating parasites, and the rent-seeking monopolists.

    “This is your Achilles heel and the fatal error of most so called ‘conservatives’, libertarians, and other assorted market fanatics. Real conservatives try to preserve the societies they live in, and that means that some kind of what you call ‘welfare’ is required in the modern, complex societies.”

    What also misses is that the Welfare State was the conservative response to the problems of the transition from agriculture to industry, feudalism to capitalism.

    Its inventor was Otto von Bismark, The Iron Chancellor himself, pointy helmet and all. His intention was to push back socialism, by addressing the issues that were driving its political success.

    The Welfare State got its start in the UK from the Boer War, when the British Army tried to recruit from the urban working class, and found astronomical rates of physical unfitness for military service. Dickens, of course understood and wrote about this, but the Free Market ideologues who dominated UK economic though pushed back. “We must not reduce the incentive of the poor to work! Mua-ha-ha-ha-ha!” What the British Army’s recruiting data showed was that the urban working class had so much incentive to work that diseases of malnutrition and underdevelopment were rampant among them. So while the Free Market ideologues could argue against Dickens’ pen, they couldn’t argue with the British Army’s recruiting data.

    So what the Free Market ideologue wants is a return to to the Old Days, of rickets & scurvy.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    Do either one of you two blithering idiots realize that I'm not a free market ideologue, a libertarian, or a so-called 'conservative'?

    Beckow is, of course, completely moronic on all matters economical, and this rkka fellow only has 20 posts to his name, so their misunderstanding is hardly surprising. But I've written enough anti-libertarian comments here to fill a book, and it is ridiculous to have to refute scurrilous charges over and over again.
  189. @utu
    Napoleon was the greatest disaster for France. What did he accomplish besides emancipating Jews and spreading the gospel of emancipation all over Europe?

    He was a disaster for the Jews too.

  190. The Satanic internationalist, yew know who, hate Putin and Russia because he/it resurrected the Russian Orthodox Church. Italy, the home of the once great RC Church, was being rapidly destroyed by the Satanic internationalist crowd with it’s importation of 500000 black men in the last 4 years. Coupled with a depressing low birth rate that would have been fatal for Italy. Fortunately they came to their senses.
    But the birth rates in Italy and Russia are still too damn low!
    As a quick measure that would make me feel real good would be to round up the top Zionists/Zionist Hedge Fund managers/Neocons* and…send them to the Ebola capitol of Africa forever. Wont do much for the birth rates but ..what the hell. (Grin)

    *Also include several Christian Zionists and other Zionist boot lickers. Bolton would be a must. In fact inject him with the bug! Alan Douche-a-witz also but only after he’s served his usefulness in protecting Don from any indictments. (Big grin)

    ** Also add about 1000 antfa/LBGTQ freaks to that list! Including Soros.

    • Replies: @Z-man
    *** Oh, I forgot to add, as I smack my forehead some of the worst Hollywood, Broadway and music industry executives and producers and maybe even some 'stars' plus a few of the talking heads on Cable News. Anna Navarro and 'Joy' Behar come to mind right off the top. LOL!
    Don't forget all of these creatures can be put on my 'Draw and Quarter' list also. (Big grin)
  191. @rkka
    "This is your Achilles heel and the fatal error of most so called ‘conservatives’, libertarians, and other assorted market fanatics. Real conservatives try to preserve the societies they live in, and that means that some kind of what you call ‘welfare’ is required in the modern, complex societies."

    What @Intelligent Dasein also misses is that the Welfare State was the conservative response to the problems of the transition from agriculture to industry, feudalism to capitalism.

    Its inventor was Otto von Bismark, The Iron Chancellor himself, pointy helmet and all. His intention was to push back socialism, by addressing the issues that were driving its political success.

    The Welfare State got its start in the UK from the Boer War, when the British Army tried to recruit from the urban working class, and found astronomical rates of physical unfitness for military service. Dickens, of course understood and wrote about this, but the Free Market ideologues who dominated UK economic though pushed back. "We must not reduce the incentive of the poor to work! Mua-ha-ha-ha-ha!" What the British Army's recruiting data showed was that the urban working class had so much incentive to work that diseases of malnutrition and underdevelopment were rampant among them. So while the Free Market ideologues could argue against Dickens' pen, they couldn't argue with the British Army's recruiting data.

    So what the Free Market ideologue @Intelligent Dasein wants is a return to to the Old Days, of rickets & scurvy.

    Do either one of you two blithering idiots realize that I’m not a free market ideologue, a libertarian, or a so-called ‘conservative’?

    Beckow is, of course, completely moronic on all matters economical, and this rkka fellow only has 20 posts to his name, so their misunderstanding is hardly surprising. But I’ve written enough anti-libertarian comments here to fill a book, and it is ridiculous to have to refute scurrilous charges over and over again.

  192. @Z-man
    The Satanic internationalist, yew know who, hate Putin and Russia because he/it resurrected the Russian Orthodox Church. Italy, the home of the once great RC Church, was being rapidly destroyed by the Satanic internationalist crowd with it's importation of 500000 black men in the last 4 years. Coupled with a depressing low birth rate that would have been fatal for Italy. Fortunately they came to their senses.
    But the birth rates in Italy and Russia are still too damn low!
    As a quick measure that would make me feel real good would be to round up the top Zionists/Zionist Hedge Fund managers/Neocons* and...send them to the Ebola capitol of Africa forever. Wont do much for the birth rates but ..what the hell. (Grin)

    *Also include several Christian Zionists and other Zionist boot lickers. Bolton would be a must. In fact inject him with the bug! Alan Douche-a-witz also but only after he's served his usefulness in protecting Don from any indictments. (Big grin)

    ** Also add about 1000 antfa/LBGTQ freaks to that list! Including Soros.

    *** Oh, I forgot to add, as I smack my forehead some of the worst Hollywood, Broadway and music industry executives and producers and maybe even some ‘stars’ plus a few of the talking heads on Cable News. Anna Navarro and ‘Joy’ Behar come to mind right off the top. LOL!
    Don’t forget all of these creatures can be put on my ‘Draw and Quarter’ list also. (Big grin)

  193. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
    You think we can win people with nationalism in the absence of religion?

    Good luck with that.

    No, I am just trying to be realistic about religion. I think we, whites, should try to revive our religions, but in a more restricted sense, because: a) loony universalism destroys our historical identities, b) orthodox religions are silly for modern people who will rebel against them & try to eradicate them (see early phases of Soviet regime).

    We should try to revive them, along with hope in afterlife & “deep” meaning of life & all that (sexual ethics, family, children, …), because they are essential to our identities (Nietzsche’s raving about Christianity looks, now, immature). Also, fierce religionists among Westerners are not likely to succeed, and we must be aware of this:

    • Replies: @follyofwar
    Religion is fine, much better than atheism. Christianity, just one of three major Middle Eastern religions - not so much. I'd rather see the European people go back to their ancient Pagan religions, which romanticized the Aryan Warrior. Perhaps doing so would increase white fertility and steel their souls to expel the invaders. Nietzsche was right about Christianity, though thinking too deeply drove him crazy.
  194. Russia has left its backside wide open to the coming, deep penetration by China… get busy or lose it!

  195. @Bardon Kaldian
    No, I am just trying to be realistic about religion. I think we, whites, should try to revive our religions, but in a more restricted sense, because: a) loony universalism destroys our historical identities, b) orthodox religions are silly for modern people who will rebel against them & try to eradicate them (see early phases of Soviet regime).

    We should try to revive them, along with hope in afterlife & "deep" meaning of life & all that (sexual ethics, family, children, ...), because they are essential to our identities (Nietzsche's raving about Christianity looks, now, immature). Also, fierce religionists among Westerners are not likely to succeed, and we must be aware of this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl_8r7WG3g4

    Religion is fine, much better than atheism. Christianity, just one of three major Middle Eastern religions – not so much. I’d rather see the European people go back to their ancient Pagan religions, which romanticized the Aryan Warrior. Perhaps doing so would increase white fertility and steel their souls to expel the invaders. Nietzsche was right about Christianity, though thinking too deeply drove him crazy.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    Aryan stuff is nonsense & Hitler knew that better than anyone else. It was Himmler who got really enthusiastic about this, and Himmler, alas, was a combination of astrologer, lunatic, schemer & follower. Hitler, in his lucid moments, said that German paganism was rotten when it came in contact with Christianity & couldn't have survived because its era had passed.

    He romanticized faux-pagan & medieval Wagnerian themes & severely criticized Christianity, but was also aware that going back to pre-Christian past was impossible.

    I am not too happy with Christianity in past 100 years, but we should either make a new religion (which is not very likely) or reshape Christian identity & heritage in such a form to serve us & our future, and not parasitic "migrants""'.
    , @Bardon Kaldian
    Aryan stuff is nonsense & Hitler knew that better than anyone else. It was Himmler who got really enthusiastic about this, and Himmler, alas, was a combination of astrologer, lunatic, schemer & follower. Hitler, in his lucid moments, said that German paganism was rotten when it came in contact with Christianity & couldn't have survived because its era had passed.

    He romanticized faux-pagan & medieval Wagnerian themes & severely criticized Christianity, but was also aware that going back to pre-Christian past was impossible.

    I am not too happy with Christianity in past 100 years, but we should either make a new religion (which is not very likely) or reshape Christian identity & heritage in such a form to serve us & our future, and not parasitic "migrants""'.
  196. @follyofwar
    Religion is fine, much better than atheism. Christianity, just one of three major Middle Eastern religions - not so much. I'd rather see the European people go back to their ancient Pagan religions, which romanticized the Aryan Warrior. Perhaps doing so would increase white fertility and steel their souls to expel the invaders. Nietzsche was right about Christianity, though thinking too deeply drove him crazy.

    Aryan stuff is nonsense & Hitler knew that better than anyone else. It was Himmler who got really enthusiastic about this, and Himmler, alas, was a combination of astrologer, lunatic, schemer & follower. Hitler, in his lucid moments, said that German paganism was rotten when it came in contact with Christianity & couldn’t have survived because its era had passed.

    He romanticized faux-pagan & medieval Wagnerian themes & severely criticized Christianity, but was also aware that going back to pre-Christian past was impossible.

    I am not too happy with Christianity in past 100 years, but we should either make a new religion (which is not very likely) or reshape Christian identity & heritage in such a form to serve us & our future, and not parasitic “migrants””‘.

  197. @follyofwar
    Religion is fine, much better than atheism. Christianity, just one of three major Middle Eastern religions - not so much. I'd rather see the European people go back to their ancient Pagan religions, which romanticized the Aryan Warrior. Perhaps doing so would increase white fertility and steel their souls to expel the invaders. Nietzsche was right about Christianity, though thinking too deeply drove him crazy.

    Aryan stuff is nonsense & Hitler knew that better than anyone else. It was Himmler who got really enthusiastic about this, and Himmler, alas, was a combination of astrologer, lunatic, schemer & follower. Hitler, in his lucid moments, said that German paganism was rotten when it came in contact with Christianity & couldn’t have survived because its era had passed.

    He romanticized faux-pagan & medieval Wagnerian themes & severely criticized Christianity, but was also aware that going back to pre-Christian past was impossible.

    I am not too happy with Christianity in past 100 years, but we should either make a new religion (which is not very likely) or reshape Christian identity & heritage in such a form to serve us & our future, and not parasitic “migrants””‘.

  198. @AaronB
    I mostly agree with your comment, except that I think there really is an enormous motivation differential between Jews and whites.

    I don't believe you can pick ethnic nepotism as a tactic. That kind of thing goes very deep into ones world view. And it goes along with a whole value sysrem. If you practice ethnic nepotism, you will get a bunch of other things with it. Or at least, you can't get it alone.

    There are "value bundles" that go together - high motivation, ethnic nepotism, and optimism are a bundle. Notice they are all emotion based. They are part of what the Greeks called the thymotic part of man. Not the intellect. Notice all the highly motivated groups like Asians and Jews are also ethnically cohesive.

    The Western value bundle would be - individualism, rationalism, low motivation, disconnected from emotion, fatalism.

    Individualism, for instance, cannot be separated from rationalism. It only makes sense rationally but is emotionally against human nature. Individualism is a triumph of reason.

    Notice the main difference is that healthy groups have not adopted rationality as their only standard. They remain motivated by entirely irrational factors. And they use reason as a tool.

    As for Jews being a contributing factor, I agree with that. But the main factors are the changes in European culture that created modernity.

    It doesn't make sense to focus on a contributing factor but leave the main factor unaddressed. Moreover, under the regime of Enlightenment rationalism you will never convince people to blame the Jews. The first thing the Enlightenment did almost was emancipate the Jews. According to the Enlightenment, people are abstract entities that are interchangeable and operate rationally.

    Very well exposed. To put it along other lines: White values: conceptual-ism, the individual. Resulting in progress minus derivatives. The one step ahead in the long term.

    The two steps backwards. Ethnic centricities and their culprits, most other ethnic groups at large, collectivism based on relative arguments (who rules (on a pile of shit or a civil marvel being no issue), practicality, the short term.

    The biggest excesses of White civilization: elitism inside the larger collective, turning into elites of own stock selling out. The lack of individual exceptionals, their strength, as compared to the collective stress of other groups. Quality versus numbers.

    To carry this one step ahead, for what it may be worth, turning breeding into a White man’s tool, religion solutioning what rational thinking cannot solve, a dead end. Nature is on the White rational individual’s side.

    From the hip, late as always.

  199. @AaronB

    there was a widespread pessimism in the country.
     
    In 1891? Impossible.

    Pessimism only started after Jews undermined European civilization, after America gained cultural hegemony of the Western world.

    You are committing an alt-right heresy.

    Pessimism only started after Jews undermined European civilization,

    That started a long time before the 19th Century. E.g. Jews brag about their outsized role in “The Enlightenment,” at least if they think the audience they are bragging in front of is pro-Enlightenment.

  200. If Russian government is serious, it should follow the example of Hungary to stimulate natural population growth.

  201. @Mr. XYZ
    And Persians, and Afghans, and Berbers as well?

    In the grand tradition of the intertwining of race and religion (religious identity), ‘White’ and ‘Muslim’ cannot coexist.

    I would go so far as to say that a native European, all 1,024 of whose 1,024 ten-generations-ago ancestors were born in Europe, if he converts to fundamentalist Islam is no longer ‘White’ in our understanding of the term.

    Likewise,

    Arabs/Turks

    Persians, and Afghans, and Berbers

    None of these are ‘White.’ Perhaps identity categories will significantly change by the second half of the late 21st century, but as of now and coming few decades at least: No way.

  202. @Adam
    Overall very encouraging trends. The issue with fertility is not so pressing as life expectancy, murder, and alcoholism. Much better to have a Russia that is pleasant with 120 million people than a sovok shithole with 200 million, and I suspect that fertility rates will recover within a few decades anyway. The biggest concern is that the ethnic balance will be upset and the proportion of ethnic Russians will decrease. Is this happening?

    I suspect that fertility rates will recover within a few decades anyway.

    For it to recover, several bad trends have to be reversed.

    1) Debt money systems like to pay off old debts with new debts. This means impressing women into the workforce as new debtors. A fully bank credit monetized economy, does not recognize contribution of the volunteer economy. This inability to see makes women choose to not have families, and society in general to downgrade the idea of replacing itself.
    2) Paying families to have children will take some sort of debt free social credit system. This is injection of non debt derived money type into base of population which is the family unit. This is also called American Social Credit, which differs from Douglas Social Credit. Douglas injects into price system at point of sale.
    3) The previous former two points require over-turning our current ideas of how money works, and this will become increasingly imperative and obvious because of automation.
    4) Automation will aggregate money toward those who own the means of production i.e. robot owners. Capital will build robot factories and suck money out of money supply in payment for goods -and unemployed human labor will be left in the dust. Since humans earn their way by making things which become prices, many humans will be cut out of the economy. No income, no children.
    5) White people and North East Asians have a forward time orientation as part of their evolutionary history. If there is war, or a dim future, they don’t breed. Women especially want a “nest” where she can be secure both monetarily and physically before she will mate.
    6) Male /Female roles are blending due to machine power. Feminists insist that women are economic actors the same as men. Evolution says otherwise, but machine power does equalize women in the workplace, where muscles matter less and less.

    My view is that these trends are very difficult to overcome.

    It will first require dealing with our mal-formed money. New money has to channel into families and making babies. One idea is to use South East Asian women as incubators. Impregnate them with well matched white eggs and white men sperm. They will then be birth mothers, and the baby then goes to white Russian family that already has children. In this way, Russians can have larger families, while the Russian women (who thinks she is an economic man) can go back to the workforce. These women are thus only out of the workforce for a few years, but will have larger families. This process could also be Eugenic, where babies are of high quality and intelligence.

    Another fix is to adopt Nazi policy of no abortion, and a young mother can quietly sneak away to a protected “state funded” birthing center where she can live while pregnant then have the baby. These young mothers continue to receive education while they were away at the birthing center.

    oops. Did I mention something positive about Nazis? So sorry.

    • Replies: @jeff stryker
    Lot's of country and people outlawed abortion at the time of the Third Reich.

    Anyhow, the blacks and Mestizos will continue to have loads of kids without thought of consequence and in a future of no jobs and automation, so crime will get worse.

    Many here assume some Universal Basic Income will be devised but I am skeptical. Those that own the means of production like the descendants of the Ford Family or property owners will accrue more money and the vaporized middle-class will have none.

    The future will be old-fashioned pre-industrial feudalism. Those that own the land or machines will be the Lords and everyone else will be serfs.

    Middle-class standards will disappear and young whites will have the mentality of Alex and his droogs from Clockwork Orange. Some, like Alex's onetime henchman, will become police officers and police state abuse/tactics will soar.

    Look at middle-class young women now compared to 35 years ago in 1984. They are covered in tattoos, run around after black thugs, are promiscuous. Look at young males-living at home at 30, obsessed with pornography, jobless.

    Its already happening.
  203. @MEFOBILLS

    I suspect that fertility rates will recover within a few decades anyway.
     
    For it to recover, several bad trends have to be reversed.

    1) Debt money systems like to pay off old debts with new debts. This means impressing women into the workforce as new debtors. A fully bank credit monetized economy, does not recognize contribution of the volunteer economy. This inability to see makes women choose to not have families, and society in general to downgrade the idea of replacing itself.
    2) Paying families to have children will take some sort of debt free social credit system. This is injection of non debt derived money type into base of population which is the family unit. This is also called American Social Credit, which differs from Douglas Social Credit. Douglas injects into price system at point of sale.
    3) The previous former two points require over-turning our current ideas of how money works, and this will become increasingly imperative and obvious because of automation.
    4) Automation will aggregate money toward those who own the means of production i.e. robot owners. Capital will build robot factories and suck money out of money supply in payment for goods -and unemployed human labor will be left in the dust. Since humans earn their way by making things which become prices, many humans will be cut out of the economy. No income, no children.
    5) White people and North East Asians have a forward time orientation as part of their evolutionary history. If there is war, or a dim future, they don't breed. Women especially want a "nest" where she can be secure both monetarily and physically before she will mate.
    6) Male /Female roles are blending due to machine power. Feminists insist that women are economic actors the same as men. Evolution says otherwise, but machine power does equalize women in the workplace, where muscles matter less and less.

    My view is that these trends are very difficult to overcome.

    It will first require dealing with our mal-formed money. New money has to channel into families and making babies. One idea is to use South East Asian women as incubators. Impregnate them with well matched white eggs and white men sperm. They will then be birth mothers, and the baby then goes to white Russian family that already has children. In this way, Russians can have larger families, while the Russian women (who thinks she is an economic man) can go back to the workforce. These women are thus only out of the workforce for a few years, but will have larger families. This process could also be Eugenic, where babies are of high quality and intelligence.

    Another fix is to adopt Nazi policy of no abortion, and a young mother can quietly sneak away to a protected "state funded" birthing center where she can live while pregnant then have the baby. These young mothers continue to receive education while they were away at the birthing center.

    oops. Did I mention something positive about Nazis? So sorry.

    Lot’s of country and people outlawed abortion at the time of the Third Reich.

    Anyhow, the blacks and Mestizos will continue to have loads of kids without thought of consequence and in a future of no jobs and automation, so crime will get worse.

    Many here assume some Universal Basic Income will be devised but I am skeptical. Those that own the means of production like the descendants of the Ford Family or property owners will accrue more money and the vaporized middle-class will have none.

    The future will be old-fashioned pre-industrial feudalism. Those that own the land or machines will be the Lords and everyone else will be serfs.

    Middle-class standards will disappear and young whites will have the mentality of Alex and his droogs from Clockwork Orange. Some, like Alex’s onetime henchman, will become police officers and police state abuse/tactics will soar.

    Look at middle-class young women now compared to 35 years ago in 1984. They are covered in tattoos, run around after black thugs, are promiscuous. Look at young males-living at home at 30, obsessed with pornography, jobless.

    Its already happening.

    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS
    Alex,
    Universal basic income cannot work well in a multi-culti hell hole full of R breeders.
    I get what you are saying, which is why I used the Russian example. Granted they have Muslims, but they are not too degenerate. Yes, Russia would have to control Muslim over-breeding.

    For me, it would take some sort of Fascism to control populations, so you do not get over-run by R breeders. Whether or not anyone wants to admit it, a certain IQ threshold is required to maintain high civilization. Other factors are involved, like high trust. High trust populations evolved in fourth ice ages with techniques like shaming or guilt. Shame or guilt modifies individual behavior, so you don’t need an over-bearing police state. People tend to do the right thing when nobody is looking, not so with the lower races.

    It would take some sort of fascism to prevent some groups from breeding. The other option is science, where the R breeding races are genetically modified. It may be genetic modification as the Chinese have already thrown down the gauntlet.

    Otherwise, the lower races have to go. They can live separately in a manner inherent to their genetic expression, and we know that human behavior is at least 60% genetic. (low number)

    Some sort of transfer or injection of money back into the base of the population will be the only thing that lets capitalism survive. There are two gaps in the money system: 1) Gap between debt instruments and the credit it spawns 2) Gap between production and wages paid.

    Both of these gaps pump money upward, pyramid style, to the “owners.” These owners are usually banks or finance, and hence are often Jewish controlled.

    It is in Jewish self interest to have a deracinated population at war with itself, so finance Oligarchy is happy to continue taking rents, especially for its in group. A chaotic population is much easier to control than one that is self-confident and knows its history.

    Any sort of universal basic income, to then return the thefts, implies that a common people are receiving the “goods” of the commons.

    It makes no sense to import invaders, to then pay them from the commons, which in turn is the inheritance of a nation.

    This is why the U.S. needs to break apart or have movement of like type peoples to their respective new countries/states. The U.S. also requires ZERO immigration. There was an immigration cut-off in 1926 or so, because East Europeans and mostly Jews were indigestible. Their descendants are still a problem today. (The East Europeans integrated - but the Jews didn't.)

  204. @jeff stryker
    Lot's of country and people outlawed abortion at the time of the Third Reich.

    Anyhow, the blacks and Mestizos will continue to have loads of kids without thought of consequence and in a future of no jobs and automation, so crime will get worse.

    Many here assume some Universal Basic Income will be devised but I am skeptical. Those that own the means of production like the descendants of the Ford Family or property owners will accrue more money and the vaporized middle-class will have none.

    The future will be old-fashioned pre-industrial feudalism. Those that own the land or machines will be the Lords and everyone else will be serfs.

    Middle-class standards will disappear and young whites will have the mentality of Alex and his droogs from Clockwork Orange. Some, like Alex's onetime henchman, will become police officers and police state abuse/tactics will soar.

    Look at middle-class young women now compared to 35 years ago in 1984. They are covered in tattoos, run around after black thugs, are promiscuous. Look at young males-living at home at 30, obsessed with pornography, jobless.

    Its already happening.

    Alex,
    Universal basic income cannot work well in a multi-culti hell hole full of R breeders.
    I get what you are saying, which is why I used the Russian example. Granted they have Muslims, but they are not too degenerate. Yes, Russia would have to control Muslim over-breeding.

    For me, it would take some sort of Fascism to control populations, so you do not get over-run by R breeders. Whether or not anyone wants to admit it, a certain IQ threshold is required to maintain high civilization. Other factors are involved, like high trust. High trust populations evolved in fourth ice ages with techniques like shaming or guilt. Shame or guilt modifies individual behavior, so you don’t need an over-bearing police state. People tend to do the right thing when nobody is looking, not so with the lower races.

    It would take some sort of fascism to prevent some groups from breeding. The other option is science, where the R breeding races are genetically modified. It may be genetic modification as the Chinese have already thrown down the gauntlet.

    Otherwise, the lower races have to go. They can live separately in a manner inherent to their genetic expression, and we know that human behavior is at least 60% genetic. (low number)

    Some sort of transfer or injection of money back into the base of the population will be the only thing that lets capitalism survive. There are two gaps in the money system: 1) Gap between debt instruments and the credit it spawns 2) Gap between production and wages paid.

    Both of these gaps pump money upward, pyramid style, to the “owners.” These owners are usually banks or finance, and hence are often Jewish controlled.

    It is in Jewish self interest to have a deracinated population at war with itself, so finance Oligarchy is happy to continue taking rents, especially for its in group. A chaotic population is much easier to control than one that is self-confident and knows its history.

    Any sort of universal basic income, to then return the thefts, implies that a common people are receiving the “goods” of the commons.

    It makes no sense to import invaders, to then pay them from the commons, which in turn is the inheritance of a nation.

    This is why the U.S. needs to break apart or have movement of like type peoples to their respective new countries/states. The U.S. also requires ZERO immigration. There was an immigration cut-off in 1926 or so, because East Europeans and mostly Jews were indigestible. Their descendants are still a problem today. (The East Europeans integrated – but the Jews didn’t.)

  205. The article states:

    “Broadly speaking, Russia continues to do better than the Med, but worse than France, the UK, Ireland, and Scandinavia.”

    The huge plus to Russia is that the Russian children being born are almost 100% of Russian blood while the huge negative is that the French, UK, and Scandinavian children being born are of mostly Third World Muslim blood; the immigrants/”refugees” who produce next to nothing besides babies while working at unskilled and untaxed jobs and mostly surviving off of welfare are the ones who are having the most children. Russia is far better off having less of the their own genuine Russian children than other countries that have more children born there who are of a foreign blood, religion, and culture.

  206. Beautifully illustrated summary of Russia’s demographic trends.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS