The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Hungary's Subsidy for Marriages Off to a Good Start
🔊 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Reuters:

NOVEMBER 26, 2019 / 7:31 AM / UPDATED 18 HOURS AGO
Hungary government scheme sparks marriage boom. Will babies follow?

BUDAPEST (Reuters) – A new Hungarian government scheme to promote marriage and childbirth with subsidized loans has already helped produce a boom in weddings, though it is still too early to say whether more babies will follow.

Nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban has made it a priority to persuade more Hungarians to marry and have children to reverse a population decline. He has introduced a number of tax benefits and other programmes to favor families.

A big new scheme this year offers couples that marry before the bride’s 41st birthday subsidized loans of up to 10 million forints ($33,000). A third of the loan will be forgiven if they go on to have two children, and the entire debt wiped out if they have three.

One obvious problem with fixed amount subsidies for children is that they tend to encourage people whose reaction to $11,000 per child is Woo-hoo, we’re gonna be rich!

On the other hand, wealthy people in these post-2008 days in the U.S. are still pretty good about marrying and reproducing.

… In September alone, 29% more couples married than in the same month last year. Hungary saw the most September weddings since 1979.

 
Hide 233 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anno says:

    Meanwhile, the Atlantic proposes $10,000 reparations from Boomers to Millennials:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/11/britain-election-boomers/602680/

    To help with house downpayments, which I’m sure is what it’ll be used for. That, or avocado toast.

    As for Hungary, I have no problem with the experiment, but they should be gathering data on the recipients and the outcome.

    • Replies: @Barnard
    , @Alden
  2. jon says:

    I wonder how many are just sham marriages for the benefits.

  3. A big new scheme this year offers couples that marry before the bride’s 41st birthday ….

    How long before a Soros sponsored feminist group seizes on this blatant ageism?

  4. Yeah, but ORBAN= HITLER!!!

    • Replies: @HammerJack
    , @Anon
    , @Reg Cæsar
  5. One obvious problem with fixed amount subsidies for children is that they tend to encourage people whose reaction to $11,000 per child is Woo-hoo, we’re gonna be rich!

    On the other hand, wealthy people in these post-2008 days in the U.S. are still pretty good about marrying and reproducing.

    Totally agree with you here, Steve, and in fact it is the middle – the backbone of any country – who are being squeezed in Europe / the Anglosphere. Those with nothing and those with quite a lot are doing okay – other than “well-educated” women.

    I teach part-time at a university once a week and the part-timers there have about one child each (with the exception of me – it`s not my main source of income, so I have managed four), the full-time faculty have 2 point something.

    One of the full-timers – a deeply Christian lady – also has four – so I like to tell my atheist self-styled liberal colleagues that crazed racists (me) and Christians (her) are winning the demographic battle.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
  6. Singapore, which has a below replacement rate birth rate, has a similar bonus scheme, which covers any number of kids. In addition, there are various child care subsidies, and dollar-for-dollar matching for parents who set up savings plans for their children. The benefits can add up to more than $20,000 per child during their childhood. Lastly, and quite separately, their tax code has very generous working mother tax credit provisions.

  7. @auld alliance

    I like to tell my atheist self-styled liberal colleagues that crazed racists (me) and Christians (her) are winning the demographic battle.

    The progressives don’t need to reproduce to grow their support, they’ll prevail through indoctrination and immigration. So far it seems to be working for them.

    • Agree: HammerJack, istevefan
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    , @Clyde
  8. @Redneck farmer

    Given that Orban is not loudly and vociferously opposed to the welfare of the white race, I’d say that definition is pretty much accurate in the Current Year.

  9. @The Alarmist

    Fair to say that will be the least of their objections. Orban and Hungary may be inspiring, but they are but a flyspeck on the world stage.

    Mind you: still dangerous enough that they will be obliterated/assimilated (same thing) before too long. Even flyspecks can be dangerous if they have a persuasive message.

  10. @jon

    Sham marriages that result in three kids?

  11. @PiltdownMan

    Population density and property prices also matter for affordable family formation.

  12. Anon[863] • Disclaimer says:
    @jon

    U.S. immigration officials who do marriage visa interviews are pretty adept at ferreting out sham marriages. They often separate the two parties and have two officials question them separately. This quickly gets rid of people who don’t at least live and sleep together, given the personal nature of the questions asked.

    Japan just raised its sales tax from 8 percent to 10 percent (to cover Boomer costs). You’d be surprised at how many otherwise rational people of means hurried out to buy stuff before the changeover, even though the 2 percent is very small. The same thing with supermarket loyalty cards that pay you back half a percent while taking all your data.

    When Japan did its sort of denationalization (that’s not what it was, more deregulation) of the electric industry a few years ago, otherwise smart people were changing companies for a mere one-time $100 shopping certificate, when it was unclear whether the annual fee would be cheaper or at least the same (this stuff was deliberately confusing and opaque, like cell phone or cable television plans).

    I’m sure economists have looked into this weird behavior, if anyone wants to track the research down. In fact, after this Hungary news, maybe keep an eye on Marginal Revolution.

    Another factor: Women could use this against the typically on-the-fence male half of the pair, a way to bring up the topic and get a discusison going.

  13. LondonBob says:

    From what I have read the Hungarians have been very careful crafting these subsidies so they don’t go to gypsies.

  14. “One obvious problem with fixed amount subsidies for children is that they tend to encourage people whose reaction to $11,000 per child is Woo-hoo, we’re gonna be rich!”

    I can see a Great Return of Hungarian gypsies as the news spreads. It’s a good idea, but I hope they have rules which minimise gaming the system.

  15. Beliavsky says:

    In the U.S., the progressive income tax can discourage marriage when both spouses are good earners. I think a household with income of $300K will pay more in federal income taxes than 2 singles each earning $150K. The high cost of college discourages well-off people from having large families.

  16. Why not offer young women with high SAT/GPAs (or admission offers from competitive schools), a massive subsidy NOT to enrol but to marry and have children instead (or, at least, first).

    No eugenicist arguments necessary. The case for this is just as strong under blank slate nurturism as well.

    • Replies: @Semperluctor
    , @Alden
  17. SFG says:

    Populism that works.

  18. slumber_j says:
    @jon

    I wonder how many are just sham marriages for the benefits.

    A fair number presumably–although more will be couples who were cohabiting anyway, no? In any case, one wishes even the half-sincere ones well, like a train-platform observer in Philip Larkin’s great poem “The Whitsun Weddings”:

    Yes, from cafés
    And banquet-halls up yards, and bunting-dressed
    Coach-party annexes, the wedding-days
    Were coming to an end. All down the line
    Fresh couples climbed aboard: the rest stood round;
    The last confetti and advice were thrown,
    And, as we moved, each face seemed to define
    Just what it saw departing: children frowned
    At something dull; fathers had never known

    Success so huge and wholly farcical;
    The women shared
    The secret like a happy funeral;
    While girls, gripping their handbags tighter, stared
    At a religious wounding.

    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48411/the-whitsun-weddings

    • Replies: @Anon
  19. NHK, the Japanese TV station, recently did a report on Hungary’s attempts to increase family size and close their borders. Orban was presented as a problematic anti-liberal (not explicitly called racist) leader while they interviewed a family in a subsidized home that had an outspokenly Christian mother–religious faith looks crazy and fringe to most Japanese.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Desiderius
  20. Barnard says:
    @Anno

    The proposal is coming from a Conservative MP, not the Atlantic writer. I don’t know why he thinks $10,000 is going to go far enough to make a difference for a downpayment.

  21. @PiltdownMan

    In Singapore no results. In Hungary as yet unknown. How then to explain Israel’s high birth rate? The child benefits are paltry. See

    https://www.btl.gov.il/English%20Homepage/Benefits/Children/Pages/Rates%20of%20child%20allowance.aspx

    The Israeli shekel = 25 cents

    In a Unz.com thread someone argued that the seemingly bad geographical choice of Palestine to reconstitute the jewish people surrounded by implacable enemies was actually a good thing keeping the beleagured colonists healthily stressed out enough to endure indefinitely.

  22. Bruno says:

    Giving a 20 points refaction on income tax for each biological child (adn required for the 3) above the third to married nationals, complete exoneration at 7 , would be an eugenic inexpensive – most money comes from VAT and capital gains – measure that all occidental countries should put in place.

  23. Please take the latest isteve poll:

    Do you like Indian food?
    _ Yes
    _ No

    Results

  24. Bruno says:

    And the Woo wooh mesure should be offering to national and legal long term residents in the 18 to 23 bracket yo a 50k lump some against sterilization.

    Besides, social benefit should be taken away and replaced by help in nature against work in specialized institutions.

    That 3 measures would do the job !

  25. why doesn’t the country just make a bunch of babies from sperm and egg donors? I am kind of serious. White babies are easily adoptable.

  26. Realist says:

    Hungary government scheme sparks marriage boom. Will babies follow?

    If they don’t it is all for naught.

  27. OT – Cecil Rhodes is currently spinning at 7,200 rpm, thanks to the neodymium magnets his grave’s been updated with.

    The Rhodes Trust announced the 32 selections late on Saturday after two days of discussions over 236 applicants from 90 colleges and universities across the US.

    Along with University of Tennessee graduate Hera Jay Brown, the first transgender woman in the program, the class includes two non-binary scholars.

    “As our rights and experiences as women are under threat, this moment has given me pause to reflect on what an honor it is to pave this path,” Brown posted on Twitter after the announcement.

    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/nov/24/first-transgender-rhodes-scholar-2020-class

    I translate “our rights and experiences as women are under threat” as “some bigots still think two and two make four!

  28. Victor Orban is a hero. My Hungarian wife* votes for him by mail. If I had passed the Hungarian language test, I would be a dual citizen and would vote for him and his Fidesz party too.

    Orban was active politically/intellectually when communists still had their iron-fisted grip on Hungary. He and those who worked with him were risking their lives then. My wife knew about him even then, and has ever since. She is the only reason I know anything about Orban.

    I just want readers to know that this man is a real man with guts. If you all really believe in all the stuff you write here, then you will respect Victor Orban and his attempts to facilitate White life.

    *Because of the Treaty of Trianon, my wife grew up as a Romanian citizen, even though she is 3/4 Hungarian and most of the cultural world in her homeland region is historically Hungarian. I do not intend this comment to be an argument against Romanians. My wife is/was a Romanian citizen, but now, and for many years, American. (She herself does not want conflict. We have had many interesting conversations about this. One thing I have learned from her is not to let details like this ruin the joy of life, la joie de vivre. In her home region, Hungarians and Romanians continue to live, love and intermarry. They are both smart people; thus you never hear about them killing each other. They know better.)

    • Agree: Desiderius
  29. Anon[863] • Disclaimer says:
    @Redneck farmer

    Yeah, but ORBAN= HITLER!!!

    This at the Claremont Review of Books is a good, deep (6,500 words) backgrounder on Orban and an antidote to the Orban Hitler propaganda:

    Hungary and the Future of Europe

    https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/hungary-and-the-future-of-europe/

    Orbán is more than the bohunk version of Donald Trump that he is often portrayed as. He is blessed with almost every political gift—brave, shrewd with his enemies and trustworthy with his friends, detail-oriented, hilarious. In the last years of the Cold War, he stuck his neck out further than any young dissident in assailing the Soviet Union. That courage helped land him in the prime minister’s office for the first time in 1998, at age 35.

    He has a memory for parliamentary minutiae reminiscent of Bill Clinton. At a January press conference, he interrupted a speechifying reporter by saying, “If I’ve counted correctly, that’s six questions,” then answered them in sequence with references to historical per capita income shifts, employment rates, demographic projections, and the like.

    His secret weapon, though, is his intellectual curiosity. As Irving Kristol did when he edited the Public Interest in the 1980s, Orbán urges his aides to take one day a week off to devote to their reading and writing. He does so himself, clearing his Thursdays when he can.

    :
    :

    Against the counsel of his advisers, Orbán provoked a clash between the two men and the governing principles each embodied. He passed a “Stop Soros Law” that criminalized offering material support to promote illegal immigration, and banned the sort of refugee resettlements Soros had urged. The government began harassing the CEU by punctiliously enforcing regulations that had heretofore been ignored. As the 2018 election season heated up, anti-Soros ad campaigns began running on billboards and streetcars.

    Orbán was very worried about the role of foreign money in his country’s politics. Some have mocked him for this. But obviously, when the most powerful country on earth has just brought its democracy to a standstill for two years in order to investigate $100,000 worth of internet ads bought by a variety of Russians, it is understandable that the leader of a small country might fear the activism of a political foe whose combined personal fortune ($8 billion) and institutional endowment ($19 billion) exceed a sixth of the country’s GDP ($156 billion), especially since international philanthropy is (through the U.S. tax code) effectively subsidized by the American government. An early version of the Stop Soros law proposed taxing foreign philanthropies.

    Rod Dreher writes a lot about Orban, and with a group of Christian communicators, along with John O’Sullivan of O’Sullivan’s Law fame, met him recently:

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/viktor-orban-among-the-christians/

  30. Romanian says: • Website

    I do not know about Hungary, but the middle class in my country can make that much (rarely, but still) from wedding gifts, since most people give cash. The minimum that they give is the “menu cost” of wedding attendance, so even the worst weddings will break even on cost. It used to be a “building the barn” kind of thing where you gifted other people on their weddings so they would attend yours and gift as well, but people are too mobile today for the obligation web to remain valid, so it is about social status. Everybody asks everybody else how much the menu is (sometimes it will be spelled right on the invitation, but that is gauche) or how much they are giving in order to not be the skinflint, and the gifts are tax exempt.

    We even have websites with online calculators for it (just hit google translate) http://www.catdau.ro/cd/Page/CatDau

    The larger and cheaper weddings end up being the most profitable, because the expensive ones splurge on entertainment like live bands and have fewer attendees. Numbers are the most important. A recently married friend netted around 8k on his wedding (I discretely inquired). I get a chuckle hearing about my parents complaining about doing the wedding circuit for their friends’ children, the children of the small town nabobs, distant relations. I even had to go home and stand in for them once for the sake of family honor, as they split among two other weddings on the same day. You can imagine the accrued lifetime cost (150-300 euro per head). And, even though they know how absurd it is, they say that the people whose wedding (or whose children’s weddings) they attend will one day attend mine.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @Buzz Mohawk
  31. Romanian says: • Website
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I have a grudging admiration for him as well, especially when my liberal Hungarian acquaintances from my international work rail against him. Nationalists get along well when their countries are half a world away from each other, but the undercurrents are different in such shared proximity and with shared history (and familiarity). I forgot where your wife was from, if you will excuse me. Is she from the center of the country in Transylvania or along the border counties?

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  32. Anon[863] • Disclaimer says:
    @slumber_j

    If they use the same tricks that U.S. immigration authorities use in their marriage and fiancee visa interviews, very few will be outright shams. Two consular officers interview each party separately, communicating as they go, and they get very personal, and very clever. It’s really hard to outsmart them. You have to have lived together for a while to have a chance. My law school immigration law professor was a Bay Area immigration practitioner on the immigrant side, and got the full story on this stuff from her clients.

  33. Elli says:

    I bet the ethnic Hungarians would like to exclude the Gypsies, whose boys and girls marry in their teens.

    A young man I know has dual American Hungarian citizenship. He and his new bride are VERY devout Catholics. I doubt 33k is enough to make them settle in Hungary, though.

  34. BenKenobi says:

    Wait a minute — are you telling me there are things a government can do to encourage increased fertility among its citizens and isn’t actually required to mercilessly import millions of foreigners?

  35. @Romanian

    She is from Bihor county, right next to Hungary. It is Hungarian.

    The story is that the men at Trianon put the line on the map in the wrong place because they didn’t know anything about the area. They even ran that new border through the wrong town in one place, because the town’s name is similar to the town the new border was supposed to go through.

    When we travel there, we land in Budapest and drive across Hungary. As soon as we cross the border, I see the difference. Apparently Hungary had better communist management than you did under Ceaușescu.

    One thing I can say is that I find your Romanians more relaxing than those Hungarians. My own ancestry is Northwestern European/Anglo-Germanic, so I am naturally a bit cold and detail-oriented. Having crossed your border many times from Hungary, but also having spent plenty of time in beautiful Budapest, I will say I am sort-of happier visiting the Romanian side. It is more relaxed. (Now I feel like Fred Reed.)

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @Romanian
  36. Anonymous[131] • Disclaimer says:

    This policy probably works in a racially and culturally homogeneous country like Hungary. I’m not sure I’d want the government to implement the same thing in the UK, would probably just result in a boom in mixed race marriages.

  37. @The Alarmist

    I was thinking that Hungary should set the maximum age at 35, not 41, as well as requiring four children rather than three children for full loan forgiveness.

  38. “subsidized loans” Maybe we should do that to immigrants rather than just subsidize them indirectly with SNAP, Section 8 and education benefits.

  39. anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:

    Pagan/godless euRapeans should really have less of those cuddly babies. Sure, cuddly babies are a great blessing, but the problem is they will grow up and take the same pagan/godless path of their parents, which will simply land their sorry adult hides in Hell, barring a few who may choose the only path to salvation.

    Seriously, do you hate your offspring so much as to bestow such a curse on them. Have lesser of them fellows. Your unborn children will sing praises in gratitude.

  40. ic1000 says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    > Victor Orban is a hero… a real man with guts.

    From what I have read — fully agree. I recall listening to him being interviewed on YouTube; he articulates his ideas, moral vision, and policies extraordinarily well — in English.

    [MORE]

    Quoting Rod Dreher:

    If the only thing you know about Viktor Orban is from Western media accounts, you would think that he was nothing but some kind of mafia thug. The Viktor Orban you encounter in person is very, very different from the Viktor Orban shown to Americans by our media. Orban — who speaks good English — was energetic, fiercely intelligent, funny, self-deprecating, realistic, and at times almost pugilistic in talking about defending Hungary and her interests. Orban is what Trump’s biggest fans wish he was (but isn’t), and what Trump’s enemies think him to be (but isn’t).

    And, via Dreher, Orban’s 2015 speech:

    [Merkel’s Mistake] seems to be bad news, but it is the first good identity crisis I’ve ever seen… Viewed from the right perspective, the whole issue of asylum and mass migration, the whole problem of economic migration is nothing more than the identity crisis of liberalism. I’ll try to broadly summarize what it consists of. People in general – not only Europeans, but definitely Europeans – want to see themselves as good; but people can define “good” in a wide variety of ways. Liberals also want to see themselves as good. They also have an idea of ​​what it means to be a good person. And liberals can only live with themselves if they see themselves as good people. However, the liberal notion of what is “good”, as I described earlier, only exists at the level of phenomena: freedom of movement, universal human rights, and so on. Now this is producing disastrous consequences. But the particular quality of liberals is that while they want to be good people, they do not want to see their levels of welfare spending and standards of living falling; and so a crisis develops… I might say that the most dangerous combination known in history is to be both rich and weak.

    • Agree: Lot
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  41. Lot says:

    Wonderful news, the world needs more Hungarians raised by loving Hungarian 2-parent families.

    As I always say when natalist policies come up, they need to be BIG. Reports of various pissant programs should be ignored as evidence against this.

    Here, it is about 10k for 2 and another 20k for a third. That’s more like it for Hungry. The USA and Canada, at least double thay.

    My issue with this program is it is still to complicated and indirect. Some young Hungarian couples don’t need a home loan so don’t qualify.

    “ encourage people whose reaction to $11,000 per child is Woo-hoo, we’re gonna be rich”

    Make it a $50,000 per child income tax deduction. If Dad makes 100k, that’s about $12,500 off his taxes. If he’s on disability or is a tax cheat working off the books, he gets nothing.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @George
    , @AnotherDad
  42. Idk, this seems like the kind of thing that could really backfire. Seems like it should come with some conditions, like no divorce. Attaching money to the problem is gonna attract people who are in it for the money. I mean, can you imagine the types of people who would benefit from this in the US? I don’t think the goal should be to outbreed. It should be to have a society where someone with a median income can afford a home and nuclear family.

  43. Dan Hayes says:
    @ic1000

    ic1000-

    My take: Rod Dreher the quintessential dithering equivocal man was reluctantly forced by facts and reality to praise Orban!

  44. Literally a Nazi policy, but one the East German communist state continued, so possibly not evil per se as a result of the association:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_loan

  45. @The Alarmist

    Forty-one seems like too-old of an age to start thinking of having children.

  46. @Buzz Mohawk

    We have a good Romanian friend who now lives in the states, probably top five men I know. Seeing his family Friday. Wife lived two years in Hungary, I was there in ‘90 for first free elections. Love it.

    That’s our bail if shit goes south here.

    • Replies: @Romanian
  47. @jon

    American men wouldn’t need bribes if they could marry a Hungarian girl.

    • Replies: @Gamecockjerry
    , @Rosie
  48. Romanian says: • Website
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Well, we sometimes refer to ourselves as the Mexicans of Europe, though with more of a Romantic soap-opera view rather than informed by reality. And our Communists really sucked and went full throttle on the Socialist views. I blame the Latin mindset and its inclination towards abstractions in elite thinking. We demolished the center of Bucharest in the 1980s out of the same instinct/mindset with which we collectivized agriculture, forbade almost all private enterprise and planned to demolish villages to replace each with 1-2 highrises to maximize cultivated land. With regards to relaxed Romanians, take a look at suicide rate differentials between Romania and Hungary. The artistic temperament of Hungarians may be to blame.

    [MORE]

    The story is that the men at Trianon put the line on the map in the wrong place because they didn’t know anything about the area.

    Well, Trianon and the Paris Peace Conference before it were a tug-of-war to place the border. It wasn’t people randomly drawing lines, Puckoon style, but all-out diplomatic and academic conflict for who gets the best carving. We have a very well appointed Museum of Maps in Bucharest (corner of London and Warsaw streets near Victoria Square, if you are interested) which had a temporary exhibition on WW1 ethnic maps in Eastern Europe from the French, Hungarian, Romanian, German MFA archives, which were used in negotiations. And it was fascinating to see how all sides in the negotiation relied on pre-existing studies (we had great help from French geographers like Emmanuel de Martonne who had specialized in the region and had done studies on the ground in the 1910s). Some of the maps dated back to the 1850s. The negotiators would commission academics to make studies and interpret existing data so as to produce maps strengthening their claims. The exhibition had maps in all relevant languages from every side with detailed descriptions of who compiled them and how they were thought out and how they fit in the negotiations and debates. There was an astonishing array of graphical devices to represent different population proportions etc to make arguments. Simply drawing lines does not do the effort justice. This wasn’t the Yalta napkin set.

    This Hungarian blog has an English post on the same subject, just so I can maintain critical distance from the subject. Quite an astonishing collection. https://pangea.blog.hu/2019/04/18/romania_reflected_in_ethnic_maps

    Old example https://theseromaniansarecrazy.tumblr.com/image/160078972322

    From the political/military side, on the ground, our starting negotiating position was on the Tisza, where the Army had reached, though people understood it as untenable, because we were not even a plurality there. It did not stop the Royal Family from commissioning Greater Romania maps with that area incorporated. This also explains our war with the Hungarians and the invasion of Budapest in 1919, though we dressed it up as an anti-communist intervention (it was partly that, our elites were rightly afraid of Communism, though it never caught on internally as in other countries). In my totally unbiased opinion, the border was drawn as finely as possible with respect to the on-the-ground reality of who was in the majority where. By contrast, Bessarabia was much messier, ethnically, after 100 years in the Russian Empire and a portion of it for 150 years under the habsburgs and successors (with the colonization of Ukrainians for labor). Bihor even today is a quarter Hungarian, while the Romanian populations outside of the borders (minus the Moldovan SSR) has dwindled to nothing, through assimilation abetted by our policy of good relations with socialist brothers. Our minorities grew the same as the rest of the population, at least until the short-termist decision to let Germans emigrate to West Germany and Jews to Israel was adopted and they mostly left, of course (who wouldn’t). Thank God Klaus remained, amirite? :))

    It is Hungarian.

    I take good natured exception to that, but we do share it as people. Given Transylvania’s weird status over the centuries, one can make the argument that a Romanian polity has had sovereignty over it for far longer than the Hungarian one, kind of like Mexico and the land it lost to the US. It will be an interesting year in 2020, with the anniversary of Trianon. The tempers flared in 2018 will get even worse in 2020. Our lazy low key nationalism does not really imbue 1920 with a special significance, because the National myth centers on 1918 – the rest is just paperwork, but Mr. Orban will have his work cut out for him trying to ride the emotional wave in a way which benefits him politically (he has a lot of core voters here), underscores his message of national renewal and does as little damage to relations as possible. Btw, did you know that our new Prime Minister is also an Orban? :)))

    • Replies: @RohadtMagyar
    , @Buzz Mohawk
  49. Anonymous[347] • Disclaimer says:

    One obvious problem with fixed amount subsidies for children is that they tend to encourage people whose reaction to $11,000 per child is Woo-hoo, we’re gonna be rich!

    A fair point. I think you need to accept that any pro-natalist measure is going to be a crude instrument, but with that said these programs should certainly be targeted as much as possible. Orban’s idea to restrict this to married couples is a good start. Also remember that Hungary is a lot poorer than the US and $11,000 means a lot more there.

    In the US an easy potential solution would be to forgive the balance of student loans (20% per child, let’s say), but I’m assuming Hungary has subsidized university education? Affordable housing in urban areas is, I’m guessing, a big issue there as it is here; some kind of scheme to preferentially provide heavily subsidized housing to married taxpaying families might help. Of course all this has essentially 0 chance of happening in the US as we prefer to spend our tax dollars on important things–like refugee resettlement and making the world safe for Israel–but it’s good to see that there are men like Orban out there actually thinking about the future.

  50. J says: • Website

    Economic incentives work – to a point. The Government affirming publicly that having children is good and will not cause climate warming, is very important. As Hungarian, wish them success.

    The policy should have been channeled through religious groups, with the money apportioned to priests, rabbis, spiritual leaders, etc. to educate and encourage their younger followers. Hungarians have deep religious background, that is the way to reach them. Money is good, but no one is going hungry in Hungary.

  51. Italy has a problem with the lowest birth rate in Europe and many ancient towns, some in attractive places like Sicily and Sardinia becoming depopulated. Apparently the seed of the Roman Catholic call for no contraception has fallen on barren ears with no womb for expansion.

    Several municipalities are selling homes in need of renovation for a nominal 1 euro, and some of these programs have had some success. (There was a story about this on NPR radio a day or two ago.

    The deal is that if you buy the home, it has to be renovated within 3 years. I would have thought that there must be many Italian-American families who would like to acquire a vacation home in Italy and renovate it.

    https://www.italianfix.com/italy-giving-away-houses/

    Hard to imagine such a program could transfer easily to the US to repopulate areas like, say, Detroit, due to the race/crime issue, but I suppose that with the online economy there is some potential for start-up firms to get their first foothold in places where nobody wants the real estate and for local governments to promote this.

    • Replies: @Faraday's Bobcat
    , @J.Ross
  52. Jack D says:
    @jon

    As I understand the structure, the benefits come as a loan that you have to pay back UNLESS you have 2 or more children later on (and the government doesn’t have to worry about being paid back -they can always dock your social security later on or garnish your paycheck or seize your bank accounts). So unless they are having sham children to go with the sham marriage, it wouldn’t work.

  53. Rob McX says:

    People say the white birthrate is in terminal decline, but it shouldn’t be hard to turn it around with well thought out pro-natalist policies. Most of the obstacles in Europe are probably legal, imposed by governments who’d like to outsource all breeding to Africa. One obvious requirement for the success of the subsidy is that it be confined to the indigenous population. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the EU trying to stop that.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Romanian
  54. Knowing Hungary slightly, I wonder whether this subsidy program will apply to Roma/gypsy couples …

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
    , @Romanian
  55. George says:
    @Lot

    “or is a tax cheat working off the books, he gets nothing.”

    Sounds disgenic to me, that’s exactly the kind of high IQ person you want breeding.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
  56. Romanian says: • Website
    @Rob McX

    The obstacles are not just financial, but also cultural – social status, priorities, lifestyle aspirations. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Eastern Europeans would have the same birthrate as the Western Europeans or worse even if they had the same economic profile, whereas we all assume (naively maybe) that poverty is the main cause of low birthrates. It is an important cause, and quite possible it is a factor in the initial reduction of birthrates, but economics will not solve the situation. Fiscal policies will not solve it. They can only help, but they can also hinder because all of that state money comes out of the pockets of the productive. So a failed policy might leave us worse off than no policy at all, especially if it conditions people to breed in a synchronous manner with state handouts.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  57. According to Anatoly Karlin, it does take time for the breeders to get going.

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/

  58. @Jonathan Mason

    Cities like Detroit have given away houses to people who agree to fix them up and in some cases pay back taxes. Crime is one thing standing in the way of such schemes, but another thing is that some areas are so depopulated that even with the giveaways, they don’t have the population density to support city-style services and utilities. They have to either return those areas to a “township” model or just scrape them and let the grass grow.

  59. Whiskey says: • Website

    The low birth rate is a baby strike by women seeking Alpha. Nothing more.

    • Replies: @Sam Coulton
    , @anon
  60. @Lot

    Wonderful news, the world needs more Hungarians raised by loving Hungarian 2-parent families.

    As I always say when natalist policies come up, they need to be BIG. Reports of various pissant programs should be ignored as evidence against this.

    Spot on.

    There’s a definite effort from the-usual-suspects when fertility is raised to pooh-pooh any effots, tell us it’s all hopeless, there’s nothing you can do, etc. etc.

    A few commenters here (“Morris Applebaum” and a few other shills)–call ’em distractionists–were using this line last week to claim immigration isn’t your problem it is fertility, stop worrying about immigration, you’ll need immigrants … blah, blah, blah.

    Utter nonsense. As i pointed out immigration is “forever”–you need war, killing to unpack it. But if you stop immigration fertility will turn around on it’s own due to improved opportunity and natural selection of breeder traits.

    And you can easily design policy to fix low fertility. Young men and women actually really like getting together and enjoying their “complementarity”. All they need is an environment that encourages it and makes it affordable. Mathematically there is some number between no subsidy and 100% tax on singles/childless subsidizing the married-with-kids that puts your fertility smack dab where you want it.

    But in the West today–and the East for that matter–it isn’t a small number. Housing is expensive. Immigration makes jobs, housing with good schools” more scarce. The culture is working against you. You need a “statement” number. A statement that says “this is what we value” and actually makes a difference to young couples contemplating married life, or married couples contemplating children or more children.

    ~~~

    “ encourage people whose reaction to $11,000 per child is Woo-hoo, we’re gonna be rich”

    Make it a $50,000 per child income tax deduction. If Dad makes 100k, that’s about $12,500 off his taxes. If he’s on disability or is a tax cheat working off the books, he gets nothing.

    Exactly.

    Any nationalist/conservative program needs to promote *eugenic* fertility. (Yes, yes, i know Hitler/Nazis “discredited” eugenics.) We already have all sorts of programs that encourage disgenic fertility. No más.

    The easy way to do this is the fertility benefit is a tax deduction. Effectively simply stop taxing productive middle class people while they are doing their child raising. Make it easy/affordable for mom to stay home and have another. The better dad is doing bringing home the bacon the larger the number of children that will continue to bring tax reduction.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Morris Applebaum IV
  61. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:

    On the other hand, wealthy people in these post-2008 days in the U.S. are still pretty good about marrying and reproducing.

    How are you defining “wealthy” here?

    Birth rates are ate 32 year lows, and continuing to decline:

    https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/birth-rate-u-s-falls-lowest-level-32-years-cdc-n1005696

    https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/u-s-birth-rate-falls-4th-year-row-n1091446

  62. Hungary Must Have More Hungarians, One Way Or Any Other

    Bribe The White Broads World Wide To Make More White People

    Hungary must get a NUKE deterrent now!

    Orban should get off his fat ass and get a nuke deterrent for Hungary.

    Orban, you fat-assed Hun bastard, get a nuke now!

    OFF TOPIC

    Auto Union Thousand Acre Estate Has Walter Reuther’s Ashes On A Hill And A Fancy Golf Course Close By.

    New York Times — Neal E. Boudette:

    ONAWAY, Mich. — The United Auto Workers union is based in Detroit, but its spiritual home lies 250 miles to the north, in a dense and remote forest on the shore of Black Lake.

    Here, 40 miles from the nearest Starbucks, the U.A.W. owns a spartan retreat known to few people outside the auto industry, though it opened nearly 50 years ago. Covering 1,000 acres, the gated compound includes cabins, lodges, a banquet hall and a recreation center with an Olympic-size swimming pool. An eternal flame marks the hilltop resting place of the ashes of Walter Reuther, who built the U.A.W. into one of the most powerful unions in the country in the 1950s and 1960s.

    Anyone can book a stay there. During a recent overnight stay, I found it dated. Guest rooms feature few of the amenities found in modern hotels, like Wi-Fi and cable TV. Some hallways were marked by musty odors. But a golf course the U.A.W. built just outside the retreat in 2000, at a cost of $6.7 million, is considered one of the best in Michigan.

  63. RonaldB says:

    The assumption is being made that financial advantage or disadvantage is a prime factor in the decision of having children.

    I would suggest that several social factors are more important:

    1) having a stable, homogeneous, family environment to encourage children, educated them in traditions, and assist in raising them; I speculate that Orban’s obvious commitment to keeping Hungary Hungarian is at least as influential in rising birth rates as his financial subsidy;

    2) complete freedom of association. People should be free to have formal and informal associations where they actively select for people who share their ethnicity and culture. Robert Putnam, summarizing his studies in “Bowling Alone”, concluded people are happier, more social, more trusting and more productive when they are in a homogeneous environment. Young people being with people like themselves are more likely to form close bonds leading to marriage and family.

    3) Consciously avoiding the risks of the welfare state, where the person specializing in gaming the system gets the most resources, and maladaptive, genetic mutations are subsidized to the point of subsidized breeding. This is a common feature of advanced civilizations, and has not yet been successfully addressed.

    • Agree: Mark G.
  64. Hungarian reader here. The government offers these benefits:
    – CSOK: up to HUF 10M free for NEW property IF you have or agree to have 3 kids within 10 years. If you buy used property or have fewer kids it is still available but only about 1-2.5 M. There is a special version for depopulating villages where you do get 10M for a used house but you have to modernize it. No kids or divorce=you pay the money back with interest. 12< week old fetuses, adoptions and dead kids count though. There are limitations to get rid of dumb breeding and using the benefits for investments, because you also have to live in your property, you must have a work history of I believe 1+ years, no criminal record and both of you must be married, live in Hungary and be Hungarian citizens. Another limitation is that this much money won't buy you anything. If you don't have your own funds, you cannot use CSOK.
    – CSOK loan: up to HUF 15M. This is a loan, only for properties but no interest. This is issued through banks and the banks do the usual background checks. If you wouldn't qualify for a normal 10M loan, you won't qualify for this. AFAIK no limits on number of kids or used/new property.
    – Babaváró ("baby expecting") loan: this is the really sweet deal, I'm actually considering taking it out. This is a 10M loan FOR ANY USE – you can just buy bonds with it if you want. If you have just one kid, it is interest-free AND re-payment is frozen for 3 years. If you have a second kid, 30% of the remaining debt is cancelled and you can freeze payments for 3 more years. If you have a third kid, all the debt is cancelled. The debt is NOT a mortgage, you have 20+2×3 years to pay it back and monthly payments can never exceed HUF 50k which is not a lot. CSOK & CSOK loan limitations apply, so there is protection against dumb breeding. This offer is available until 2022.
    – Tax returns: you can progressively deduct up to HUF 100k from your taxes if you have 1-3 kids. Considering that gross wages are ~350k at the moment, this is significant.
    – Family benefits: very limited at 12k HUF (~40 dollars) per month per child. This is what you get if you have no income.

    There are minor programs (e.g. car subsidies) also. The programs cost about 3 billion dollars (~2% of GDP) this year. Some benefits just rolled out so the annual cost is fractional, but you have to consider that lots of people who already had kids took the benefits as soon as they were available.

    The Babaváró is very attractive because you don't have to choose in advance what you want. If you are expecting a child, it is basically risk-free. CSOK drove up property prices at attractive locations (Budapest, some rural areas) to the extent that Budapest is not affordable. With 10M CSOK+25M loans you can buy houses in rural areas or smaller towns or build your own in county capitals but not Budapest. There is a minimum size limit of 70 square meters for apartments which is considered big and usually only available in large new condo buildings.
    I think the policies will not be dysgenic because underclass people cannot benefit much from them. I have doubts if they will have massive effects though because having your own property is still a huge risk. They are certainly the most generous family formation subsidies in the world right now so let's see.
    Sham marriages are not an issue because a marriage only gets you 5k HUF/month for 2 years – not worth the hussle.

    BTW the most impressive economic program in Hungary has not been this, but the Japanese-style re-structuring of state debt to private investors. Hungarian sovereign debt is down to ~70% of GDP from ~80 in 2010, but its re-structuring towards HUF-denominated bonds. In 2010, the country had about HUF 20k billion in debt, about half HUF-denominated and half in foreign currencies, less than 500 billion owned by private citizens. Now, the debt is about 29k billion (nominal increase was offset by GDP growth), from which only 5.5k billion is foreign currency but 9k billion is owned by private citizens for whom very attractive bonds are available. The Hungarian government now owes a third of its debt to citizens and this is expected to increase to a half by 2023. This is probably why the Babaváró grant is so generous – the government would be OK to have its debt re-financed by the money it gives you.

  65. @PiltdownMan

    And yet Singapore’s fertilitt rate is still one of the lowest in the world at 1.20.

    Subsidy for what should be bare minimum standards of behavior does not work.

    • Replies: @Medvedev
  66. @Whiskey

    Women do not seek Alpha, they fear and recoil from it.

    • Replies: @anon
  67. Corvinus says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    “My wife is/was a Romanian citizen, but now, and for many years, American.”

    So, magic dirt it is! You do realize of course that your statement reeks of civic nationalism, and is subject to Alt Right scrutiny, right?

    “If you all really believe in all the stuff you write here, then you will respect Victor Orban and his attempts to facilitate White life.”

    So, socialism it is! I mean, I’m quite sure Mr. Sailer and others here would agree that females in their childbearing prime ought to be shamed, nay coerced, into abandoning their own hopes, dreams, and aspirations to procreate with a God-fearing man! I humbly argue that social pressure has generally NOT produced the desired results; only legislation modeled after “Mother Russia” will induce women to birth and raise children. Socialist medicine to cure those baby blues–direct cash payments to females for every child popped out like popcorn and accommodating work schedules to account for those udderly ridiculous late night feeding frenzies!

    Let us take it one step further–ban compulsory schooling for females in particular. All they learn at the state run asylums is how to swear like a drunken sailor and get STD’s. Keep the girls at home where they can start having children at the tender age of 16 or 17, and then when the kids reach puberty, MAYBE they can entertain the thought of employment outside of the home, so long as they obtain permission from Father.

    Even if young men and women are ill-prepared intellectually or financially to care for them (freedom be damned!), and despite the wolf of Cultural Marxism that breathes down the neck of innocent Robby or Libby, every single member of the Christian libertarian intelligentsia or Greek Orthodox Brigade is obligated to hit the lecture circuit and step onto the soapbox, with bullhorn in tow, to proudly advertise to the Roissy’s and feminazi’s of the world that their outright refusal to settle down and raise (white) children is a recipe for demographic homicide.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    , @anon
  68. @Harry Baldwin

    The progressives don’t need to reproduce to grow their support, they’ll prevail through indoctrination and immigration. So far it seems to be working for them.

    Yep. They flood us with foreigners and kidnap and indoctrinate children to be their janissaries. Multicultural progressivism is a weird combination of the Ottoman Empire, the Shakers and homo-erotic masochism.

    And yet … they are winning!

    • Agree: istevefan
    • Replies: @J.Ross
  69. @Redneck farmer

    Yeah, but Orbán is straight, married for over thirty years, and has produced five little magyarok of his own. Can the Führer say the same?

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  70. Seriously speaking, what policies are proven successes in terms of eugenics, not including that nasty sterilisation stuff?

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    , @Rob McX
  71. @PiltdownMan

    Wow! It is as if their government wants their people to not go extinct.

  72. Clyde says:
    @Harry Baldwin

    The progressives don’t need to reproduce to grow their support, they’ll prevail through indoctrination and immigration. So far it seems to be working for them.

    Indoctrination via the education system they control. They start young with indoctrinating grade school students on gay sex and weird sex and now transsexual matters. Then they indoctrinate with leftism and cultural Marxism in high school and college. Then bringing in hordes of socialist voting third worlders (they are poor and need freebies/handouts) works against older established Americans who usually believe in self reliance and capitalism.

  73. @Corvinus

    Corny since this is an HBD blog, i gotta ask the question:

    Were you born a bozo? Or did your parents/your schools raise you to be a bozo?

    Nature or nurture?

    ~~~

    — Corny, do you know any actual women?

    — Women actually like having children, it’s one of those pretty typical female urges. For most women being a mom is the most important thing they have done/want to do.

    — Surveyed as to number of desired children, Western women give answers for which the national averages are mostly in the 2-2.5 range.

    — Women in the West are having something around 1.5 kids. I.e. Western women are having fewer children than they want to have.

    — Civilization must reproduce itself. That means–long term–we need to get the number back to around 2.

    — That’s asking the average western woman to average … drumroll … an extra half a kid! Fascism!

  74. J.Ross says:
    @AnotherDad

    >Ottoman empire
    >BDSMGBTQ
    Redundant.
    >Shakers
    Was it the Quakers who were nearly matriarchal, or would at least stop team-building adult relaxation activities on the woman’s say-so?

  75. Jack D says:
    @AnotherDad

    For most women being a mom is the most important thing they have done/want to do.

    I don’t think that’s really true anymore. I always go by revealed preferences – talk is cheap.

  76. J.Ross says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Detroit has already had waves of renovation from three benefactors:
    Dan Gilbert (Chaotic Good), billionaire mogul who made it a priority to build up and make safe Detroit’s center and some outlying areas; the police rely on his cameras and security services.
    Hipster gentrifiers (Lawful Neutral) only do one house or shop at a time and cannot impact the crime or overall population situation.
    Asiatic real estate tulipomaniacs (True Evil) heard about Detroit having loads of cheap houses, asked no questions about what part of Vancouver is that, and bought up properties that were cheap because nobody wanted them.
    We’re still left with the zombis, though. No getting around that problem.

  77. @Billy Corr

    Of course it won’t. Gypsies aren’t Hungarians. Neither are they Romanians (despite being constantly called that by the media in Britain, always in the context of a crime), or Czechs or Poles or Slovaks. They are a band of hereditary criminals which should be “disbanded” for good and all.

    • Replies: @Lurker
  78. @George

    “that’s exactly the kind of high IQ person you want breeding”

    High-IQ scoundrels and cheats are a bad thing, unless you propose an entire nation of them.

  79. @AnotherDad

    Everything you said is wrong and misleading. Women do not have children and never wanted to, men always had to enforce reproduction through coercion, discrimination, and physical violence. Surveys about how many children women say they “want” to have are useless. In actuality, few people have any idea of what “they” “want”, particularly women.

  80. @Jack D

    This guy gets it. Definitely nor a cuck.

  81. anon[356] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sam Coulton

    Women do not seek Alpha, they fear and recoil from it.

    Lol! That’s what they tell you, anyway.

  82. @Romanian

    Uhm….the only reason that Romania had a seat at the table is because they switched sides at the end of the war, and made sure to end up on the victor’s side so they could carve up greater Hungary.

    Once the borders were re-drawn, and Transylvanian Hungarians and Szeklers (as well as the Transylvanian Saxons and other ethnic Germans of various stripes) woke up the next day in Romania, not Austria-Hungary, they were not only ruthlessly persecuted by the Romanians.

    This persecution lasted up until 1989.

    The Saxons and the Hungarians have been in Transylvania for hundreds of years, and literally built it out. Saxons were quite wealthy, Hungarians secondarily so, with Romanians a distant third.

    Romanians are an odd, xenophobic people (as are Hungarians, but less so) —

    • Replies: @Romanian
  83. @AnotherDad

    “A few commenters here (“Morris Applebaum” and a few other shills)–call ’em distractionists–were using this line last week to claim immigration isn’t your problem it is fertility, stop worrying about immigration, you’ll need immigrants ”

    I realize that people from the Island of Adolphus have a peculiar spin on things, but my only point was that there need to be a lot more articles like this because there actually isn’t much time left to turn things around, not that you should leave the gates open.

  84. @Sam Coulton

    Its amazing that you aren’t a Tiny Duck.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  85. Corvinus says:
    @AnotherDad

    “Were you born a bozo? Or did your parents/your schools raise you to be a bozo?”

    They were clowns in a traveling show.

    Nature or nurture?

    “Corny, do you know any actual women?”

    Dozens.

    “Women actually like having children, it’s one of those pretty typical female urges.”

    Generally speaking, absolutely.

    “For most women being a mom is the most important thing they have done/want to do.”

    If you several posters here, they would say fewer women, sadly.

    “Surveyed as to number of desired children, Western women give answers for which the national averages are mostly in the 2-2.5 range.”

    Do American women typically refer to themselves as “western”?

    “Women in the West are having something around 1.5 kids. I.e. Western women are having fewer children than they want to have.”

    You mean (white)) men and women in the United States, Canada, and Europe are having less kids. There are a host of factors.

    “Civilization must reproduce itself. That means–long term–we need to get the number back to around 2.”

    Civilization is doing just fine, we have many kids being born every day around the world. Oh, you mean “white kids” for “white civilization”. Be more specific next time.

    “That’s asking the average western woman to average … drumroll … an extra half a kid! Fascism!”

    No, not Fascism, the program is rooted in socialism. I thought that was a big no-no.

    • Replies: @Sam Coulton
  86. @TelfoedJohn

    “what policies are proven successes in terms of eugenics, not including that nasty sterilisation stuff”

    No welfare state, no slavery/serfdom, and a country where some foresight is needed not to starve in the winter. Basically Northern Europe for the last millennium up to very recently.

    Child welfare is the dysgenic kryptonite. When you knew that you’d either have to be able to support your child alone or find a father or the father to support it, women were pretty careful who fathered their kids.

    Mind, Iceland was pretty poor up to 1940 and the arrival of the Brits and Yanks, despite a high IQ. But then so were my Victorian forebears in the UK. Similarly the high-IQ Chinese were starving 50 years ago.

    • Replies: @TelfoedJohn
  87. It’s hilarious to see the political class scratching around for some way to ‘drive’ demography so that their welfare Ponzi schemes don’t collapse.

    That’s what policies like this are about – PSFTE[1] per retiree, and PSFTE per bureaucrat. The government grift relies on those ratios, as a proxy for the tax that can be taken from PTSFEs and transferred to government beneficiaries.

    Governments have demographers, and demographers aren’t all dumb. They see this coming, and they know full well that importing people won’t help because immigrants are not directly-substitutable labour (that doesn’t happen until generation 3); any attempt at quality filtering just gets hijacked and corrupted (‘skilled migrant’ programs are just as corrupt as foreign-student programs: source countries have bureaucrats every bit as corrupt as ours).

    One thing that can be said a priori: these policies are always dysgenic. Left to endogenous drivers, the bottom 3 quintiles do all of the reproduction anyhow – but this adds a skew that selects for inability to do basic benefit-cost calculations.

    The thing that simply cannot be escaped, is that the amounts on offer are never, ever ever enough to get women in the IQ > μ+σ cohort to reproduce.

    115 is actually a low bar: it aligns with average income, since income distributions are closer to lognormal/gamma/Weibull than Gaussian. And that’s true, even if you control for part-time-ness and only work with FTE (or hourly rates). About 66% of full-time employees earn less than the average full-time income[2].

    If the incentives were jacked up so that they ‘bit’ at 115-ish, they would make the problem worse – because they would still stimulate disproportionately in cohorts below the cognitive median.

    They’ll succeed in getting Hungarian women to squirt out extra Hungarians that, on average and at the cohort median, will be dumber than the level required to earn an average income. Hooray!

    Everywhere shit like this has been tried, PIAAC and PISA scores get worse as the new squirtees start getting tested.

    Australia had a piffling Baby Bonus (started as a $2k tax deduction: within a few years it as a $5k direct transfer).

    That drove the TFR from 1.7 in 2002, to 2.0 and resulted in more new squirtees, than the post-WWII demobilisation. The primary squirters were in the 35-39 cohort.

    Hands up anyone who thinks that the ones doing the squirting were the smartest 35-39 year olds? Or the most employable? Or the highest paid?

    The ones with the best careers, the best genes, etc were somehow influenced to generate a new sprog for $100 a week? OK, Boomer[3].

    These were the 35-39 year olds with few economic alternatives; their offspring are now testing in line with what you would expect.

    [1] PSFTE: Private Sector Full-Time Equivalent. Government knows that public sector employees cannot sustain a Ponzi, because their salaries are just other people’s taxes (either concurrent, or deferred-with-interest).

    [2] ‘Income’ in this context only includes wages, salaries and supplements: it doesn’t include ‘passive’ income – e.g., earned interest. If that’s included the distribution becomes slightly more skewed, i.e., the problem gets worse.

    [3] Since I’m a Feb ’65 squirtee, in some taxonomic sense I am a Boomer (there’s some fuzziness at the boundary: when it first entered the popular lexicon the term”GenX” had a lot more to do with being disillusioned (kind of anti-status) – I was 30s when ‘Mallrats‘ was released, and my mental picture of what ‘GenX’ means was always epitomised by Jason Lee’s character in that film… significantly smarter than those around him, but couldn’t give a fuck. (And 30 years later, pre-karma Earl Hickey is pretty much the same, but slightly more down-at-heel).

    I still think ‘OK Boomer‘ is the most exquisite phrase that has emerged in the last 40 years (although ‘stink palm‘ was also superb). It perfectly captures the feeling “You believe [whatever] because you’ve been told to, and you think that your age makes your belief correct.“.

    GenX needs a similar retort to use downwards: ‘OK Zoomer‘ is too derivative, and “Why you young whippersnapper” is Boomer-talk.

    • Replies: @Romanian
  88. @Corvinus

    Every race of women is having less kids in America. The fertility rate of black and Hispanic women actually declined at a bigger rate than white women’s did over the last couple years, it’s looking like they will achieve parity soon.

    Nobody knows how many kids men father. Fertility statistics look at female births alone.

  89. @PiltdownMan

    Singapore, which has a below replacement rate birth rate, has a similar bonus scheme

    Obviously it’s not working. Perhaps they should hold Raffles instead.

    • LOL: PiltdownMan
  90. @Romanian

    Try should take a tip from the marketing crowd: Go back to your best customers. Don’t try to get the barren to have that first child, get the parents of three or four to have a couple more. They’re already experienced.

    A few large families can do more good than many tiny, neurotic ones.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    , @Medvedev
  91. donut says:

    I’m watching “The Irishman” and while Scorsese has made a few good movies I’m not a big fan . I like most of his movies (not “GOODFELLAS” ) but I don’t think I would put any of his movies on my top ten list . The best thing about his movies is the soundtrack .

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  92. J.Ross says:

    Healthy, fit actor drops dead at 35. Drugs?
    Twist: he was a citizen of the Republic of China (Taiwan) who had gone to the People’s Republic of China (or “China”) for work.
    Is there any way this isn’t drugs? Or are the Han just reminding us that it is, after all, November 2019? The light that burns brightest also burns briefest …
    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/nov/27/the-mortal-instruments-actor-godfrey-gao-dies-on-set-aged-35
    How does any person that good looking drop dead at 35 and it isn’t drugs or crime?

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    , @PiltdownMan
  93. J.Ross says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Coulton had some good stuff, I forget what it was, but he’s not a pure troll. His combative tone’s all wrong for this place but it wouldn’t be inappropriate on a chan.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  94. @J.Ross

    Heart attacks happen, but I suspect that he was doing drugs.

  95. Romanian says: • Website
    @Reg Cæsar

    But isn’t that inevitable? I remember reading that that, in France, the 10% of families who have more than two kids are responsible for 50% of the kids.

    I think you should rather aim at getting the low hanging fruit child, not just to get your best breeders to breed.

    Say you have a 1.x TFR in a society where the ideal family as expressed in studies is to have two kids. Then, if you focus resources on people having that second kid, you are almost guaranteed a small baby boom, because the number of people having singletons is very large and that second kid is not an absurd ask. The lowest cost marginal extra child will always be the second one.

    Now, how do you get that second child or more? My opinion would be to have a diffuse policy for the whole of the tax-paying population and targeted policies which go directly to the more conservative social strata, but with assured higher average quality – the Army and the Orthodox priesthood, for instance, in Romania.

    Of course, you need to encourage the champion breeders, too, with certain caveats of course. I always thought that the Church in Romania should start something like the American Quiverfull movement. To a certain extent, the Adventists already practice this and are steadily growing through conversions and natural increase (large families are the norm, as is the community social safety net, Mormon style). But they started from a small base, and I am biased in favor of the Romanian Orthodox Church because it is a particularist institution, despite ethnophilia being considered heretical (the fact that they thought about this shows the tendencies of the system).

  96. @J.Ross

    Women certainly want children, though. I’ve known women who use sperm banks to get themselves pregnant and thus enjoy relatively lavish health benefits in countries that support that, and the ensuring welfare care for their child(sometimes collecting six-digit salaries for half a decade without working).

    Frankly I’ll say that women probably enjoy children more than they enjoy men.

  97. Lurker says:
    @Old Palo Altan

    I vote for shipping them back to India.

  98. anon[356] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    Women actually like having children, it’s one of those pretty typical female urges. For most women being a mom is the most important thing they have done/want to do.

    Ok, Boomer!

    One question: Why do women in the US not marry until they are 27 (28 if they went to college)?

    Lol!
    What US women want when they are 22 is not the same as what they want at 32. This isn’t difficult to understand. It’s easy to see.

    In the last 3 years I’ve had professional association with multiple women who clearly partied their 20’s away, got married sometime around 30 and then immediately had an outbreak of baby-rabies. One woman pushed out two children in about 2.5 years, the other just got her first out this year.

    The majority of US women do not want children in their 20’s. If they did, it would be obvious. Once they hit 30, then they want a child, typically 1.8 to 2.1. Yes, there are exceptions for minorities and subgroups, especially religious, but the larger majority preference is obvious by the way they act.

    Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder. Not a difficult concept. Except when it collides with some romantic belief.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  99. Medvedev says:
    @Sam Coulton

    South Korea fertility – 0.98
    Taiwan – 1.06
    Singapore is a city-state. Imagine how low their fertility would be without subsidies?

    • Replies: @Sam Coulton
    , @Romanian
  100. @Morris Applebaum IV

    Just noticed that @AnotherDad gave a long response to my post last week, which can be summed up in two sentences (ignoring the insults, etc.)

    (1) Absent immigration, low fertility populations will bounce back because the surviving population of “breeders” will eventually bounce back to replacement or above levels.

    There are two extraordinary problems with this idea. First, there is no reason to think this will happen in any reasonable amount of time. The “non-breeders” all descend from people that were pretty good at breeding. I doubt there is that much of a genetic difference between groups that had 350000 generations of breeding and those with 350001 that it will self-correct in a short period of time. Low (White and East Asian) fertility is common in inexpensive, low density, low immigration areas. It’s clear that, at best, this process will take many generations to self-correct in a perfect world.

    In the real world, most Western countries are already heterogeneous (the USA has been from the beginning) and demographics will rapidly change without even one more immigrant allowed in.

    (2) “If a population defends it’s territory, it will recover”

    A rapidly declining population (especially with much higher fertility groups in the same country!) will have a very hard time defending themselves.

    • Agree: Sam Coulton
  101. Medvedev says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Exactly, encourage people who want to have children to reproduce.
    70-80 years ago Haredim or Amish were a small group of people numbering tens of thousands. Today there are 350k Amishes, 1 million Haredim in Isarael and at least half a million in the US.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  102. @Medvedev

    Singapore is also a multi-cultural state, with about 75 percent of its inhabitants belonging to the Chinese majority. An additional 13% are Malay, and 10% are Indian. It’s just as likely that the fertility rate of Singapore relative to South Korea is driven by its foreign nationalities — you ought to check and see for us if they aren’t breeding at a disproportional rate compared to Chinese because that might be a bigger factor than the subsidy program.

    • Replies: @Medvedev
  103. @Bard of Bumperstickers

    Absolutely true. My Hungarian wife is a godsend.

  104. Tom-in-VA says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    You have to be able to pass a test in the country’s language to vote in their election? How absolutely retrograde!

  105. Jack D says:
    @Romanian

    The fundamental problem of modernity is that once you allow women to be educated and enter into the job market, high IQ women no longer reproduce. That’s the real IQ shredder. So it’s only a matter of time that average IQ starts heading down as the high IQ female population dies off without reproducing. It’s going to go down if you let in immigrants and if you don’t.

  106. @Medvedev

    in Isarael

    That’s what Desmond Dekker called the country.

    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
  107. @J.Ross

    It is natural for us laypersons to suspect that, but people do die young, suddenly and unexpectedly. Often, it is vascular in nature. A pipe bursts, quite simply, for whatever reason. Other times, it is an allergic reaction.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lee#Death

  108. Romanian says: • Website
    @Jack D

    Paraphrasing Byron:

    A bigot; but our morons then
    Will still, at least, be our countrymen.

  109. Rosie says:
    @Bard of Bumperstickers

    American men wouldn’t need bribes if they could marry a Hungarian girl.

    Fortunately, men who think this way won’t be much represented in future generations. In any event, I always find it gratifying when the hypergamy hoaxers let the mask slip.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  110. Rosie says:
    @anon

    The majority of US women do not want children in their 20’s. If they did, it would be obvious. Once they hit 30, then they want a child, typically 1.8 to 2.1. Yes, there are exceptions for minorities and subgroups, especially religious, but the larger majority preference is obvious by the way they act.

    Except that they want to marry and have children with young men their age, who don’t want to marry until they’re in their thirties.

    Not a difficult concept.

  111. @jon

    Sham marriages are common when incentives are really skewed.
    25+ years ago they were a thing in the enlisted army. You could boost your pay 40% + tax free and get a nice apartment away from barracks life.

    A downside if you stayed “married” too long was possible unintended pension division. But most guys pulling this stunt were not lifers.

  112. J.Ross says:
    @Rosie

    … when non-Hungarians wish they were Hungarian …

  113. @Rosie

    No mentally healthy woman wants to associate with a man their age. Women can’t stand males their age or younger.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @black sea
  114. @Romanian

    Thank you for the information, and for your good nature. I appreciate both. Happy Thanksgiving from America! Take care.

  115. @Rosie

    Except that they want to marry and have children with young men their age, who don’t want to marry until they’re in their thirties. Not a difficult concept.

    I think this is basically correct. Certainly historically it was always more difficult to persuade men to marry young , than women. In my own (haredi) community with it’s pre-sexual revolution mores (you are not getting any unless you put a ring on it), where there is no shortage of young men willing to settle down, %90 -95 of women are married by the age of 24, almost irrespective of educational attainment. 3 of my 4 nieces and both my daughters were married by the time they were in grad school. While it’s likely that the ideology of feminism bears some responsibility for the situation in society at large, I would suspect feminism itself might be largely a reaction to change in the , so to speak ,sexual marketplace

    • Replies: @Sam Coulton
    , @SFG
  116. @kaganovitch

    It wasn’t a matter of persuasion or preference. Men had to acquire resources (i.e. land, skills, whatever) in young adulthood to be elligible for marriage.

    • Replies: @anon
  117. Alden says:
    @Anno

    This boomer couple already took care of our own children and are planning to help the grandchildren. And to hell with the rest, especially as with all government programs, the help won’t go to Whites.

  118. Alden says:
    @Romanian

    There’s a lot of that in America as well. It wasn’t till the 195os 60s that some immigrants ended the custom of envelopes of cash in the bride’s purse, actually a huge white tote bag.

    Now it’s presents for the new household and gift certificates. A very bad custom the wedding industry has invented is the destination wedding, usually Hawaii or Caribbean islands

    That means the guests bridesmaids ushers etc have to pay for transportation and a few days stay in a hotel somewhere as well as a gift. A thousand $ at least usually more. Dirty little secret is the rooms for the wedding party are free and the reception is very cheap and the hotel makes its costs and profit from the wedding guests hotel bills

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  119. anon[160] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Except that they want to marry and have children with young men their age, who don’t want to marry until they’re in their thirties.

    Lol. Typical fact-free old-lady feminist trolling.
    US women marry when they want to, not when some man makes them, and they marry on average at the age of 27. In a few years it will shift to 28.

    Reality doesn’t care about your feelings or politics.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  120. Alden says:
    @Sam Coulton

    Please explain and what makes you think you know what male attributes attract women?

    • Replies: @Sam Coulton
    , @Rosie
  121. @Alden

    We got envelopes of cash at our 1987 wedding in Chicago. They were much appreciated.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  122. anon[160] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sam Coulton

    ;It wasn’t a matter of persuasion or preference. Men had to acquire resources (i.e. land, skills, whatever) in young adulthood to be elligible for marriage.

    Provider game, the traditional negotation, is now dead. Thanks to Title IX and Affirmative Action, women in their 20’s do not need a man (they are strong and independent), they often have the sort of entry level job that a prospective husband might have. They are their own betas. This is the part that old-lady feminists like Rosie just can’t see, it would get in the way of blaming men for the actions of women.

    Mid 20-somethings are still pretty enough to attract the attention of men. They can ignore the ticking of their biological clock, and tell each other pretty lies about how easy it is to bear children even in their 40’s. After some years riding the cock carousel, they find it a bit more difficult than it used to be, and the ticking gets louder. That’s when they put up profiles on dating sites / apps about “tired of drama” and “ready to settle down”. This is usually around 26 – 29. Panic sets in around 29 because the Big 3-0 is a significant number.

    The reality is this: American women do not want to marry until they are 26 – 29. Therefore they don’t. When they want to marry, they generally find a man fairly quickly. It’s not complicated if you watch what they do, and ignore all the noisy things they say.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  123. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Jack D

    For most women being a mom is the most important thing they have done/want to do.

    I don’t think that’s really true anymore. I always go by revealed preferences – talk is cheap.

    Agreed. They want children, but not if it might affect their career. Or impinge on their social lives. Or their sex lives. Or cost money. And of course, as long as they don’t have to do gross things like changing diapers. And as long as they don’t have to be home when the kids get home from school. Or drive the kids places.

    In other words they don’t want kids enough to actually have kids.

    • Disagree: Rosie
  124. Anon[670] • Disclaimer says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    Have you noticed all the sympathetic pro tranny stuff on NHK lately?

  125. @Alden

    Well, we could start by looking at the actual data. Men who get the most responses on dating apps are in their 50s, women, their early 20s.

    Women tend to marry men who are older than them.

    And the male talent on the big screen? Same old guys from the 1980s/1990s: Brad Pitt, Leonardo Dicaprio, Denzel Washington, George Clooney, Idris Elba. Male faces on network television: still Conan O’Brian, Colbert, Wolf Blitzer, Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart, etc. On the other hand, show the female talent that has lasted that long. Women still swoon over Conan and Olbermann. Men don’t fawn over the hosts of The View.

    As the saying goes, men age like wine; women, like bread. Women hate, are utterly repulsed by, and want to destroy, young men and male children. They want men of seniority, experience, and wear. Age 55 is when most men begin to peak.

  126. J.Ross says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Howard Stern tells this great story about his (first) wedding, before he was famous: his (Jewish) relatives gave envelopes of money, the wife’s (gentile) side of the family gave a crystal punchbowl, as in they corporately donated one thing, and it was theoretically only useful for applications that would benefit them like family events.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  127. northeast says:

    Hungary is a shining light in the dreary, formless collapse of the West.

  128. Rosie says:
    @anon

    Lol. Typical fact-free old-lady feminist trolling.
    US women marry when they want to, not when some man makes them, and they marry on average at the age of 27. In a few years it will shift to 28.

    And where are your facts?

    In particular, where is your proof that women rather than men resist and delay marriage? Moreover, where is your proof that later marriage is just a tendency to cohabit for longer periods of time?

    Go ahead I’ll wait. I’ve been waiting for such evidence for several years now. I can wait a few more minutes.

    • Replies: @anon
  129. Rosie says:
    @anon

    Provider game, the traditional negotation, is now dead.

    “The traditional negotiation” > forced prostitution

    • Replies: @Sam Coulton
    , @anon
  130. Rosie says:
    @Alden

    Please explain and what makes you think you know what male attributes attract women?

    Manosphere creeps don’t do facts.

    Here is the real reason for delayed marriage:

    https://www.mercurynews.com/2008/05/07/when-men-marry-later-age-gap-is-larger-researchers-find/

    • Replies: @Sam Coulton
    , @Sam Coulton
    , @SFG
  131. @Rosie

    Do you nunderstand how to read graphs? That chart cleearly shows women prefer older men.

    Men don’t even peak until their 50s:

    https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/8/eaap9815

  132. black sea says:
    @Jack D

    There’s a distinction to be made. For most women, being a mother may not be the most important thing they want to do, but may be the most important thing they wind up doing.

  133. @Rosie

    Do you nunderstand how to read graphs? That chart cleearly shows women prefer older men.

    Men don’t even peak until their 50s:

    https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/8/eaap9815

    • LOL: Alden
  134. @Sorel McRae

    Because here, as opposed to in Hungary, the plan would a) be shot down as sexist or racist or you name it and b) if not a) above, would become a more genteel form of section 8, with women married to the State. Perhaps it could be called section 9.

    • Replies: @Sorel McRae
  135. @Romanian

    The family at a wedding I attended in Colorado had a tradition that all the men present would dance with the bride and pin money to her wedding dress. The bride in this case didn’t want holes in the fabric, so we used tape. By the time we were finished, she had a lot of cash hanging on her.

    All I could think about was stuffing dollar bills in a stripper’s G-string or giving cash to a prostitute. In a cynical way, the symbolism seemed apt. That was a fun wedding.

    • Replies: @EdwardM
  136. SFG says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Well, everyone hates him except Steve and Rod Dreher, so I’m positively disposed toward the guy. If he wants to go after Soros, well, Soros throws around money overseas for left-wing causes like a left-wing Koch Brother, so I can’t really blame the guy.

  137. SFG says:
    @kaganovitch

    Question for you Orthodox guys reading this blog: does the countersemitism bother you more than the attacks on the Michelle Goldberg types please you? I imagine secular Jews have got to be pretty galling to the Orthodox, pitching paganism and 57 genders and calling it Jewish, but there’s also a lot of stuff about how bad Israel is.

    (I’m secular myself, but have to admit society looks like it ran a lot better in the 1950s. As for Israel, well, it’s a country. I don’t think they’re behind every bad thing that happens to the USA but their interests often do conflict with ours.)

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
  138. @Rosie

    No, it was forced reality. In the days before mechanized subsidized agriculture, cheap nitrate fertilizers, automobiles, government jobs, nursing homes, etc, hussies had to get with a man and respect him.

  139. black sea says:
    @Sam Coulton

    No mentally healthy woman wants to associate with a man their age. Women can’t stand males their age or younger.

    If there were a Sweeping Generalizations Prize, you’d be a lock for first place.

  140. SFG says:
    @Rosie

    That graph isn’t that great–the tails (which are a small fraction of the curve) steal most of the real estate. Squinting really hard, looks like the median is the guy about 5 years older.

    The linked article (which has data a decade older) suggests the median is having the guy be a few years older (14% wife older, 32% within 1 year of each other, 34% husband 2-5 years older, so I’d guess actual median is 2 years older).

    • Replies: @Rosie
  141. @Chrisnonymous

    That’s because we nuked the two centers of Japanese Christianity.

  142. black sea says:
    @Sam Coulton

    Women do not have children and never wanted to, men always had to enforce reproduction through coercion, discrimination, and physical violence. Surveys about how many children women say they “want” to have are useless.

    Last night my 17-year-old daughter was telling me about how she and her friends frequently discuss how many children they want to have, how much of an age spread they want between each child, what mix of male and female, and the kinds of names they prefer for these hypothetical children. They also discuss how old they want to be when they get married and when they enter motherhood.

    Finally, she said, “guys don’t think about these kinds of things do they?”

    No, they typically don’t.

    On an only slightly related note, years ago I read a book by an anthropologist (actually, a married couple, I think) who studied village life in Sicily in the 1950’s. Though birth rates were quite high by current standards, when the women were surveyed as to how many children they wanted to have, the results were 2.something.

    Part of the cause of declining birthrates is that this number seems to be something of a constant. However, not all women have as many children as they want, and of course some have none at all. So even if women want — on average — 2.3 kids, or whatever, that’s not going to be the actual TFR.

  143. Rosie says:
    @SFG

    The linked article (which has data a decade older) suggests the median is having the guy be a few years older (14% wife older, 32% within 1 year of each other, 34% husband 2-5 years older, so I’d guess actual median is 2 years older).

    I think the median is a couple of years, but the statement I was replying to was quite ridiculous: “Women can’t stand males their age or younger.”

    A total of 46% of women marry men either younger than them or with an age difference of one year.

    The median age gap is explicable by the male preference for younger women all by itself.

    • Replies: @Sam Coulton
  144. Rosie says:
    @Sam Coulton

    Everything you said is wrong and misleading. Women do not have children and never wanted to, men always had to enforce reproduction through coercion, discrimination, and physical violence. Surveys about how many children women say they “want” to have are useless. In actuality, few people have any idea of what “they” “want”, particularly women.

    You are a deranged psychotic. I try not to tar all men in the dissident right with the same brush, but when an outrage like this goes unanswered, it’s hard not to think the worst.

    • Replies: @Sam Coulton
    , @HammerJack
  145. @Rosie

    A total of 46% of women marry men either younger than them or with an age difference of one year.

    Absurd. You need to be incarcerated in a “Sarah Connor” type mental facility. Less than half of women are married — especially those who married men younger than they.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  146. @Rosie

    And yet you still keep coming here to get laughed at. Maybe you should go back to where you came from (the Left ).

  147. anon[380] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus

    You do realize of course that your statement reeks of civic nationalism, and is subject to Alt Right scrutiny, right?

    No, we don’t realize that. Can you explain?

    I’m quite sure Mr. Sailer and others here would agree that females in their childbearing prime ought to be shamed, nay coerced, into abandoning their own hopes, dreams, and aspirations to procreate with a God-fearing man!

    Why are you sure? Can you provide quotes to back this up?

    despite the wolf of Cultural Marxism that breathes down the neck of innocent Robby or Libby

    Who are Robby and Libby? Can you prove they are real people?

    to hit the lecture circuit and step onto the soapbox, with bullhorn in tow,

    Why do you talk in cliches? Do you think before you speak?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  148. anon[380] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    “The traditional negotiation” > forced prostitution

    Nonsense. Women needed men to provide and needed them to prove it. Men needed women to take care of the children and make the home life. Mutual need, including the need to have the prospective life partner prove their worth before marriage with dowries and gifts. Typical marriages were based on mutual need, mutual respect, trust and loyalty.
    Prostitution was scorned exactly because it was a corruption and not typical.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  149. @Rosie

    Yes he’s crazy, but I don’t know why you think his remarks have gone unanswered nor why you think he’s representative of the “dissident right”. That’s not only wildly inaccurate, it’s unfair of you, to put it kindly.

    Like any online free-for-all, this place attracts a certain number of kooks. There’s no justification for slandering the lot of us. Hard not to think the worst? Try harder.

    • Disagree: Sam Coulton
    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Sam Coulton
  150. @Jack D

    Except most children in America and Singapore and many other modern nations, like the Scandinavian ones, are born to college educated women. It may not catch them all, but college education catches a lot of high IQ women.

  151. @Reg Cæsar

    Desmond Dekker also pronounced 007 as “oh-oh, seven.”

  152. Rosie says:
    @Jack D

    The fundamental problem of modernity is that once you allow women to be educated and enter into the job market, high IQ women no longer reproduce.

    They do in Israel. What’s different about Israel?

    Oh yes, college students aren’t taught to hate their own people. Cultural demoralization has consequences.

    • Agree: AnotherDad
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  153. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sam Coulton

    Women want to get married to and have children with “Mr. Right”.

    Who is Mr. Right?

    Before feminism, the sexual revolution, and greater women’s economic independence, Mr. Right was much closer to the average man. The average decent man who could hold down a job was Mr. Right.

    Nowadays, women have higher education and career opportunities, and have access to welfare or wages and salaries and are no longer directly economically dependent on men. In this environment, Mr. Right is no longer Joe Sixpack. Women can now play the field and try to land a man much better than the average Joe. Education and career opportunities can bring them to more rarefied circles with above average men, and jobs enable them to be economically independent and survive while unattached and seeking Mr. Right.

    That’s why women aren’t getting married and having kids these days.

  154. Anonymous[163] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    In my opinion, the biggest problem is that society tells women to focus on their education and career in their twenties, which leads to a lot of women frantically searching for a partner in their thirties -when their fertility is already declining- and then having maybe one child with 38 and the help of IVF.
    In Eastern German society educated women had more children than non-educated women. They way Eastern German society accomplished this was to tell young women, that they should have their children while in college. This led to a lot of young women, who spent ten years at college for a 5-year-degree, but who had three children of kindergarten-age by the time they graduated. (Of course with the amount of tuition American universities bill their students, that way of of life is unsustainable. )

  155. @J.Ross

    The guests at our wedding reception who gave envelopes of cash tended to be the real Italian types.

    The funny thing is that, being Italian, they probably had the best taste in luxury goods, but being pragmatic Mediterranean peasant types, felt that what a young couple could most use were greenbacks.

  156. Romanian says: • Website
    @Desiderius

    Why wait?? 🙂

    A lot of European countries have adopted easy residence and citizenship status for “snowbirds” with assured pensions, especially if they were stationed in the particular country as an expat or an employee for international organizations. I know an elderly Brit who worked until recently for a European institution in the Netherlands and shopped around for a post-Brexit life. Doesn’t speak a lick of Dutch (who does, except the Dutch?) but got citizenship straight away. He told me Romania is much the same, but less obvious because there are fewer foreigners.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  157. Anonymous[394] • Disclaimer says:

    In the UK the very idea of paying women to breed is extremely controversial, as that is what the current welfare system basically does through “child benefit”.

    If Orban’s policies were suggested in the UK, they would be seen as left wing Labour/Corbynite policies and ridiculed by the right wing outlets, such as the Daily Mail. The idea of the state paying women to breed here just causes outrage and I’m sure that the idea of the state paying women to get married would get the same response.

  158. Romanian says: • Website
    @RohadtMagyar

    No, we switched sides in WW2. In WW1, we waited it out while the King and his allies argued for a German alliance and the other elites argued for an Anglo-French one. Story of our lives, really. Entered the war in 1916 because the hour was late and we wanted Transylvania. The total neutrality crowd was also strong. Austria-Hungary as it was then was headed for the trashbin either way, because of demographics and internal nationalism. We in the Kingdom owed A-H and Hungary nothing and work hard at increasing the number of people who think that, because the people who do think they owe you are dangerous.

    [MORE]

    I would disagree on the persecution. This does not mean that it did not happen or that we did not sometimes adopt the same policies (for Romanianization) that our neighbors did (we learned a lot from Kossuth early on and his Magyarization). Anti-Hungarian prejudice existed, and of course the self-governing nation system had to disappear. Other than having to choose between citizenships and swearing an oath of allegiance to the state in order to maintain a role in public administration (the optants), there was only one other policy – the land reform which involved expropriation of the large landowners (the “Grof”) with 100 tons of gold awarded in neutral arbitration in Paris, which led to land in Transylvania being allotted to 369 thousand Romanian and 87 thousand Hungarian peasants (in addition to being the majority, we were also the most rural, and the poorest). This was a case of disparate impact you could say, but land reform took place everywhere else in Romania as well at the time, but the expropriated ones where Romanians and Greeks, as well as the older land reform of the 1860s, which targeted the Church.

    We too had our fascists and attitudes hardened after the Diktate of Vienna, when our ally, Nazi Germany, gave our ally Hungary Northern Transylvania, where followed a quite brutal period for all involved on the ground. We did not have much love for either afterwards and switching sides was the whole point of the coup which replaced Antonescu (whom we shot, shamefully). But the story of the evolution of the population levels for the minority, even under a totalitarian state which moved hundreds of thousands of people on a developmental whim, the maintenance of its concentration and language in the heart of the country in the three central counties (urbanization policies meant that the cities everywhere rapidly increased their Romanian proportions) show that the government was at least careful and its rhetoric emphasized the maintenance of language and culture for minorities. Neither do our other minorities claim that they were especially targeted for persecution, other than the general awfulness and arbitrariness of the Communist period which hit all of us. This is a book written by Hungarians and published by our Institute for the Study of minorities – The Magyar Minority in the Communist Period. Maybe you can find it in Hungarian. I would not be surprised if it was published that way. https://www.academia.edu/2574842/Minoritatea_maghiar%C4%83_%C3%AEn_perioada_comunist%C4%83

    The evolution since, with the extraordinary permission for the creation of an ethnic party and its continuous presence in government coalition with high level positions does not imply love, but neither does it show marginalization. On the contrary, the Hungarians have been kingmakers in Romanian politics far out of proportion to their numbers.

    One would have appreciated the chance to help build out Transylvania, but I would remind you that another word for serfdom there is “rumanie”. The status of the Romanians as a “tolerated nation” not equal to the three other nations, as affirmed in the documents of the era, made it quite hard to develop in ways similar to the others. No Romanians in towns, no stone buildings, no political rights unless one turned Catholic or protestant (which then led to assimilation). Even today, the ideal Transylvanian home is the Saxon fortified dwelling. The famously narrow minded and rigid Ardelean (internal prejudice, my Southerners are supposedly all gregarious thieves) is what you get after a few centuries of boiling off the assimilable. The Romanians there have always looked towards Vienna for amelioration of their status and to play off against Budapest. They finally got the right to an Orthodox bishop by 1759, freedom from serfdom by the early 19th century. However, it was only in 1902 that the first Romanian cathedral was built in Sibiu (Hermannstadt) (mind you, a multi-ethnic team effort). As for being there for hundreds of years, I would remind you that such a nice place was hardly empty when you arrived. But even that is a ethnic group mistake. Most of the people in Transylvania, regardless of ethnicity, derived from the people already there, and ethnic sorting took place after, aside from a small number of mobile elites and well known colonization policies for frontier defense (involving Germans).

    As for our xenophobia, it is quite an odd one indeed – with guaranteed representation in Parliament for all historical minorities, with a re-elected German President, a Half-Hungarian Prime Minister right now, our Half-Hungarian first European Commissioner, a Turkic Muslim PM candidate that almost made confirmation (Klaus rejected her) and a wide array of high officials who have been German, Hungarian, Jewish, Armenian, Gypsy, even the odd Arab (no Russians, I’ll give you that), including those in critical functions like head of the intelligence service and head of the anti-corruption directorate. And an allegedly xenophobic left-party (PSD) which instructed its voters to vote for the Hungarian party so it can make the 5% cut-off for being in the European Parliament and to sign lists for Kelemen Hunor to be able to run as President (thousands of signatures in counties with fewer than 10 Hungarians). And with no appeal to quotas or distributive justice, only cold hard politics and one’s personal capacity for sociopathy and manipulation that makes a “good” politician. Not to mention how early on we allowed double citizenship (as opposed to your other neighbors), which turned Hungarian politicians’ electioneering here into a perennial irritant and tightrope act.

    Mind you, I do not much care for the issue one way or the other. The Romanians in Transylvania are the ones who express gratitude for Austrian administrative competency and an appreciation of the Hungarians and their qualities every chance they get. But its their grandparents who got the shit kicked out of them in 1939 and who got new documents from the Hungarians military administration calling Stefan Istvan, so they started giving their kids the freakiest possible names to stave off Magyarization (I’ve heard Romeliu, Flavius). They remember that too, and getting stuck with them in some sort of autonomous arrangement is not something conducive to peace.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  159. Romanian says: • Website
    @Kratoklastes

    Thanks for the interesting comment. You have obviously thought a lot about this. Do you have any suggestions for policies that might work?

  160. anon[136] • Disclaimer says:

    One obvious problem with fixed amount subsidies for children is that they tend to encourage people whose reaction to $11,000 per child is Woo-hoo, we’re gonna be rich!

    True. A lot of the children thus born will be raised poorly by dickhead parents, or by no parents at all; a lot of these will grow up to be dickheads in turn.

    But not all of them. If a few extra dickheads is an acceptable price to pay for a few extra solid citizens, Hungary might still come out ahead in the long-term.

    “100% of the kids you don’t have will fail to contribute to society”, as Wayne Gretzky might’ve said.

  161. Romanian says: • Website
    @Billy Corr

    With all esteem and respect for Old Palo Altan, whom I thoroughly appreciate for his understanding of the difference between Roma and Romanian, the subsidies will most definitely have to apply to the Gypsies as well, or else a European shitstorm that Orban cannot want will take place. He will be giving ammunition to his enemies. No social policy in the region can ignore or exclude the Roma. The only way in which you could discriminate is by placing restrictions on the basis of education, employment status, prior rap sheet and even then there would be Gypsies who qualify. Also, any of these provisos can be attacked in the National or directly in the European courts as being unwarranted discrimination. Discussions regarding all sorts of policies in Romania (state transfers for children, for the impoverished, for the handicapped etc) all flounder on the shoals of discrimination or on the idea of unintended consequences. We already have memes about people who have kids just to collect the “state allowance” for each child (50 euros a month, 80 for the very young, plus whatever the local authorities pony up for their inhabitants like housing, land, gifts for child births).

    I have heard it said that Romania has the highest absolute number of Gypsies, but Hungary has the highest percentage – though the census is unreliable, because you have to self-identify as Gypsy, which many will not do in front of state officials.

    Take this for instance
    https://hungarianfreepress.com/2017/09/28/referendum-proposed-on-autonomous-roma-province-in-hungary/

  162. Rosie says:
    @anon

    Mutual need, including the need to have the prospective life partner prove their worth before marriage with dowries and gifts.

    In other words, prostitution.

    • Replies: @anon
  163. Rosie says:
    @HammerJack

    Yes he’s crazy, but I don’t know why you think his remarks have gone unanswered nor why you think he’s representative of the “dissident right”. That’s not only wildly inaccurate, it’s unfair of you, to put it kindly.

    Hammer Jack, I have been rhetorically attacked in these threads by numerous commenters, so obviously people aren’t shy about registering their disagreement. I just wonder where they are when misogynists say something outrageous.

  164. Rosie says:
    @Sam Coulton

    Less than half of women are married — especially those who married men younger than they.

    More lies. Married women are in the majority at age 28, and that isn’t even taking cohabitation into account.

    • Replies: @Sam Coulton
    , @Jack D
  165. Alden says:
    @Sorel McRae

    To marry whom? Isn’t marriage a contract arrangement between two parties? Where’s the male party? What incentives will your program offer the men to get married and have children?

    • Replies: @Sorel McRae
  166. @Semperluctor

    It could be pitched as empowering women by giving them an option they might not otherwise have but you could easily make it gender-neutral with much the same effect. Also, they would have to marry and forego or at least postpone college thus giving the strongest nudge I can imagine politically possible to one spouse staying at home and nurturing and, hopefully, homeschooling. (I neglected to mention only one spouse should be eligible.)

    If based only on SAT/GPAs, then it could be vulnerable to the “disparate impact” racism charge. If the government lacked the balls to withstand this they could go with the competitive college letters-of-acceptance route. This would have the effect of a quota but at least it would only subsidize the most capable parents of each group. And what a fabulous signal that would send: (mostly) capable women, exchanging ivy league acceptance for motherhood!

    • Replies: @Rosie
  167. @Romanian

    Because Trump might win.

    All most of the bastards need is a fat lip to get their mind right.

  168. @Rosie

    Imagine actually believing that’s the percentage of women who are married. if you didn’t know, most women end up getting divorced. You have no statistics on who (or what) women are ‘cohabiting’ with.

    Less than 25% of women are married or in a stable childbearing relationship with a human male. Facts.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  169. @HammerJack

    That’s the price you oay for your silence, HammerJack (unbecoming username, FlapJack would have been a better choice). Ignoring the “troll” doesn’t work, it just allows us to take over (and I’ve taken over many things in my time). Step up to the plate and debate me with facts and data.

  170. J.Ross says:
    @donut

    The Irishman and Get The Irishman collapse around one of these great true stories which defeat filming but tempt talent. The first attempt was insultingly badly done (telegraphed car explosion, Wind River Warrior Speech, made-for-Canadian-tv dialogue and pacing), so Scorsese’s (which I haven’t seen yet) must at least be better.

  171. anon[380] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    A John doesn’t pay money to a prostitutes family to prove to them that he can provide for the prostitute for the rest of her life.
    Prostititutes don’t pick a John based on his willingness and ability to dedicate his life’s work to keeping her and her children safe.
    There’s nothing wrong with humans including practical needs in their marriage decisions. It doesn’t make marriage equivalent to prostitution.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  172. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Israel’s high fertility rate is driven by its ultra-Orthodox, a patriarchal and sexist subculture within Israel, not by its high IQ secular women.

    That’s what’s different about Israel. They still have a significant patriarchal and sexist culture in their society. Most Western countries no longer have that with the decline of conservative Christianity.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    , @Dmitry
  173. Rob McX says:
    @TelfoedJohn

    For a start, most eugenics is a question of what not to do.

    Don’t import millions of Third World immigrants. Don’t celebrate twisted degenerates as the epitome of sexual and mental health. Don’t have schools that denigrate your own race and culture as the the most evil force in history.

    Insofar as governments have the capacity to influence the white birthrate, they’re using it mostly to drive it down.

  174. @Alden

    Whomever she wants to have kids with. The incentive for the man is a debt-free, family oriented with an endowment who has never taken a course in Women’s Studies.

  175. @Morris Applebaum IV

    I realize that people from the Island of Adolphus have a peculiar spin on things, but my only point was that there need to be a lot more articles like this because there actually isn’t much time left to turn things around, not that you should leave the gates open.

    Ok, Morris. Fair point. And i don’t disagree that fertility needs addressing.

    My immigration crisis v. fertility crisis points–absent my extra “fleshing out” verbiage:

    1) Immigration is “forever”.
    Immigration damage is immediate and essentially “irreprebable”, without intense conflict, probably violence, camps, killing and we don’t want to go there. (America is still dealing with “legacy of slavery” issues 300 years on.)

    2) Immigration tips the political balance so the situation can not be turned around with normal poltics.

    3) Immigration itself is a huge fertility suppressor.
    Directly — job competition, wage suppression, housing costs, especially to find cultural compatible neighborhood with “good schools”.
    Motivationally — the feeling that you are part of a “nation”, with a future; the feeling that you are carrying on something precious and passing it to your children; essentially the past-present-future connectedness that helps motivate family and fertility. Immigration creates disconnectedness, anomie.

    4) Fertility is not “forever”.
    In contrast to immigration’s permance. You can have low fertility, population decline … and then recover. Our very low fertility is unique, but fertility/birth rate not keeping up with death rate is not unique at all. And nations–not defeated, conquered–recover just fine.

    5) Natural selection works.
    Modernity / the Pill were an exogenous shock. But they don’t repeal natural selection. The West–and many other regions–are in the process of selecting for “breeder” geno-types with the psychological makeup to breed even in the modern enviroment.

    6) Fertility can be managed by public policy.
    Yes, you can move fertility with policies that promote/subsidize affordable family formation. That’s just a fact–“just math.”

    BUT

    7) Fertility recovery is destroyed by immigration.
    Fertility recovers in time as both natural selection for breeders and population decline lessens job/housing competition. But immigration destroys this natural recovery.

    Bottom line:
    — Immigration is an immediate and permanent, and existential threat. Fertility will recover naturally in a closed system–a closed nation.

    — Fertility will not recover if immigration continues, suppressing the natural improvement in affordable family formation that would accompany lower population cohorts and destroying the people’s connection to nation and the future.

    Ultimately you can not fix fertility unless you win the war against minoritarianism, cosmopolitanism–restore national pride/purpose and stop immigration.

    • Agree: Romanian
  176. @YetAnotherAnon

    Child welfare is the dysgenic kryptonite.

    Iceland has the highest amount of single mothers, followed perhaps by Sweden. Among their native population. And both countries are not really hellholes. Something about the scandos makes them immune to bad effects of single mothers.

  177. Rosie says:
    @Sam Coulton

    if you didn’t know, most women end up getting divorced.

    Everything you say here is a lie.

    https://psychcentral.com/lib/the-myth-of-the-high-rate-of-divorce/

    Divorce rates are too high, but “most women” do not get divorced.

    You have no statistics on who (or what) women are ‘cohabiting’ with.

    True, but that’s your problem. You’re the one advocating slavery for women. The burden of proof is on you.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  178. @Romanian

    In WW1, we waited it out while the King and his allies argued for a German alliance and the other elites argued for an Anglo-French one. Story of our lives, really. Entered the war in 1916 because the hour was late and we wanted Transylvania. The total neutrality crowd was also strong.

    Sitting out World War I was an incredibly wise position. Unfortunate your leaders got greedy and sucked y’all in.

    Many more nations would have benefited from the “let’s skip this” position. If the West had had the wisdom to call the whole thing off, our history would be much improved and the West would be in a much better place today.

    • Replies: @Romanian
  179. @SFG

    Question for you Orthodox guys reading this blog: does the countersemitism bother you more than the attacks on the Michelle Goldberg types please you? I imagine secular Jews have got to be pretty galling to the Orthodox, pitching paganism and 57 genders and calling it Jewish, but there’s also a lot of stuff about how bad Israel is.

    I can’t speak for all Orthodox guys, obviously, but the various varieties of countersemitism here don’t bother me much . The unhinged rants of “the Jews are stealing our precious bodily fluids” or ” the Torah is a cookbook!” variety , are mostly just amusing, although I suppose if I felt they had a lot of currency in American society ,I might feel differently about them. The “Jews are conspiring against Whites” Kmacniki are a little more annoying, I guess, but also say interesting things when not on their monomaniacal hobby horse. Again , I’m not sure I would feel this way if I thought their viewpoint was common. The more genteel countersemites have interesting things to say even about the Jewish question and certainly about other things. While I don’t agree with most of their criticism, much of it bears thinking about. Criticism and resultant introspection are good for the soul. It is of course also very important to take the measure of all this criticism in order to incorporate them into the Hasbara courses(a joke ).

    I do find the Michelle Goldberg type monopoly on accepted Jewish opinion galling, as they’re just selling Leftism under Jewish pretense and what’s more in any conflict between even their attenuated Judaism and Leftist politics, Leftism will triumph(Israel is sometimes an exception to this rule,but less and less so)

  180. Romanian says: • Website
    @AnotherDad

    Well, WW1 was the skippable war, but contrary to Western disgust at the fratricidal conflict, Romania emerged, at the cost of 400k dead, as a clear and actual winner. We went from 138 thousand sq km and 8 million people in 1916 to 295 thousand sq km and maybe 16-17 million in 1918 (80% Romanian at the census of 1930). Generally, the “winners” are the countries that profited from the fall of A-H and from the fall of the Russian Empire. The Baltics celebrated their centennial in 2018 just like Romania, because that is when their short lived republics got started, before they were caught up by the USSR juggernaut during WW2. The Polish Second Republic also started as a result of WW1. While I understand the Western arguments at the senselessness of it, WW1 was the glory day for us, and the Inter-War period is considered our Golden Age (more like gilded). WW2 is when it went pear-shaped and the rest is history.

  181. @Rosie

    66% of couples live together before marriage, so age at first marriage statistics skew older than they would otherwise.

    And? Less than half of women are married.

  182. @Anonymous

    Even secular Israelis have a very high birthrate by Western standards. Even self identified most secular, most educated cohort is above replacement level

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Anonymous
  183. Rosie says:
    @Sorel McRae

    And what a fabulous signal that would send: (mostly) capable women, exchanging ivy league acceptance for motherhood!

    You don’t understand. The Ivy League is where they’re meeting the guy they want to marry.

    • Replies: @Sorel McRae
    , @Anonymous
  184. Rosie says:
    @kaganovitch

    Even secular Israelis have a very high birthrate by Western standards. Even self identified most secular, most educated cohort is above replacement level

    Anon375 has an axe to grind against women and cannot stand the idea that anything good can ever come of women having any choices whatsoever in life.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  185. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @kaganovitch

    Among secular Israeli women it’s right at replacement level:

    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/with-fertility-rising-israel-is-spared-a-demographic-time-bomb-1.6131135

    For women who define themselves as secular, it was 2.1; 2.6 for traditional women; 3 for traditional-religious women; and 4.2 for Orthodox women.

    If the secular overall is right at replacement, the “most secular, most educated cohort” within the secular cohort is likely below replacement.

  186. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Secular Israelis are at replacement. The more secular and educated among them are likely below replacement. They are swamped by non-secular fertility:

    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/with-fertility-rising-israel-is-spared-a-demographic-time-bomb-1.6131135

    For women who define themselves as secular, it was 2.1; 2.6 for traditional women; 3 for traditional-religious women; and 4.2 for Orthodox women.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    , @Dmitry
  187. Rosie says:
    @anon

    There’s nothing wrong with humans including practical needs in their marriage decisions. It doesn’t make marriage equivalent to prostitution.

    Having sex with a man in exchange for material benefits is prostitution. The fact that the arrangement is permanent rather than “at-will” doesn’t change that fact.

    Your view that there is “nothing wrong with that” is your own opinion, and not really a question of objective reality. I will just say this. Women don’t like being forced into undesired sexual relationships by economic necessity. It is degrading and dehumanizing. Yes, feelz. Being human, we have those.

  188. Rosie says:

    Nope. Half of American adults are married. As of 2015, 54% of White adults over the age of 18 were married. That figure is 65% college graduates. So much for your theory that opportunity for women dooms marriage.

    Now go and try to concoct some other rationale for your hatred and animus against women.

    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/14/as-u-s-marriage-rate-hovers-at-50-education-gap-in-marital-status-widens/

    • Replies: @Sam Coulton
  189. Jack D says:
    @Rosie

    There are people that get married at age 11? Is this graph from Saudi Arabia?

  190. @Rosie

    Yes, that is a problem. College is an extremely expensive courtship exercise for which we must find and/or resurrect and encourage alternatives. Ideas?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  191. @Rosie

    Nope. Half of American adults are married. As of 2015, 54% of White adults over the age of 18 were married.

    Imagine actually believing this matters when it tells us nothing about the number of remarriages and 18-30 year olds.

    That figure is 65% college graduates. So much for your theory that opportunity for women dooms marriage.

    That’s not my theory. Who even cares about its effects on marriage? The disaatrous effect of opportunity on women’s *fertility* is already well known.

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/11/the-relationship-between-womens-education-and-fertility/

    • Replies: @Rosie
  192. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Most of the Ivy League didn’t become coed until the 70s. Did Ivy Leaguers never get married before then?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  193. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    Most of the Ivy League didn’t become coed until the 70s. Did Ivy Leaguers never get married before then?

    Mixers.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  194. Rosie says:
    @Sam Coulton

    That’s not my theory. Who even cares about its effects on marriage? The disaatrous effect of opportunity on women’s *fertility* is already well known.

    As I have pointed out before, Mrs. Mozart had seven children. This is a portrait of all her family that survived:

  195. Rosie says:
    @Sorel McRae

    Yes, that is a problem. College is an extremely expensive courtship exercise for which we must find and/or resurrect and encourage alternatives. Ideas?

    For the truly university-qualified, the solution isn’t to find alternatives, but to reduce the cost.

    For the others, finding a suitable mate is less complicated, I would think.

    • Replies: @Sorel McRae
  196. Corvinus says:
    @anon

    “No, we don’t realize that. Can you explain?”

    YOU didn’t realize that.

    “Why are you sure? Can you provide quotes to back this up?”

    The bazinga is implied in the article; Sailer’s Law Of Female Journalism backs it up; and this past article lends support. http://www.unz.com/isteve/after-a-half-century-of-feminism-are-women-happy

    “Who are Robby and Libby? Can you prove they are real people?”

    Of course they are real.

    https://www.lifeandstylemag.com/posts/who-did-robby-hayes-date-165995/

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/survivor-ghost-island-libby-vincek-preseason-interview-1079646

    Do you not agree that Cultural Marxism is a scourge that must be stamped out?

    “Why do you talk in cliches?”

    It’s called creative writing. Try it sometime.

    “Do you think before you speak?”

    Yes. How about you?

  197. @Jack D

    There’s a lot of truth in this(and the general issues with autonomy expansion), but it is going to be extremely difficult to correct and almost certainly can’t just “go back.”

  198. Dmitry says:
    @Anonymous

    In this description, “Traditional Israelis” – refers to a particular kind secular Israeli Jews (i.e. the part of the secular Israeli population who have Mizrahi/Middle Eastern cultural background).

    These “traditional Israelis”, are in some ways the most secular part of the population – the girls are walking around in bikinis and dressing more trashy. However, they also wear amulets and believe often right-wing politics, and usually believe that god exists.

    Apart from racial (brown race), the main distinctions of “traditional Israelis” compared, is just the music they listen to (Middle Eastern singers) and more proleterian average income levels.

    In terms of clothing this the population “traditional Israelis” category refer to (externally secular population, but culture is very Eastern):

  199. @Rosie

    How does reducing the cost of a pointless, even destructive, exercise make it any less pointless or destructive?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  200. Dmitry says:
    @Anonymous

    National Religious in Israel have a very high fertility rate, and they are usually quite educated and they have higher incomes than secular Israeli. (But politically, they are often fanatics).

    On the other hand, Russians (Russian speaking population) in Israel have a very low fertility rate.

    I don’t know why, but in Russia/Ukraine/Belarus cohort fertility rates have been continuously around 1,5-1,6 for women born since 1965.

    A significant proportion of the secular population (as defined in this article) in Israel immigrated from the post-Soviet space, and the low fertility culture continued in Israel. Their fertility rate in Israel is around 1,6.

    For Jews in the Soviet Union, fertility rates have been continuously below 1,4 children per woman, for birthcohorts since 1919. So post-Soviet Jews in particular imported a low fertility culture to Israel and this continues even when they relocate to the Middle East.

    By historical trends, a fertility rate of 1,6 for Russian Jews in Israel, is the highest they have been for many decades (although this could be just a result of including Azeris, Georgians, etc, in the same category(.

  201. Dmitry says:
    @Anonymous

    Highest fertility groups in Israel are Muslim Arabs (especially Israeli Bedouin Arabs), Haredim, and National Religious Jews (Datim).

    Lowest fertility groups in Israel, are Russian-speaking Israelis, Arab Christians and Druzim.

    Non-Russian secular Jews will be somewhere in the medium category for fertility rates.

    In this categorization below, Chiloni and Masorti are both what you would consider “secular”.

    “Masortim” refers to a more Middle Eastern culture Israeli (who is living an externally secular life), while “Chilonim” is referring to more often secular European Jews + including a Russian secular population in Israel.

    Muslim Arabs, Datim and Haredim have fast growing population, because of their large number of children.

    Datim are mostly quite bourgeois and educated, with the highest income of all groups. But politically they are often quite fanatical. (While Haredim, are living more like lumpenproletariat, but their political views are more changeable and they have non-mainstream priorities).

  202. Rosie says:
    @Sorel McRae

    How does reducing the cost of a pointless, even destructive, exercise make it any less pointless or destructive?

    A proper university education is neither pointless nor destructive. Of course, in many cases, it is now, on account of hostile elite control of the academy, but that is not an inevitable state of affairs.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    , @Sorel McRae
  203. @Jack D

    For most women being a mom is the most important thing they have done/want to do.

    I don’t think that’s really true anymore. I always go by revealed preferences – talk is cheap.

    Maybe the gals just need to get more Facebook likes for getting pregnant or having a baby, than for their vacation bikini pics or getting hired as an associate by Dewey, Cheatem and Howe?

  204. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    A proper university education is neither pointless nor destructive.

    Agreed, for some people. For most people it’s unnecessary or even harmful. There are more useful skills people could be learning. The world doesn’t need more sociologists or film studies majors or economists or climate scientists. In fact the world doesn’t need any sociologists or film studies majors or economists or climate scientists.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  205. @Rosie

    Except that they want to marry and have children with young men their age, who don’t want to marry until they’re in their thirties.

    Not a difficult concept.

    Well i knew Rosie would tell me it’s all the fault of men–the failure of men to “man up” and marry.

    I just didn’t know that the female side gating factor would be women’s extreme preference for men their own age.

    All those 22 and 23 year old freshly degreed gals are ready … they’re just waiting for 22 and 23 freshly degreed, just starting their careers guys to ask them and can’t stand the thought of marriage to those 25, 26, 27, 28 year old whose careers are underway and earnings have started to rise. It’s just those damn 22, 23 year old guys have decided they would rather live in their parents basement playing video games than get hitched and enjoy the charms of a 22 year old girl.

    Got it.

    ~~~

    Rosie–put down the butterknife.

    Yes, men have a huge say in the marriage market. Marriage by-defintion requires mutual intention. Men–at least for now–still have to agree to sign the paperwork.

    But *women* essentially determine the sexual marketplace–the dating, the non-martial sex available–in which movement toward marriage takes place.

    Feminism, female-careerism are to most observers what so obviously has changed relative to the “before time”. Young women prioritizing career, not focusing on–or often even considering–marriage until their mid-to-late 20s or even 30 and not “settling” unless a guy is bringing down a paycheck that actually means a lifestyle boost for them–i.e. at least equal, but much-preferred if solidly greater than their own–is what’s driven up the age of marriage and dropped the marriage rate.

    And yes, young women didn’t drive all this. This is in the context of–evil–policy, concocted by the powers-that-be. The creation of lots of b.s. soft female employment by the state, both directly and through regulatory requirements and pressure. And immigration driven displacement and wage suppression of lots of traditional male employement both upper middle class–engineering–and working class–construction. Along with the breaking of traditional mores around sexual behavior.

    But yes at root the marriage delay/suppression is feminism, female careerism dovetailing with female hypergamy creating lots of women who aren’t happy settling with the available men, and do not do it until biological reality pushes them, or never feel like doing it, or wait until they have aged out of desirability (or their sexual histories have pushed them out) and are simply a mismatch for the sort of man they’d be willing to make a go with.

    Yes, marriage is mutual deal that both men and women drive. But it is largely the changes in women’s behavior–their career focus, their own earnings and ergo their hypergamous requirements on men, their attitudes, their sexual behavior (and just “behavior”)–that have delayed marriage and driven up the rate of non-marriage.

    Supply and demand–and women have raised expectations of what they demand and reduced the quality of what they supply–lower sales!

    • Replies: @Rosie
  206. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Exactly my point. Mixers are a thing, among others, that can facilitate socializing. It’s not necessary for women to be in the same educational institutions and careers as men for marriage to take place. People have been getting married for thousands of years before women started entering higher ed and careers.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  207. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    We definitely need toolmakers, millwrights, mechanical engineers, and people like that though. So more vo tech and less soft sciences and liberal arts (except for rigorous programs like Classics) is a no-brainer.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @dfordoom
  208. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    People have been getting married for thousands of years before women started entering higher ed and careers.

    I never said it was, nor do I subscribe to your obnoxious premise that the only reason to educate women is so they’ll meet men.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  209. Rosie says:

    AnotherDad,

    Absolutely everything you say here is, at best, unproven speculation.

    But *women* essentially determine the sexual marketplace–the dating, the non-martial sex available–in which movement toward marriage takes place.

    False. It is actually supply and demand that determines the sexual marketplace. If women must put out to get a foot in the door, they will.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814001391

    Your error is based on the incorrect premise that men’s desire for sex is more compelling and irresistible than women’s desire for emotional intimacy. As long as you refuse to acknowledge this, you can’t be reasoned with.

    Women have always had sex outside of marriage and gotten pregnant, and that will never change. Sorry.

    https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

    Young women prioritizing career, not focusing on–or often even considering–marriage until their mid-to-late 20s or even 30 and not “settling” unless a guy is bringing down a paycheck that actually means a lifestyle boost for them–i.e. at least equal, but much-preferred if solidly greater than their own–is what’s driven up the age of marriage and dropped the marriage rate.

    There is literally no evidence for this whatsoever.

    And immigration driven displacement and wage suppression of lots of traditional male employement both upper middle class–engineering–and working class–construction. Along with the breaking of traditional mores around sexual behavior.

    For all you know, this explains all of it, but you choose not to give women the benefit of the doubt. You are entitled to make unfavorable assumptions about what women would or would not do in the absence of globalization, but don’t be surprised if you are called out as a misogynist for it. We are as entitled to our assumptions about you as you are to your assumptions about us.

    But yes at root the marriage delay/suppression is feminism, female careerism dovetailing with female hypergamy creating lots of women who aren’t happy settling with the available men

    Female hypergamy is a hoax and a collective slander. As if that wasn’t already obvious, Audacious Epigone provided further evidence of this the other day. Basically, as long as you have a job, your social class doesn’t much matter to your likelihood of being an “incel.”

    • Replies: @anon
  210. Rosie says:
    @AnotherDad

    I replied to you, AnotherDad, but failed to click the reply button. See above.

  211. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    You’re the one that initially said women go to Ivy League universities to meet men. Even if that’s just one and not the entire reason, it’s still a debasement of higher education.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  212. @Jack D

    It’s going to go down if you let in immigrants and if you don’t.

    Geez same old immigration-isn’t-the-problem party line.

    Sure, you still have a problem, but without immigration … but it’s a smaller problem and you can *fix* the problem.

    1) Immigration directly suppresses eugenic fertility.
    There’s a natural skew of the young high-IQ toward precisely the coastal IQ-shredding metropoli, whose economic activity also draws immigrants. So the immigrants both lower wages and drive up the cost of the “house in neighborhood with good schools”, crushing affordable family formation.

    (Imagine say the Bay Area as it is compared to how it would be absent the last 50 years of immigration.)

    2) Immigration suppresses the natural recovery process.
    Without immigration, you get lower birth cohorts, more job and housing opportunity–more affordable family formation, all while breeders are being selected for. Recovery.

    3) Immigration erodes national identity.
    It both destroys the sense of nation, identity, purpose upon which any future oriented activity–most especially having children–depends.

    4) Immigration makes a eugenic fertility program politically difficult, probably impossible.
    It destroys–both electorally and in terms of national purpose–a poltical response to promote eugenic fertility. Such a response is “racist”. But even more, again such a response–even a worry about eugenic fertility–requires people to see themselves as a cohrent whole, a nation, a race that has a future as a cohrent nation.

    None of this is complicated to understand.

    Whenever i hear this “immigrant isn’t the problem” nonsense with regard to fertility/eugenics it’s a big waving red flag that you’re getting the same-old, same-old, minoritarian, anti-nationalist b.s.

    Fertility and eugenic fertility are entirely tractable problems, but they are only tractable where you have something you could call a “nation” where people can see–feel–a common purpose. That’s why we’re talking about Hungary here–where there’s a nationalist government which actually cares about the nation and is making an effort. Or why there’s a fertility recovery in Israel, where the people have an ethno-national sense of purpose.

  213. @jon

    this is a typical American Cynicism Jon.

  214. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    You’re the one that initially said women go to Ivy League universities to meet men. Even if that’s just one and not the entire reason, it’s still a debasement of higher education.

    No I didn’t. I said they’re unlikely to meet a suitable man they want to marry (I mean really want to marry) unless they go to a university that is appropriate for their intellectual abilities.

    You have made very clear that you don’t care about women’s happiness or marital satisfaction.

  215. @Rosie

    OK, get back to me when you’ve dislodged the hostile elite that control academy! Until then, academy will remain a natality shredder for high-IQ women. We should counteract it by encouraging and supporting one breadwinner/one-homemaker (and, hopefully, homeschooler) family formation.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  216. Rosie says:
    @Sorel McRae

    We should counteract it by encouraging and supporting one breadwinner/one-homemaker (and, hopefully, homeschooler) family formation.

    How are you going to do that with said hostile elite in place continuing to import foreign scab labor to drive down wages?

    Put yourself in the place of parents with daughters. Unless you want them to encourage their daughters to marry for money (i.e. be a prostitute), you’re going to have to encourage her to prepare to earn a living.

    I know you think it’s more feasible to control women than to get rid of the hostile elite, but there is no way out but through you-know-who.

  217. anon[284] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    In particular, where is your proof that women rather than men resist and delay marriage?
    Moreover, where is your proof that later marriage is just a tendency to cohabit for longer periods of time?

    Since I did not make either of these assertions, you are dancing with strawmen once again.
    You don’t want evidence, you want confirmation of your biases.

  218. Who marries and has children in your model? Professional women with advanced degrees? Who nurtures and raises them? Third world nannies? Who educates them? The state? That sounds like the demographic and political disaster we have before us now.

    I don’t want anyone to marry for money. I want them to marry for love, children, family, and civilization. Do you want women to forgo all that for money, career, and service to corporate oligarchy?

    I don’t imagine that any marriage-and-natality subsidy could match what our hostile elite can offer profession-capable women to remain barren instead. Love and social solidarity would have to close the gap.

    Which alternative looks more like prostitution?

    • Replies: @Rosie
  219. anon[284] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Female hypergamy is a hoax and a collective slander.

    Female hypergamy is a fact that is demonstrated every day. Your old-lady feminist ingroup preference blinds you to the obvious.

    As if that wasn’t already obvious, Audacious Epigone provided further evidence of this the other day. Basically, as long as you have a job, your social class doesn’t much matter to your likelihood of being an “incel.”

    Lol! You still can’t read a graph; this graph is itself rather obviously evidence for hypergamy. But you can play bait and switch. “Incel” as defined in that study is “have not had sexual intercourse for one year” if I remember rightly. Changing the topic from marriage to hooking up is just plain dishonest, and I believe you know that.

    When you give up objectifying and dehumanizing men and learn to read a graph, perhaps you can discuss a serious topic in good faith. It’s not likely to happen, though. Your bitterness and anger are very deep.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  220. anon[269] • Disclaimer says:
    @Whiskey

    The low birth rate is a baby strike by women seeking Alpha.

    Lol!
    Only inside your head.

  221. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    We definitely need toolmakers, millwrights, mechanical engineers, and people like that though. So more vo tech and less soft sciences and liberal arts (except for rigorous programs like Classics) is a no-brainer.

    Yers. And another big advantage of training toolmakers and similar useful tradesmen is that it undercuts one of the arguments for immigration – that we need immigration because tools are rotting in the toolsheds.

  222. Rosie says:
    @Sorel McRae

    I don’t want anyone to marry for money. I want them to marry for love, children, family, and civilization. Do you want women to forgo all that for money, career, and service to corporate oligarchy?

    Certainly not. I want to get rid of the corporate oligarchy.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  223. Rosie says:
    @anon

    Lol! You still can’t read a graph; this graph is itself rather obviously evidence for hypergamy. But you can play bait and switch. “Incel” as defined in that study is “have not had sexual intercourse for one year” if I remember rightly. Changing the topic from marriage to hooking up is just plain dishonest, and I believe you know that.

    No it isn’t. It is evidence that women want a man who has a job and ideally isn’t an alcoholic, drug addict, or criminal. Beyond that, social class is not terribly important.

    Now, you are suggesting that women just “hook up” with men they have no long-term interest in. Women don’t generally do that, as you well know.

    According to your “female hypergamy” theory, women should be throwing themselves at these upper class men.

    • Replies: @Brown Boiii
  224. anon[312] • Disclaimer says:

    Hungary’s pro natal program is just one of the pro Hungarian programs instituted by Orban. He is a national leader who does not have contempt for the people, he does not hate them, in fact it is obvious he rather likes them. No wonder all the cool kid Euroleaders are opposed to him! How dare a national governor actually like his own kind! It just isn’t done! Ask Kommie Merkel!

  225. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    Sorel,

    In all seriousness, I don’t disagree with you as to ideals. I am a homeschooling mother myself. Nothing would delight me more than to see my children follow in my footsteps. Indeed, it makes me very sad to consider that my sons and sons-in-law may well be unable to support a family on their own, but that is a reality we have to face.

    You assume that women work because they want to, and they need to be “encouraged” to do otherwise. This is a strange assumption for a rightist IMO. If you create the economic conditions for traditional family formation, and you protect homemakers from abuse or abandonment, women are going to choose to be with their children.

    If you focus on what women “should do,” without regard to their financial situation, you risk alienating your only natural allies in the real struggle against the oligarchy.

    • Replies: @Sorel McRae
  226. @Rosie

    Perception of social class is v imp for social interaction

    ie race

  227. Medvedev says:
    @Sam Coulton

    TFR of different ethnic groups in Singapore
    Chinese 0.98
    Indian 1.00
    Malay 1.85

    Chinese TFR in Singapore almost exactly matches that of S. Korea. I stand corrected 🙂

  228. @Rosie

    If you create the economic conditions for traditional family formation, and you protect homemakers from abuse or abandonment, women are going to choose to be with their children.

    Agreed. Indeed, that’s the only context in which I used any “should”-type language. Namely, that we ought to support (not merely encourage, but definitely that too) highly capable women to forgo/postpone higher education in favor of marriage and family in their most fertile years.

    Protection from abuse and abandonment ought to go without saying but I’m fine with making it explicit. Also, a fierce social/cultural campaign (within the limits of the 1st Amendment) against all denigration of homemaker motherhood and all valorization of Sex and the City-type skankery.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  229. Rosie says:
    @Sorel McRae

    but definitely that too) highly capable women to forgo/postpone higher education in favor of marriage and family in their most fertile years.

    You and I are very much of the same mind on many things, but I disagree with you here.

    Highly capable women are prone to ask why. Why have children? What is the point of it all, really?

    Higher education should answer that question. Having a liberal arts education means never really believing that Whites have no culture. How could I believe that? I’m not yet an “old lady” as I was referred to above, but even in my college days, one couldn’t graduate with a humanities degree without a tremendous appreciation of and reverence for the Western cultural heritage.

    Women have plenty of time to get a bachelor’s degree before having children. The average spacing between children is, I believe, about 30 months. That means a woman who has her first child at 25 can have her third child at 30.

    Now, when higher education goes on for 10-12 years, you are going to run into a problem. My preference would be to see women get their bachelor’s degree, and then focus on having children. I don’t see why any further studies, if desired, couldn’t be pursued on a part-time basis while you’re having children.

  230. EdwardM says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I went to a wedding in Turkey where they did that. USD preferred.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS