Not long ago, someone made the point that if you suppress teenage pregnancy, you suppress all pregnancy. When you talk about 'status', granting status to the 'early fertile' would be the place to start, not with adult women with careers and attitude.
Very well said: status and wealth are significant to natalism, and the Dissident Right becoming the new counter-culture, and Bitcoin as inflation-proof currency, are definite progress on this. However, there's still a long ways to go.
One major issue that this article didn't address is the ongoing invasion of Western countries by the Third World. This is not merely a managerial-technocratic response to low birth-rates, but also a cause. When young women are in the presence of numerous foreign males within their own country, they instinctively sense that they're being invaded, and that therefore their men failed in their manly duty to defend them. It doesn't matter if they're told or believe otherwise, or if the dereliction of duty was caused by subversion rather than battlefield defeat; the effect is the same, and it shuts off their ovaries.
Conversely, if radical vanguards seized power and removed kebab en masse, going far beyond even MAGA's wet dreams, they would be swimming in pussy.
So true. That element deserves an essay of its own. Come to think of it, that factor is somewhat related to status. If you’re a weak loser allowing your home to be invaded, you are by definition low power & thus low status.
You immediately brought to mind an image of just a few years ago; our US "leaders' literally taking a knee while trying to be "kool" with African scarves (not precisely on point for the immigrant invasion topic, but relevant I think). I recall them being called out for not understanding what they were wearing... could not even get that right, yet the level of control they possess... Sigh.
The "counterculture"-meme at the end. If there's any sub-cultures that were and still are immune - for some reason - to commodification, Flanderisation, Disneyfication, Bowlderisation, call it what you like - it's skin and punk.
Oh, I know some people think The Clash was a punk band. The correct term is pop-rock: safe, sanitised, and just with that little zest, the little smidgen of rebel chic that inflames the imagination of the Bourgeoisie, without actually making them feel threatened.
Whereas the street-level punks and skins and their music continues to look and feel scary to the middle class to this day. Skinheads especially. Big burly, surly, rowdy bother-boys from the projects (or their country-side eq. the Raggare [Greasers, sort-of]), and the skin-flicks (Swenglish slang for skinhead girls), working-class girls easily as tough as the boys, and just as ready for a bit of the old ultra-vi.
What's it got to do with having kids? Having kids is real, it's not a chic lifestyle choice, no matter what Madonna and other celebrity-prostitutes have tried shilling for 30 years now. Being a parent is real.
(Oh sure, some races in some nations have abhorrent ratios of absent fathers/single mothers with one kid per man who's gotten to stick it in. The male counterpart to the female narcissist tying a man down by getting him to impregnate her on a bi-annual basis, no doubt. Evolution has no favourites, only "what works, works" instead of ethics or goals.)
Anyway. Making having kids be cool will be self-defeating. /Letting/ having kids be cool will work. Anyone's who remembers being 'angsty' about being not-lame in your teens understands the difference.
But:
"The question is what actions should we take?" Should we take any? Dropping birth-rates will fix itself, excepting bio-chemical reasons for the drop-off. A new equilibrium will be achieved, with a lower but stable population, just by doing nothing. Stopping migration and repatriating invasive and undesirable races will also help, as will lowering of taxes for low-income jobs and changing taxation so it benefits smaller towns and cities over Metropolises.
And of course accepting that the problem is one that takes several decades to adjust no matter what methods, if any, are chosen. I very much recommend having a look at the late prof. Hans Roslings works on over/under population:
He was a highly controversial figure in his heyday, simply for stating that the hypothesis of overpopulation (that old Luddite evergreen!) was wrong, if one looked at empirical facts instead of socio-political and economical theory.
I got pregnant at fifteen. Mom demanded an abortion. I ran away. I chose life. It was a demoralized life for a short while. But, life goes on. Abortions and IVF for all. The government will subsidize it.
Thanks for this post. My wife's future, and mine as well, was permanently altered as a result of her being on birth control, leading to depression, which we eventually transcended and healed.
My children have made me a better person in every way. And, in the meme at the end, I have been both people - in 1985 I was the guy on the left, and by 2005 I was the guy on the right. Some time around my 26th birthday, I realized it was time to "put away childish things".
This old fart was encouraged by the apparent political turn by Millennials not only in the US but in other places in the West. I am not sure it has manifested itself in natalism yet though. You may be on to something about the cool factor but the question is can it be encouraged or is it just some sort of organic process that occurs with generational turnover. I have long been a skeptic of economic incentives as it seems to be driven by cultural factors.
So you need both. You need to make it both cool (i.e. high status), and economically viable — meaning NOT dependent on bullshit handouts from idiot bureaucrats—which often backfires anyway. (Free daycare initiatives for instance trap parents in a system of meritocratic workism—which is antithetical to family and fertility).- well said. Banger of an article.
Power, status, money, it all ultimately boils down to the ruling culture and ideology of society- I don't believe that the culture-counterculture switch you are describing will bring a lasting change. We are still labouring under the yoke of Enlightenment, which talks about individual and logic and not community and spirit. The joke about "retvrn" does hold some truth however, that we need to overturn the framework of Liberalism, and, as you suggest, construct a new structure. The old mores are not necessarily obsolete - human moral impulses are still the same, we still condemn murder and everyone still hates adultery, despite forced smiles and gritted teeth saying otherwise. What we need is a new Renaissance, which picks up the lost thread of the past culture, and blends it together with our modern technology and understanding, to deliver a renewal of the West.
If status is everything, and memes are our weapon, we have 2500 years of cultural material to draw upon, the regressives only 150. Only now are we understanding how to play that game.
This is true. The core message of my book is that we lost our way for a century to two, and are now slowly finding our way "back" - but back doesn't mean a return, but a rooting in the timeless principles of tradition and the strength and foresight to project forward into the future.
The trouble is feminism and other such ideologies have taken hold of the West, and the costs of having children has skyrocketed (or at least the perception is there). It'll take time to 'de-program' people from thinking of children as 'burdens'.
This is a great and important essay, one that I think more people should read, and do think that this is one area where Elon & Vance are doing a world of good as you are by highlighting that more must be done to encourage women of European (and Japanese also) to have more children. Oddly I don't see this as a political issue so much as a cultural one (dunno if that's odd), and one that requires us to create art that showcases children in a positive light, the defence of them as absolute and romance as having classic female and male characters. What's also needed is to lighten the 'tax-load' placed on tax-payers' shoulders and to possibly also try to find a way to make it easier for young people to meet, and get together.
I don't have any solutions to this last problem but I do think this phrase of your essay; 'And, like I said, cool has to come along with economic carrying capacity. Young people must be able to save for the future. Cool is great, but when push comes to shove, young children need to eat, they need to be sheltered, and they need to be raised.' is of the utmost importance. I only hope it has a direct effect and encourages more people to get together, stay together and have kids.
Because men and women are always stronger and better together than apart, not just for our children but for our own sake.
Kudos John, kudos Aleksandar for this monumental essay. Loved it, it was truly moving and inspiring.
Thank you my friend. I just finished writing a quick follow up to this piece which I’ll post in the next few hours. It touches on what you said at the beginning re: feminism.
On the way to the gym. Will publish when I’m back 🤝
If you want to rebuild civilization, you need to do it with money that's tied to what it really is - a representation of labor. Bitcoin is not that. It is a digital speculative fiat system.
To tie that, and a sales pitch on a book, into a post on families made the whole thing into an infomercial. "Buy my book and get bitcoin! Change your life!"
Never mind that you win twice if they do so. From both the book, and from the rise in your speculative asset.
I get it. People need to live, and you need to sell things. And you're right - the west needs to make babies. But you're not saying anything all that original in the post. It's been said before; by all the people you link to. So... If you're not going to say anything original, and just going to pimp stuff, maybe don't say anything at all? Best wait till you have something better to say, IMO.
Meh. You put things out for public reading on a well read blog. Expect feedback if your writing isn't high quality.
Do you think you'd get more followers, and long term buyers, if you had done a non-informercial post and they'd found out about your book later, or your short term time preferences to hit them over the head now? Because when people see a good guest post, they check out the author and his own site. When they don't, they don't.
So, use criticism to sharpen up. Or don't. Your choice bro.
1. Did I shill the book? Yes. Of course. That's because I discuss these ideas at greater length there. I have a real business to run and when I get some time, I'll write a little essay like this and point to the book for anyone who wants to dig deeper. They can buy it OR pirate it. I don't mind. Seriously - I'll send you a copy for free. Writing long essays is a time sink, ESPECIALLY when I've already put the time into writing about those ideas elsewhere.
2. The part about me "pumping my bags" re: Bitcoin is just ridiculous though, Maybe, just maybe if you had $10 billion to deploy into bitcoin after reading that essay, then MAYBE you would change the value of my personal net worth by half a percent.
Seriously. When people drop that second one on me, it pisses me off. I have NOTHING to gain by telling you to use a better savings instrument. I've been telling people for a decade now and 99.9% have ridiculed me. I say it less these days for that very reason.
I've written well over a million words on why it's a good idea to have a bearer instrument for money, that has the properties of physical gold and cash, but is digital. I recommend you learn about that, for your own good - NOT mine.
Bwa Ha Ha! Criticism for being smart enough to self promote! As a young lawyer, the Name Partner told me; "you cannot sit in the office and wait for clients to pull up out front in a carriage... the white shoe days are gone!" So, we would draft "newsletters" and go out and lecture on the topics of our practice area for targeted audiences of potential clients, or even other lawyers at bar association gatherings. You do what you need to do to get your message, and availability for hire, out to the world! Even Ted Kaczynski understood that! (Oooo... bad choice of exemplars, eh?)
Whatever man. All I'm trying to point out is that there are classier ways to go about doing it. Either playing the long term game, or even just writing a better article that isn't littered with links, doesn't like an infomercial, and has a simple, "Like what you're reading? I go into more detail here!" at the end. Flood people's choices less, and they'll be more inclined to choose yours. It'll also feel less like an informercial, because you're leaning on your previous work less obviously in the post, even if you are repeating it word for word - someone who hasn't read the book wouldn't know.
But, like I said in the original - you didn't say much that hasn't been said already, and it feels like an infomercial. Either take the constructive criticism I'm trying to help you with, or leave it.
Beyond that, I already commented about my thoughts on money. Don't need to repeat them here.
Oh, I understand. And I'm not sure if I agree with you. I think that there's a combination of things. I think the status thing is a part of it, as is material ability. One can argue that the examples given simply failed to achieve the goal, or did not give the material ability, or both.
I just think that you'll never achieve the material aspect; and hence eventually the status aspect will fall flat on its face eventually as well for anyone that buys into that part of the economy - if it is not based around the human person. Pure and simple.
In the case of Central Europe, it was a state failure to adapt to changing material conditions... even though they succeeded on the 'Status' thing a la making Natalism something worthwhile & respectable, post-Warsaw Pact.
Basically (to keep it short & sweet): Young Polish men saw their society as... 'inferior' to the Bright lights, glamour, etc of Berlin, Paris, London, etc. Yes, they were high status *in Warsaw & elsewhere* but they wanted MORE... hence migration.
Many left their families & homes for better work & pay & many also left without building family & whatnot. So you're very correct when you say that the human person, *as such*... that pursuit failed in these societies, even though (by the raw numbers) they saw big boosts in Religion, pro-Natalism, etc.
Money is not a representation of labour: only a good or a service performed is that.
Money, instead, is a representation of relative worth/value, and is always arbitrary no matter if it's in the shape of gold coins or electronic bits or social credits or sea shells or tulip bulbs.
Also, do not confuse monetary cost of something, with its worth/value, or the real cost of something; the monetary cost is arbitrary since it is based in "wants", and the real cost is based on "needs" which is why it is real in the first place.
My issue is the requirement of the internet. This is a point failure and also a means of control. How does one access the internet and thereby Bitcoin if blacklisted by the government? "Democracy" literally allows for complete chaos every time there's a power change.
The US is literally heading towards an energy crisis due to the Green grift and refusal to force plant upgrades. We don't even make our own transformers anymore. Power plants are a decade long process.
No. This is a common misconception. Bitcoin is information. It does not REQUIRE the internet, it is just more useful WITH the internet. The internet is a communication medium. And bitcoin is an energy-based digital bearer asset that can USE the internet to its advantage.
Also - if you use bitcoin intelligently, your IP address, etc does not matter
That's because unlike most of the people talking about bitcoin, I've actually studied the philosophy and history of money. When I say that Milton Friedman is meh, it's because he's discarding thousands of years of monetary thought - and that people who quote half of his sentence on money are missing the point.
I like Karl, and he's intelligent, but even he misses the point on that. Money, being representative of labor, can change if you change the labor. That's what Friedman was talking about in that sentence, if you quote the whole thing. It's obviously easier to change the money side of the equation in a fiat system - but you can change the labor side too. Add women. Add illegals. Take either away. Add robots. Add bitcoin into the system! Add stocks.
The thing is, is that anything that is a medium of exchange can be used, and at different times, has been used, as money. Cows, sheep, pigs, etc. Also, before money, humans used credit - which is much more akin to fiat. Hence why there's nothing inherently wrong or immoral with lending - only doing so at interest. As both God and Aristotle (a pagan) acknowledge.
But, you'll never get that out of any modern, or Bitcoin!(TM!) enthusiast.
If you divorce money from the human - from the labor - it means nothing. Not. A. Single. Thing.
'Money is a medium of exchange' is not the end of the story, since, as you correctly note, You need to factor in the Human Person.
If your only benchmark is 'Money as medium of exchange'... what you get is the most abstract, non-empiricial entity... enter the Internet, Bitcoin, etc which (let's be honest here) is non-tangible & functions like a speculative asset.
YES, there are 'true believers’ who see it as MONEY-proper... but the normies (who are the majority) view it as a pump & dump scheme.
That’s the organic, natural consequence of divorcing the tangibles from money & looking for an Alchemical 'Best case' candidate for 'medium of exchange.'
I do not doubt that in the Deindustrial Night of the coming several centuries, such Abstract Hocum will be Weeded out by people who do the basics & acquire plants, animals, land, community, etc.
The abstract world of 'the web' will end... but humans will have to continue living on this rock for the next several millions of years, WITHOUT the internet & other silly distractions... So people need to fix their priorities & learn some skills! 😉
Of importance, in that order. You'll notice that we moderns flip that order. We INSIST that money keep it's value. Yet, if money is tied to the human person and to the real world, the real world doesn't do that. Labor values fluctuate. As do gold coins when they're ACTUALLY in circulation. The clinking and jingling of them wears them down over time. Yet it is in human nature to accept them at face value - to the point where philosophers would say that it is the miser and sinful NOT to do so, unless there has been obvious tampering (clipping coins, etc).
This can also be seen in other forms of money. Cows degrade in value, yet were money for thousands of years. Pigs and sheep. Hence why gold was called the "perfect money" as it is -less- prone to this. Yet you still must spend or have money to keep it. Have land to store it. Pay someone to guard it. Risk losing it in investments or having it stolen if burying it. All of which is called deflation - because money is naturally deflationary.
As is labor.
As is life.
The human life is subject to entropy, just like the rest of the universe.
The bitcoin desire to avoid entropy by having something where it's constant "number go up!" is just saying you don't understand the world. Or that you want to enslave someone else to put in the labor to avoid the entropy. Pick one.
We have not had enough monetary debasement for bitcoin to go as high as it has. What we’ve had is wild speculation, etfs, and others lever up into bitcoin. It’s become a release valve for the monetary system and allowed to persist so that all that speculation could go somewhere that is out of sight, out of mind.
I mean, imagine what kind of numbers other assets would be at if that speculation was required to go somewhere else? It’d be retarded. Gold would be through the roof. Stocks and housing would be retardedly higher than they are.
No. The number go up is allowed. They love it and are glad for it.
Glad I paid attention. I dunno why people refuse to honestly debate with you. It's kind of embarrassing for us whites to use fallacies. C'mon, guys, our predecessors invented debate and logic.
Look man. You remind me too much of my younger brother. Perpetual doomer. Never actually built or created anything in his life. Neither a business, a family, a product or anything. But he's been telling me about the demise of civilisation for over a decade.
I don't care about yours or his stats and facts.
Im interested in solving / building / creating - despite the odds and numbers.
So..for mine and your sanity, I'm just going to block you on here.
In the beginning I bought a hundred dollars worth of bitcoin. I let it sit and didn’t pay attention to it. The next year I checked in on it and all my money was gone. That’s when knew it was gambling. Why didn’t my money grow? Or why was it all gone? The coins fluctuate like the stock markets.
Plus, who invented the bitcoin? We still don’t know…
Trading actual goods, perhaps? That's the only thing I can think of - like an Iron Age trapper paying for salt by swapping it for pelts.
Arguably, that's not "money" the way we mean it. Wasn't there a time in China when they used huge coins made out of salt as a way to pay taxes?
Here, in historical times, some regions paid their taxes in the form of iron, copper and silver ingots which the Crown's sheriff had put his seal on. A bit hefty to carry around some 60 pounds of copper when going shopping...
Besides what RIkard said, within our current legal system, it is legal to do a few things. You are able to set up a system in which you trade hours of labor within communities, and tokenize it however you want. Either physically or digitally. You can do so without it being taxed, unlike barter. The stipulation, I believe, is that it has to be hour for hour the same - so a babysitter's hours have to be the same value as an electrician's or a mechanic's.
I get that this is less... Just, than is truly correct. But it's a way to do so in our current environ.
You can always barter. That's risky on a large scale as it's technically illegal and supposed to be reported to the IRS. Our current administration probably doesn't care, but a Dem probably would. I don't recommend anyone do illegal things in a failing Empire, as they're probably going to grabble anything they can as the banks go dry.
The biggest thing, though, is simply to have people buying and selling things from each other. Even if it's within the dollar, you're setting prices and relative values within your own community instead of outside of it. You're employing each other. Building relationships and depending on each other. Overcoming the "I don't work with friends/relatives" mindset persistent in today's world. That kind of thing is toxic - you don't have a real community without spending the majority of your day with each other, doing the thing humans do the most together - making a living.
If the dollar collapses, and you all have a relative idea of what prices are, and how to deal with each other because of how you dealt with each other, you'll be able to figure it out. You won't be at each other's throats as much as the next community over.
I live in "the boonies" - the deep dark forests over here, in a village of about 100 people (700 during Summer vacations), and "helping each other out" is our main local currency.
It works due to reasons as grand as culture and tradition, and as petty as not wanting to let the Great Thief the State grub even more of what is ours. A simple example:
This Autumn, after a slight storm, a couple of old spruces fell across a by-road next to my (very modest) patch of land. Now, it's the one owning the land the trees grew on who's obligated to remove them, by law, tradition and common sense.
However, the owner in question is an octogenarian and he was busy with the seasonal Moose-hunt (which for hunters here have the same status as Had'j has for moslems: not hyperbole).
Knowing that, I trot over to that road with my gear and starts cutting up the trees (ca 60' tall, each one), cleaning away the branches and so on, and proceeds to take all the wood home (firewood - stormfelled trees don't make for good building material, don't ask me why, it's what the Old Ones say).
Note, I don't need to ask him if it's okay, and he doesn't need to ask me if I would do it in exchange for the wood: we both know due to cultural intuition that that's how it goes.
But (stating what everyone here already understands): that stuff only works local, in a homogenous culture/race based on trust and trustworthiness being among the highest virtues. Therefore, it doesn't work when combined with collectivist idea such as capitalism or communism or variants thereof, in an urban industrial setting.
Where was I going with this?
Oh, right, ethics. We - Occidental civilisation and its constituent cultures/races, have lost our instinctual ethics. Granted, it was gradual and it took a century, but now we're here, wherever that is.
And family is the foundation of ethics, just as ethics is needed to found families, I'd argue. However, it's Midnight so I'm not writing out a treatise on the how and why of the preceding sentence-statement.
Exactly right. Wonderful story. I’ve had many similar experiences within my own community. Building one is what I write about, as it’s what interests me and helps me discuss topics with my neighbors.
But yeah, the human experience is how things function. Things like gold, or cows, or paper money, or tally sticks - those are there just to fill the gaps. To help society function. Once you’ve really been in the trenches, and understand that those things are just an added, modern thing to get the flow of goods going…. it just opens your eyes to how off kilter our modern world is from that of our ancestors. That we have made it work is amazing, and I enjoy the good of our lives, but I certainly understand that it came at a cost, and won’t be sad if it goes back to the traditional norm either.
He started the conversation and here we are. Your comment is asinine, adds nothing, and it would have been better if YOU kept your thoughts to yourself. You should probably go see a psychiatrist.
You might disagree with my opinions. Yet, if you held those opinions and thought that someone wanted to change their writing to have a better post, don't you think they need to be informed of those opinions and how to change their writing?
Substack exists for readers & writers to interact with each other.
I have many readers who are... (to put it politely) not very friendly when I mention the Deindustrial, Low-Population Future.
That said, it is my duty as a writer to evaluate them properly & (if there is good criticism) respond accordingly.
Frankly, these are very fair standards & while I don't expect them to be *Universal* for everyone, people who don't follow such a standard (i.e. responding to readers fairly) are just 'doing it wrong.'
Did you read my comment at all? Or are you too retarded to understand it? Here - I'll break it down for you bit by bit.
"If you want to rebuild civilization, you need to do it with money that's tied to what it really is - a representation of labor."
- Here I'm making a simple comment about economics and the necessity of how money needs to be tied to the labor of men, how people work. This was known in the times of Aristotle until retarded Mercantilists like Adam Smith came along. Marx got it half right, but the solutions he offered were satanic. However, saying that we need to go back to something akin to men working for their jobs and being able to live on their wages is constructive and good.
"Bitcoin is not that. It is a digital speculative fiat system."
- Simple comment about bitcoin not being tied to any real assets in the real world. It is pure fiat, valued at the price of the last sale. Nothing like how money has been historically thought of.
"To tie that, and a sales pitch on a book, into a post on families made the whole thing into an infomercial. "Buy my book and get bitcoin! Change your life!""
Never mind that you win twice if they do so. From both the book, and from the rise in your speculative asset."
- Opinions given about his post. How the post came across. That the author's post came across as an infomercial due to the manner in which he did his book tie in. It was clumsy and the post was half hearted. Fine. Not the worst post. Not the best. I didn't slam him down or say he was retarded, as you'll see.
"I get it. People need to live, and you need to sell things. And you're right - the west needs to make babies. But you're not saying anything all that original in the post. It's been said before; by all the people you link to. So... If you're not going to say anything original, and just going to pimp stuff, maybe don't say anything at all? Best wait till you have something better to say, IMO."
- WOA! AGREEING WITH HIS POST!? Understanding that he needs to sell books, and that the author is correct in his post on all the fundamental things that he wrote about!? GET OUT OF HERE! It's almost like....
A CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM DANWAY!
And then I go on to say that he could do better. That I think he would be best served doing what I suggested. Up to him to take it or not.
And you can follow the other comments to him and whether you think that I'm operating in good faith to him.
Now stop sperging out and freaking read the comments like a normal human being.
While I can agree with much of the ideas in the article, I have two key problems/concerns. First, there is no shortage of non-White babies being born in the USA (and probably the UK/Europe). Our hospitals are packed to the brim with anchor babies, unwanted kids and waddling welfare checks. We gotta do LOTS more than "deport kebab" to defuse the demographic replacement time bomb that will nuke the West into oblivion, and there is NO way for Whites to out-baby the non-Whites. My second concern is the rise of AI/automation/robotics taking over almost all human endeavors. AKA, what are all these fabulous new babies going to DO for a living??? Even if you made having White babies really kewl, what roles will these kewl White babies fill when they become adults? And how will they thrive outnumbered by non-Whites in what used to be their nations?
The first point is an issue indeed. I tried to address that briefly in the follow up essay I did (see my profile).
The second one, is a nothing burger IMO. AI is overhyped. I come from the industry and I can tell you it’s mostly froth. We’re in for a major AI winter when reality doesn’t meet exactions over the next year or two.
There is definitely nothing wrong with seeking status. Especially since it is a largely subconscious thing. We don't believe or like things for rational reasons. We have a "This Makes Sense" part of our brain that marks which things we believe and which we don't.
Knowledge cannot always sway this part of us, which is why so many people belive things that are not true.
Getting people to see something as cool does not mean a sinical calculating manipulation on our part, it is creating an environment there people have an easy time accepting things that are good for them. Where they don't have to overcome the This Makes Sense brain.
This is always why just telling people what is supposedly cool never works, and why memes work. Because memes bypass the logicall brain and scratch that invisible itch of "This Makes Sense".
We brave patriots have won the war against Seed Oil, yet this is not an indication that the war against stupidity (which, in a giant leap of Dadaism, is called "woke") has been won.
I am of the opinion that Gaia is a living creation that occasionally feels the need to conduct a mass extinction event and there is nothing we can do about that. THE FOURTH TURNING is an excellent book that explains how society evolves, becomes content, degenerates, and is reborn.
Not long ago, someone made the point that if you suppress teenage pregnancy, you suppress all pregnancy. When you talk about 'status', granting status to the 'early fertile' would be the place to start, not with adult women with careers and attitude.
100%
Check this out--from 2002, no less:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2002/09/lets-have-more-teen-pregnancy-frederica-mathewes-green/
Very well said: status and wealth are significant to natalism, and the Dissident Right becoming the new counter-culture, and Bitcoin as inflation-proof currency, are definite progress on this. However, there's still a long ways to go.
One major issue that this article didn't address is the ongoing invasion of Western countries by the Third World. This is not merely a managerial-technocratic response to low birth-rates, but also a cause. When young women are in the presence of numerous foreign males within their own country, they instinctively sense that they're being invaded, and that therefore their men failed in their manly duty to defend them. It doesn't matter if they're told or believe otherwise, or if the dereliction of duty was caused by subversion rather than battlefield defeat; the effect is the same, and it shuts off their ovaries.
Conversely, if radical vanguards seized power and removed kebab en masse, going far beyond even MAGA's wet dreams, they would be swimming in pussy.
I've written about this very thing before. I'm already writing about it again.
So true. That element deserves an essay of its own. Come to think of it, that factor is somewhat related to status. If you’re a weak loser allowing your home to be invaded, you are by definition low power & thus low status.
You immediately brought to mind an image of just a few years ago; our US "leaders' literally taking a knee while trying to be "kool" with African scarves (not precisely on point for the immigrant invasion topic, but relevant I think). I recall them being called out for not understanding what they were wearing... could not even get that right, yet the level of control they possess... Sigh.
I do believe their control is slipping. Times are changing, and for the first time in a while I have more hope than despair at the situation.
It is good to hear that younger people have hope. I worry greatly about my own offspring, which is only natural I guess!
The "counterculture"-meme at the end. If there's any sub-cultures that were and still are immune - for some reason - to commodification, Flanderisation, Disneyfication, Bowlderisation, call it what you like - it's skin and punk.
Oh, I know some people think The Clash was a punk band. The correct term is pop-rock: safe, sanitised, and just with that little zest, the little smidgen of rebel chic that inflames the imagination of the Bourgeoisie, without actually making them feel threatened.
Whereas the street-level punks and skins and their music continues to look and feel scary to the middle class to this day. Skinheads especially. Big burly, surly, rowdy bother-boys from the projects (or their country-side eq. the Raggare [Greasers, sort-of]), and the skin-flicks (Swenglish slang for skinhead girls), working-class girls easily as tough as the boys, and just as ready for a bit of the old ultra-vi.
What's it got to do with having kids? Having kids is real, it's not a chic lifestyle choice, no matter what Madonna and other celebrity-prostitutes have tried shilling for 30 years now. Being a parent is real.
(Oh sure, some races in some nations have abhorrent ratios of absent fathers/single mothers with one kid per man who's gotten to stick it in. The male counterpart to the female narcissist tying a man down by getting him to impregnate her on a bi-annual basis, no doubt. Evolution has no favourites, only "what works, works" instead of ethics or goals.)
Anyway. Making having kids be cool will be self-defeating. /Letting/ having kids be cool will work. Anyone's who remembers being 'angsty' about being not-lame in your teens understands the difference.
But:
"The question is what actions should we take?" Should we take any? Dropping birth-rates will fix itself, excepting bio-chemical reasons for the drop-off. A new equilibrium will be achieved, with a lower but stable population, just by doing nothing. Stopping migration and repatriating invasive and undesirable races will also help, as will lowering of taxes for low-income jobs and changing taxation so it benefits smaller towns and cities over Metropolises.
And of course accepting that the problem is one that takes several decades to adjust no matter what methods, if any, are chosen. I very much recommend having a look at the late prof. Hans Roslings works on over/under population:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Rosling
He was a highly controversial figure in his heyday, simply for stating that the hypothesis of overpopulation (that old Luddite evergreen!) was wrong, if one looked at empirical facts instead of socio-political and economical theory.
Thanks for you comment. I'll look into Hans' work when I have some time.
Rikard, shall we meet at the Korova for a Moloko-Plus, and consider a bit of the old ultra-vi?
Support teenage pregnancy. Make 'early fertility' a status symbol at school and home.
I got pregnant at fifteen. Mom demanded an abortion. I ran away. I chose life. It was a demoralized life for a short while. But, life goes on. Abortions and IVF for all. The government will subsidize it.
Would you have led a ‘demoralized life’ if your choice to be ‘early fertile’ had been honored and supported?
Thanks for this post. My wife's future, and mine as well, was permanently altered as a result of her being on birth control, leading to depression, which we eventually transcended and healed.
I'm very happy for you and your wife!
My children have made me a better person in every way. And, in the meme at the end, I have been both people - in 1985 I was the guy on the left, and by 2005 I was the guy on the right. Some time around my 26th birthday, I realized it was time to "put away childish things".
Very happy to hear that. Wish I'd made that transition earlier in my own life.
This old fart was encouraged by the apparent political turn by Millennials not only in the US but in other places in the West. I am not sure it has manifested itself in natalism yet though. You may be on to something about the cool factor but the question is can it be encouraged or is it just some sort of organic process that occurs with generational turnover. I have long been a skeptic of economic incentives as it seems to be driven by cultural factors.
It's probably some mix of organic and encouraged. The truth is, these things are always complex.
Herr Svetski
Progressives become dinosaurs
Not passing on their DNA to the future generations
Tusen Takk
Jon
Yes
The problem is they’ve taken over the public school system and try to pass on their values that way.
Yeah so we need to strike back where we can have more influence. And that’s online. We’ll take back the schools later
So you need both. You need to make it both cool (i.e. high status), and economically viable — meaning NOT dependent on bullshit handouts from idiot bureaucrats—which often backfires anyway. (Free daycare initiatives for instance trap parents in a system of meritocratic workism—which is antithetical to family and fertility).- well said. Banger of an article.
Power, status, money, it all ultimately boils down to the ruling culture and ideology of society- I don't believe that the culture-counterculture switch you are describing will bring a lasting change. We are still labouring under the yoke of Enlightenment, which talks about individual and logic and not community and spirit. The joke about "retvrn" does hold some truth however, that we need to overturn the framework of Liberalism, and, as you suggest, construct a new structure. The old mores are not necessarily obsolete - human moral impulses are still the same, we still condemn murder and everyone still hates adultery, despite forced smiles and gritted teeth saying otherwise. What we need is a new Renaissance, which picks up the lost thread of the past culture, and blends it together with our modern technology and understanding, to deliver a renewal of the West.
If status is everything, and memes are our weapon, we have 2500 years of cultural material to draw upon, the regressives only 150. Only now are we understanding how to play that game.
This is true. The core message of my book is that we lost our way for a century to two, and are now slowly finding our way "back" - but back doesn't mean a return, but a rooting in the timeless principles of tradition and the strength and foresight to project forward into the future.
The trouble is feminism and other such ideologies have taken hold of the West, and the costs of having children has skyrocketed (or at least the perception is there). It'll take time to 'de-program' people from thinking of children as 'burdens'.
This is a great and important essay, one that I think more people should read, and do think that this is one area where Elon & Vance are doing a world of good as you are by highlighting that more must be done to encourage women of European (and Japanese also) to have more children. Oddly I don't see this as a political issue so much as a cultural one (dunno if that's odd), and one that requires us to create art that showcases children in a positive light, the defence of them as absolute and romance as having classic female and male characters. What's also needed is to lighten the 'tax-load' placed on tax-payers' shoulders and to possibly also try to find a way to make it easier for young people to meet, and get together.
I don't have any solutions to this last problem but I do think this phrase of your essay; 'And, like I said, cool has to come along with economic carrying capacity. Young people must be able to save for the future. Cool is great, but when push comes to shove, young children need to eat, they need to be sheltered, and they need to be raised.' is of the utmost importance. I only hope it has a direct effect and encourages more people to get together, stay together and have kids.
Because men and women are always stronger and better together than apart, not just for our children but for our own sake.
Kudos John, kudos Aleksandar for this monumental essay. Loved it, it was truly moving and inspiring.
Thank you my friend. I just finished writing a quick follow up to this piece which I’ll post in the next few hours. It touches on what you said at the beginning re: feminism.
On the way to the gym. Will publish when I’m back 🤝
Sure thing, and best of luck mon frere, take your time I’ll be here to read it (do please tag me in Notes to make sure I don’t forget haha).
As promised. Finally got to it. Busy day.
https://remnantchronicles.substack.com/p/fertility-follow-up?r=1daig
Yay! Going to take a look at it!
If you want to rebuild civilization, you need to do it with money that's tied to what it really is - a representation of labor. Bitcoin is not that. It is a digital speculative fiat system.
To tie that, and a sales pitch on a book, into a post on families made the whole thing into an infomercial. "Buy my book and get bitcoin! Change your life!"
Never mind that you win twice if they do so. From both the book, and from the rise in your speculative asset.
I get it. People need to live, and you need to sell things. And you're right - the west needs to make babies. But you're not saying anything all that original in the post. It's been said before; by all the people you link to. So... If you're not going to say anything original, and just going to pimp stuff, maybe don't say anything at all? Best wait till you have something better to say, IMO.
Cool story. You didn't have to read it. And please...don't buy Bitcoin at all.
Meh. You put things out for public reading on a well read blog. Expect feedback if your writing isn't high quality.
Do you think you'd get more followers, and long term buyers, if you had done a non-informercial post and they'd found out about your book later, or your short term time preferences to hit them over the head now? Because when people see a good guest post, they check out the author and his own site. When they don't, they don't.
So, use criticism to sharpen up. Or don't. Your choice bro.
Look.
1. Did I shill the book? Yes. Of course. That's because I discuss these ideas at greater length there. I have a real business to run and when I get some time, I'll write a little essay like this and point to the book for anyone who wants to dig deeper. They can buy it OR pirate it. I don't mind. Seriously - I'll send you a copy for free. Writing long essays is a time sink, ESPECIALLY when I've already put the time into writing about those ideas elsewhere.
2. The part about me "pumping my bags" re: Bitcoin is just ridiculous though, Maybe, just maybe if you had $10 billion to deploy into bitcoin after reading that essay, then MAYBE you would change the value of my personal net worth by half a percent.
Seriously. When people drop that second one on me, it pisses me off. I have NOTHING to gain by telling you to use a better savings instrument. I've been telling people for a decade now and 99.9% have ridiculed me. I say it less these days for that very reason.
I've written well over a million words on why it's a good idea to have a bearer instrument for money, that has the properties of physical gold and cash, but is digital. I recommend you learn about that, for your own good - NOT mine.
Hope that clarifies.
Bwa Ha Ha! Criticism for being smart enough to self promote! As a young lawyer, the Name Partner told me; "you cannot sit in the office and wait for clients to pull up out front in a carriage... the white shoe days are gone!" So, we would draft "newsletters" and go out and lecture on the topics of our practice area for targeted audiences of potential clients, or even other lawyers at bar association gatherings. You do what you need to do to get your message, and availability for hire, out to the world! Even Ted Kaczynski understood that! (Oooo... bad choice of exemplars, eh?)
If you read the comment thread, you'll see that it gets into the manner in which he did so.
I'm a self employed electrician. I get self promotion, completely. I said so in the original comment for crying out loud, you retard. Learn to read.
Whatever man. All I'm trying to point out is that there are classier ways to go about doing it. Either playing the long term game, or even just writing a better article that isn't littered with links, doesn't like an infomercial, and has a simple, "Like what you're reading? I go into more detail here!" at the end. Flood people's choices less, and they'll be more inclined to choose yours. It'll also feel less like an informercial, because you're leaning on your previous work less obviously in the post, even if you are repeating it word for word - someone who hasn't read the book wouldn't know.
But, like I said in the original - you didn't say much that hasn't been said already, and it feels like an infomercial. Either take the constructive criticism I'm trying to help you with, or leave it.
Beyond that, I already commented about my thoughts on money. Don't need to repeat them here.
I'll respond properly in an essay. Too many comments, too hard to follow.
Except it isn't constructive....it's just nonsense deconstructionism repackaged as some horseshit.
I don’t even mind the infomercial aspect.
The isssue is that (as I noted in my comment) this “coolness and status” thing has already been tried … but to no avail.
Oh, I understand. And I'm not sure if I agree with you. I think that there's a combination of things. I think the status thing is a part of it, as is material ability. One can argue that the examples given simply failed to achieve the goal, or did not give the material ability, or both.
I just think that you'll never achieve the material aspect; and hence eventually the status aspect will fall flat on its face eventually as well for anyone that buys into that part of the economy - if it is not based around the human person. Pure and simple.
In the case of Central Europe, it was a state failure to adapt to changing material conditions... even though they succeeded on the 'Status' thing a la making Natalism something worthwhile & respectable, post-Warsaw Pact.
Basically (to keep it short & sweet): Young Polish men saw their society as... 'inferior' to the Bright lights, glamour, etc of Berlin, Paris, London, etc. Yes, they were high status *in Warsaw & elsewhere* but they wanted MORE... hence migration.
Many left their families & homes for better work & pay & many also left without building family & whatnot. So you're very correct when you say that the human person, *as such*... that pursuit failed in these societies, even though (by the raw numbers) they saw big boosts in Religion, pro-Natalism, etc.
Well. As the West as a whole has less "The grass is greener" ability, I have a feeling the whole "Status" approach may have more runway.
I see you get offended like a little kid when someone disagrees with you. That's not a sign of mental maturity.
Money is not a representation of labour: only a good or a service performed is that.
Money, instead, is a representation of relative worth/value, and is always arbitrary no matter if it's in the shape of gold coins or electronic bits or social credits or sea shells or tulip bulbs.
Also, do not confuse monetary cost of something, with its worth/value, or the real cost of something; the monetary cost is arbitrary since it is based in "wants", and the real cost is based on "needs" which is why it is real in the first place.
🎯🎯🎯
I think you're hitting much closer to the truth than ones and zeroes. Karl Denninger talks about an energy-based currency. This is the way.
Bitcoin is specifically an energy-based currency. That's the whole point. Everything else is a Ponzi
My issue is the requirement of the internet. This is a point failure and also a means of control. How does one access the internet and thereby Bitcoin if blacklisted by the government? "Democracy" literally allows for complete chaos every time there's a power change.
The US is literally heading towards an energy crisis due to the Green grift and refusal to force plant upgrades. We don't even make our own transformers anymore. Power plants are a decade long process.
No. This is a common misconception. Bitcoin is information. It does not REQUIRE the internet, it is just more useful WITH the internet. The internet is a communication medium. And bitcoin is an energy-based digital bearer asset that can USE the internet to its advantage.
Also - if you use bitcoin intelligently, your IP address, etc does not matter
LOL!!! :D
That's because unlike most of the people talking about bitcoin, I've actually studied the philosophy and history of money. When I say that Milton Friedman is meh, it's because he's discarding thousands of years of monetary thought - and that people who quote half of his sentence on money are missing the point.
I like Karl, and he's intelligent, but even he misses the point on that. Money, being representative of labor, can change if you change the labor. That's what Friedman was talking about in that sentence, if you quote the whole thing. It's obviously easier to change the money side of the equation in a fiat system - but you can change the labor side too. Add women. Add illegals. Take either away. Add robots. Add bitcoin into the system! Add stocks.
The thing is, is that anything that is a medium of exchange can be used, and at different times, has been used, as money. Cows, sheep, pigs, etc. Also, before money, humans used credit - which is much more akin to fiat. Hence why there's nothing inherently wrong or immoral with lending - only doing so at interest. As both God and Aristotle (a pagan) acknowledge.
But, you'll never get that out of any modern, or Bitcoin!(TM!) enthusiast.
If you divorce money from the human - from the labor - it means nothing. Not. A. Single. Thing.
'Money is a medium of exchange' is not the end of the story, since, as you correctly note, You need to factor in the Human Person.
If your only benchmark is 'Money as medium of exchange'... what you get is the most abstract, non-empiricial entity... enter the Internet, Bitcoin, etc which (let's be honest here) is non-tangible & functions like a speculative asset.
YES, there are 'true believers’ who see it as MONEY-proper... but the normies (who are the majority) view it as a pump & dump scheme.
That’s the organic, natural consequence of divorcing the tangibles from money & looking for an Alchemical 'Best case' candidate for 'medium of exchange.'
I do not doubt that in the Deindustrial Night of the coming several centuries, such Abstract Hocum will be Weeded out by people who do the basics & acquire plants, animals, land, community, etc.
The abstract world of 'the web' will end... but humans will have to continue living on this rock for the next several millions of years, WITHOUT the internet & other silly distractions... So people need to fix their priorities & learn some skills! 😉
Exactly. So, the scholastics said money was:
A medium of exchange
that was a unit (countable)
and kept it's value
Of importance, in that order. You'll notice that we moderns flip that order. We INSIST that money keep it's value. Yet, if money is tied to the human person and to the real world, the real world doesn't do that. Labor values fluctuate. As do gold coins when they're ACTUALLY in circulation. The clinking and jingling of them wears them down over time. Yet it is in human nature to accept them at face value - to the point where philosophers would say that it is the miser and sinful NOT to do so, unless there has been obvious tampering (clipping coins, etc).
This can also be seen in other forms of money. Cows degrade in value, yet were money for thousands of years. Pigs and sheep. Hence why gold was called the "perfect money" as it is -less- prone to this. Yet you still must spend or have money to keep it. Have land to store it. Pay someone to guard it. Risk losing it in investments or having it stolen if burying it. All of which is called deflation - because money is naturally deflationary.
As is labor.
As is life.
The human life is subject to entropy, just like the rest of the universe.
The bitcoin desire to avoid entropy by having something where it's constant "number go up!" is just saying you don't understand the world. Or that you want to enslave someone else to put in the labor to avoid the entropy. Pick one.
The “number go up” part is in relation to fiat going down. You’re confusing things 🤦🏻♂️
We have not had enough monetary debasement for bitcoin to go as high as it has. What we’ve had is wild speculation, etfs, and others lever up into bitcoin. It’s become a release valve for the monetary system and allowed to persist so that all that speculation could go somewhere that is out of sight, out of mind.
I mean, imagine what kind of numbers other assets would be at if that speculation was required to go somewhere else? It’d be retarded. Gold would be through the roof. Stocks and housing would be retardedly higher than they are.
No. The number go up is allowed. They love it and are glad for it.
Out of curiosity, would you consider the following statement as true:
"The value of a currency is based on the ability to project coercive force"?
I see I should have read the entire sub-thread before posting my comment on what money is, above.
Ouch 😆
Agreed re: it feeling like an infomercial & bitcoin not being something tangible, thereby not being real wealth.
To raise giant families, you need animals, land & other real things. Speculative assets & that sort of stuff… sorry, nope.
And what happens to bit coin if the power grid goes down like with an EMP? How are you going to recover your coins?
I am not 🇵🇰 😉
Also: Your ad hominems merely make you appear the lesser here 😘
Behave yourself… it is your essay & you’re the writer. Use proper etiquette and decorum 😊
Aren't you Bangladeshi or whatever the ethnicity is for that part of the world?
Yes sir, Born & raised in 🇧🇩! 😊
Glad I paid attention. I dunno why people refuse to honestly debate with you. It's kind of embarrassing for us whites to use fallacies. C'mon, guys, our predecessors invented debate and logic.
What I expect is sound reasoning.
How about addressing what sir Uncouth noted here, rather than lashing out at me in an irreverent manner?
This is not Reddit 😉 keep the 😡 to yourself, Sil vous plait 😊
Look man. You remind me too much of my younger brother. Perpetual doomer. Never actually built or created anything in his life. Neither a business, a family, a product or anything. But he's been telling me about the demise of civilisation for over a decade.
I don't care about yours or his stats and facts.
Im interested in solving / building / creating - despite the odds and numbers.
So..for mine and your sanity, I'm just going to block you on here.
My energy is better spent elsewhere.
Good luck.
In the beginning I bought a hundred dollars worth of bitcoin. I let it sit and didn’t pay attention to it. The next year I checked in on it and all my money was gone. That’s when knew it was gambling. Why didn’t my money grow? Or why was it all gone? The coins fluctuate like the stock markets.
Plus, who invented the bitcoin? We still don’t know…
> Plus, who invented the bitcoin? We still don’t know…
And this is relevant, why?
> If you want to rebuild civilization, you need to do it with money that's tied to what it really is - a representation of labor.
Can you give an example of what you mean?
I can't think of any historical example of money that qualifies as "a representation of labor" in a way Bitcoin doesn't.
Trading actual goods, perhaps? That's the only thing I can think of - like an Iron Age trapper paying for salt by swapping it for pelts.
Arguably, that's not "money" the way we mean it. Wasn't there a time in China when they used huge coins made out of salt as a way to pay taxes?
Here, in historical times, some regions paid their taxes in the form of iron, copper and silver ingots which the Crown's sheriff had put his seal on. A bit hefty to carry around some 60 pounds of copper when going shopping...
Besides what RIkard said, within our current legal system, it is legal to do a few things. You are able to set up a system in which you trade hours of labor within communities, and tokenize it however you want. Either physically or digitally. You can do so without it being taxed, unlike barter. The stipulation, I believe, is that it has to be hour for hour the same - so a babysitter's hours have to be the same value as an electrician's or a mechanic's.
I get that this is less... Just, than is truly correct. But it's a way to do so in our current environ.
You can always barter. That's risky on a large scale as it's technically illegal and supposed to be reported to the IRS. Our current administration probably doesn't care, but a Dem probably would. I don't recommend anyone do illegal things in a failing Empire, as they're probably going to grabble anything they can as the banks go dry.
The biggest thing, though, is simply to have people buying and selling things from each other. Even if it's within the dollar, you're setting prices and relative values within your own community instead of outside of it. You're employing each other. Building relationships and depending on each other. Overcoming the "I don't work with friends/relatives" mindset persistent in today's world. That kind of thing is toxic - you don't have a real community without spending the majority of your day with each other, doing the thing humans do the most together - making a living.
If the dollar collapses, and you all have a relative idea of what prices are, and how to deal with each other because of how you dealt with each other, you'll be able to figure it out. You won't be at each other's throats as much as the next community over.
I live in "the boonies" - the deep dark forests over here, in a village of about 100 people (700 during Summer vacations), and "helping each other out" is our main local currency.
It works due to reasons as grand as culture and tradition, and as petty as not wanting to let the Great Thief the State grub even more of what is ours. A simple example:
This Autumn, after a slight storm, a couple of old spruces fell across a by-road next to my (very modest) patch of land. Now, it's the one owning the land the trees grew on who's obligated to remove them, by law, tradition and common sense.
However, the owner in question is an octogenarian and he was busy with the seasonal Moose-hunt (which for hunters here have the same status as Had'j has for moslems: not hyperbole).
Knowing that, I trot over to that road with my gear and starts cutting up the trees (ca 60' tall, each one), cleaning away the branches and so on, and proceeds to take all the wood home (firewood - stormfelled trees don't make for good building material, don't ask me why, it's what the Old Ones say).
Note, I don't need to ask him if it's okay, and he doesn't need to ask me if I would do it in exchange for the wood: we both know due to cultural intuition that that's how it goes.
But (stating what everyone here already understands): that stuff only works local, in a homogenous culture/race based on trust and trustworthiness being among the highest virtues. Therefore, it doesn't work when combined with collectivist idea such as capitalism or communism or variants thereof, in an urban industrial setting.
Where was I going with this?
Oh, right, ethics. We - Occidental civilisation and its constituent cultures/races, have lost our instinctual ethics. Granted, it was gradual and it took a century, but now we're here, wherever that is.
And family is the foundation of ethics, just as ethics is needed to found families, I'd argue. However, it's Midnight so I'm not writing out a treatise on the how and why of the preceding sentence-statement.
Exactly right. Wonderful story. I’ve had many similar experiences within my own community. Building one is what I write about, as it’s what interests me and helps me discuss topics with my neighbors.
But yeah, the human experience is how things function. Things like gold, or cows, or paper money, or tally sticks - those are there just to fill the gaps. To help society function. Once you’ve really been in the trenches, and understand that those things are just an added, modern thing to get the flow of goods going…. it just opens your eyes to how off kilter our modern world is from that of our ancestors. That we have made it work is amazing, and I enjoy the good of our lives, but I certainly understand that it came at a cost, and won’t be sad if it goes back to the traditional norm either.
He started the conversation and here we are. Your comment is asinine, adds nothing, and it would have been better if YOU kept your thoughts to yourself. You should probably go see a psychiatrist.
Well, aren’t we full of information….
Ah, I didn't realize we were in a safe space, where constructive criticism wasn't tolerated. I have found otherwise.
Well, at least a few other commenters disagree with you.
Your comment was anything but constructive.
You might disagree with my opinions. Yet, if you held those opinions and thought that someone wanted to change their writing to have a better post, don't you think they need to be informed of those opinions and how to change their writing?
Substack exists for readers & writers to interact with each other.
I have many readers who are... (to put it politely) not very friendly when I mention the Deindustrial, Low-Population Future.
That said, it is my duty as a writer to evaluate them properly & (if there is good criticism) respond accordingly.
Frankly, these are very fair standards & while I don't expect them to be *Universal* for everyone, people who don't follow such a standard (i.e. responding to readers fairly) are just 'doing it wrong.'
Nothing wrong with self promotion. Pedantically attacking his position, making unfounded accusations, and throwing shade is not helpful.
Do you even have anything constructive to say or solutions to propose?
Did you read my comment at all? Or are you too retarded to understand it? Here - I'll break it down for you bit by bit.
"If you want to rebuild civilization, you need to do it with money that's tied to what it really is - a representation of labor."
- Here I'm making a simple comment about economics and the necessity of how money needs to be tied to the labor of men, how people work. This was known in the times of Aristotle until retarded Mercantilists like Adam Smith came along. Marx got it half right, but the solutions he offered were satanic. However, saying that we need to go back to something akin to men working for their jobs and being able to live on their wages is constructive and good.
"Bitcoin is not that. It is a digital speculative fiat system."
- Simple comment about bitcoin not being tied to any real assets in the real world. It is pure fiat, valued at the price of the last sale. Nothing like how money has been historically thought of.
"To tie that, and a sales pitch on a book, into a post on families made the whole thing into an infomercial. "Buy my book and get bitcoin! Change your life!""
Never mind that you win twice if they do so. From both the book, and from the rise in your speculative asset."
- Opinions given about his post. How the post came across. That the author's post came across as an infomercial due to the manner in which he did his book tie in. It was clumsy and the post was half hearted. Fine. Not the worst post. Not the best. I didn't slam him down or say he was retarded, as you'll see.
"I get it. People need to live, and you need to sell things. And you're right - the west needs to make babies. But you're not saying anything all that original in the post. It's been said before; by all the people you link to. So... If you're not going to say anything original, and just going to pimp stuff, maybe don't say anything at all? Best wait till you have something better to say, IMO."
- WOA! AGREEING WITH HIS POST!? Understanding that he needs to sell books, and that the author is correct in his post on all the fundamental things that he wrote about!? GET OUT OF HERE! It's almost like....
A CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM DANWAY!
And then I go on to say that he could do better. That I think he would be best served doing what I suggested. Up to him to take it or not.
And you can follow the other comments to him and whether you think that I'm operating in good faith to him.
Now stop sperging out and freaking read the comments like a normal human being.
While I can agree with much of the ideas in the article, I have two key problems/concerns. First, there is no shortage of non-White babies being born in the USA (and probably the UK/Europe). Our hospitals are packed to the brim with anchor babies, unwanted kids and waddling welfare checks. We gotta do LOTS more than "deport kebab" to defuse the demographic replacement time bomb that will nuke the West into oblivion, and there is NO way for Whites to out-baby the non-Whites. My second concern is the rise of AI/automation/robotics taking over almost all human endeavors. AKA, what are all these fabulous new babies going to DO for a living??? Even if you made having White babies really kewl, what roles will these kewl White babies fill when they become adults? And how will they thrive outnumbered by non-Whites in what used to be their nations?
The first point is an issue indeed. I tried to address that briefly in the follow up essay I did (see my profile).
The second one, is a nothing burger IMO. AI is overhyped. I come from the industry and I can tell you it’s mostly froth. We’re in for a major AI winter when reality doesn’t meet exactions over the next year or two.
There is definitely nothing wrong with seeking status. Especially since it is a largely subconscious thing. We don't believe or like things for rational reasons. We have a "This Makes Sense" part of our brain that marks which things we believe and which we don't.
Knowledge cannot always sway this part of us, which is why so many people belive things that are not true.
Getting people to see something as cool does not mean a sinical calculating manipulation on our part, it is creating an environment there people have an easy time accepting things that are good for them. Where they don't have to overcome the This Makes Sense brain.
This is always why just telling people what is supposedly cool never works, and why memes work. Because memes bypass the logicall brain and scratch that invisible itch of "This Makes Sense".
🙏🏼👌
I live in SF. Noticing a baby boom.
We brave patriots have won the war against Seed Oil, yet this is not an indication that the war against stupidity (which, in a giant leap of Dadaism, is called "woke") has been won.
I am of the opinion that Gaia is a living creation that occasionally feels the need to conduct a mass extinction event and there is nothing we can do about that. THE FOURTH TURNING is an excellent book that explains how society evolves, becomes content, degenerates, and is reborn.
Thank you Aleksandar. You presented your position in a straightforward and convincing fashion, particularly on the power of status.