CFG solves the problem of declining of White birth rates

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Long ago I made a thread asking for a rational approach to White populations unable to sustain themselves. No one came up with a rational approach.

One person said, "Move from urban areas to the countryside." Apparently, the same people who wouldn't have multiple children in urban areas will change their minds once they see the rustic scenery.

I believe someone else may have said to do away with income tax. On moral grounds, I approve of doing away with the income tax but that doesn't solve the problem: a financially well off family is the least likely to have many children. The only groups that consistently have many children are hyper-religious people (Mormons, Hasidic Jews, etc.)

I believe someone also said the inability to keep White numbers at replacement levels was no big deal, and further argued that it only matters if you're speaking of economic growth and that economic growth isn't essential. However, the problem here is you need not only a population that is at replacement levels but also growing (and productive) to maintain a welfare state that will take care of - at extreme expense - a growing elderly population. When a significant portion of your population is elderly we are speaking of a major economic cost. Young productive workers are needed if you want a welfare state.

I have a solution: incentivize having children. You need to give people a reason to have children. While getting rid of income tax across the board wouldn't help, you can allow a family that has at least three children zero income tax obligation.

Think of a Chad who makes a six figure salary. He has say one child. Now he's presented with the opportunity to not have to pay any income tax if he has at least 3 children. That guy and his wife will bang out two more children without question. The carrot you put before him and his wife is too juicy.

A bonus is if you have 4 children you don't have to pay property taxes for your home (no taxes for a 5th child for an additional property, etc.). That may or may not incentivize people because it depends on where you live. In my general area property taxes are astronomical (a complicated issue regarding local politicians being retards), while in other parts of the country, it's much more sensible.

I have saved the White race.

[PeterSlavic]

Generally speaking is not problem lack of money and social insurance, but globalism phenomenon!

[Smitty]

As I said in the chat, I think urbanization, secularization, and wealth are the main inhibitors here. Urban environments screw with social behavior. Ever heard of the rat/mouse city experiments? At some point of population growth in an enclosed area, they stopped acting normally. No mating, either excessive hostility or excessive introversion. Really interesting parallels to the modern world.

The decline in Christianity has also stripped us of our purpose. No one cares about anything beyond themselves and their own happiness. There is no sense of anything greater. Small surprise, then, that no one feels the need to contribute to the furtherance of their race or nation or even family.

Then, there's wealth. No one has ever had so much expendable income as we Westerners. It leads to pure pleasure-seeking. We're so soft and spoiled, no one wants the responsibiities and difficulties of child-rearing.

I remember reading a blog post about the Hajnal line. Later marriage, higher rates of singleness, and fewer children have historically been associated with Northwestern Europe. I think this supports my assessment. Higher intelligence leads to higher wealth, more urbanization, and more dependence on human reason. These lead to lower birthrates. Thoughts?

[Abaddon]

No one cares about anything beyond themselves and their own happiness.

Nothing wrong about it, where's the problem?

I doubt you and your fellow compatriots are that selfless.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

As I said in the chat, I think urbanization, secularization, and wealth are the main inhibitors here. Urban environments screw with social behavior. Ever heard of the rat/mouse city experiments? At some point of population growth in an enclosed area, they stopped acting normally. No mating, either excessive hostility or excessive introversion. Really interesting parallels to the modern world.

The decline in Christianity has also stripped us of our purpose. No one cares about anything beyond themselves and their own happiness. There is no sense of anything greater. Small surprise, then, that no one feels the need to contribute to the furtherance of their race or nation or even family.

Then, there's wealth. No one has ever had so much expendable income as we Westerners. It leads to pure pleasure-seeking. We're so soft and spoiled, no one wants the responsibiities and difficulties of child-rearing.

I remember reading a blog post about the Hajnal line. Later marriage, higher rates of singleness, and fewer children have historically been associated with Northwestern Europe. I think this supports my assessment. Higher intelligence leads to higher wealth, more urbanization, and more dependence on human reason. These lead to lower birthrates. Thoughts?

I generally agree but currently in developing nations (Brazil, India (except Muslims), etc.), you see a decline in birth rates to the point where they're below replacement levels just as with 1st World nations. It's more about economic opportunities than actual wealth, IMO. If you have a family of three, you're spreading your wealth across the three children to get them ready for adulthood. It's a lot more difficult financially to send three children to private schools than it is to send one. In a developing nation, a child in a private school has a major leg up on the competition.



The whole decline in birth rates has to do with access to contraception. Parents want to focus their resources on a smaller number of children to the benefit of the child. Parents can't offer much help in boosting their children's chances of being successful in life if they have seven children running around compared to one or two.

[Smitty]

Nothing wrong about it, where's the problem?

I doubt you and your fellow compatriots are that selfless.

There's a lot wrong with it. I don't recall exempting myself, regardless. We all struggle with the sin nature. But recognizing that self is not the most important thing is a good place to start.

[andrzej]

Long ago I made a thread asking for a rational approach to White populations unable to sustain themselves. No one came up with a rational approach.

One person said, "Move from urban areas to the countryside." Apparently, the same people who wouldn't have multiple children in urban areas will change their minds once they see the rustic scenery.

I believe someone else may have said to do away with income tax. On moral grounds, I approve of doing away with the income tax but that doesn't solve the problem: a financially well off family is the least likely to have many children. The only groups that consistently have many children are hyper-religious people (Mormons, Hasidic Jews, etc.)

I believe someone also said the inability to keep White numbers at replacement levels was no big deal, and further argued that it only matters if you're speaking of economic growth and that economic growth isn't essential. However, the problem here is you need not only a population that is at replacement levels but also growing (and productive) to maintain a welfare state that will take care of - at extreme expense - a growing elderly population. When a significant portion of your population is elderly we are speaking of a major economic cost. Young productive workers are needed if you want a welfare state.

I have a solution: incentivize having children. You need to give people a reason to have children. While getting rid of income tax across the board wouldn't help, you can allow a family that has at least three children zero income tax obligation.

Think of a Chad who makes a six figure salary. He has say one child. Now he's presented with the opportunity to not have to pay any income tax if he has at least 3 children. That guy and his wife will bang out two more children without question. The carrot you put before him and his wife is too juicy.

A bonus is if you have 4 children you don't have to pay property taxes for your home (no taxes for a 5th child for an additional property, etc.). That may or may not incentivize people because it depends on where you live. In my general area property taxes are astronomical (a complicated issue regarding local politicians being retards), while in other parts of the country, it's much more sensible.

I have saved the White race.

You're not white.

[Kess]

Lol. Germany has some family policies ( marriage loans, and the wage increases and tax reductions granted to families that have at least the desired number of children.) to increase births and they are still below the U.S.

https://www.reuters.com/world/births...nd-2021-05-13/

Germany's fertility rate of 1.54 children per woman is still below the U.S. figure of 1.64

[Abaddon]

There's a lot wrong with it. I don't recall exempting myself, regardless. We all struggle with the sin nature. But recognizing that self is not the most important thing is a good place to start.

In fact, the first thing you should prioritize in your life is your own well-being, and there's absolutely no problem with that.

I don't see why you want us to worry about people lives that we don't even know something.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

You're not white.

Shouldn't you be dead in a trench in Ukraine?