The Fertile Will Inherit the Earth

When men can’t outbid the economy for the fertile years of women, population not only collapses, it selects from the next generation economically valuable characteristics.

Immigration by males to fill the population vacuum makes this worse because it further depresses wages for native males making them even less capable of outbidding the economy for the fertile years of young women and also competing for what few women they are able to potentially marry.

Government programs are incapable of correcting this situation because centralization of social policy puts policy decision into the hands of people with a conflict of interest as is evidenced by the fact that the counties surrounding Washington DC have the highest median income in the US. They don’t feel the destruction of the middle class and can’t conceive of policies to correct the destruction because in order to do so they have to face the fact that they are responsible for genocide. is the kind of solution required — distributing economic rents and taxes evenly to only men of military age as replacement for government — could work, but only once the central governments are no longer able to suppress it.


Your title statement is beyond dispute, of course, but I don’t understand your solution. It sounds like you’re saying only military age men should be able to own property or accumulate capital, is that it?

1 Like

I like Mark Steyn’s formulation of this issue – The future belongs to those who show up. But the question is – What do we mean by “future”?

A generation (birth of female child to her delivering her own first child) could be approximated as 20 years. A typical life span these days is 80 years – 4 generations. But we don’t pay much attention until we are about 20, and tend to become rather self-centered after 60 – so really we are paying attention for a period of about 40 years – 2 generations.

The impacts of low propensity to reproduce are fairly limited over a period of 2 generations. To make things worse, our Political Class focuses only on the next election – a period of about 0.1 generations, and our Media (although I repeat myself) focuses only on today – an infinitesimal amount of a generation.

Rosie the Riveter was about 4 generations ago, and that may have been the start of women focusing on their place in the workforce – and consequently diminishing their prior focus on the societally much more important task of bearing & bringing up the next generation. After 4 generations of foolishness, can we restore motherhood to its central place in any society which intends to survive? That depends on what we as a society choose to understand as the “future”.


I’m not sure how you could interpret the phrase “as a replacement for government” in that way.

Think about government as a monopoly on force.

Or watch this:


Screen Shot 2023-06-13 at 1.30.47 PM
(Mammen and Paxson, 2000)

An illustration of how “the economy outbids men for the fertile years of women”. (The “X” pattern represents death, of course.) This trend is shared by virtually every developed country, regardless of culture, religion, race, or government. Is sterility an inexorable result of economic development? Will a population collapse in developed countries destroy the forces that gave rise to their economic growth in the first place?


Excellent example. It seems that the economies are pursuing a ‘leap’ by sacrificing children to achieve short term growth. The thinking is that people are a replaceable resource, and that immigration will simply replenish the ranks of sterile worker bees. Historically this worked, but industrialization broke down the ecosystem of religious villages that supplied their excess humans to the cities.

What can realistically be our little goal is to inspire the worker bees to throw in the towel. Maybe something along the lines of “Happiness”, a Short Film by Steve Cutts


In our country we don’t financially incentivize having kids,do we? That could help. But realistically, everything about Leftism now is directed to making sure we don’t reproduce, at least if we’re white. That’s what this drag queen and trans garbage is all about.


We do sort of through the tax code but then every other facet of society preaches to men and women to either put off having kids to where you are pretty much locked into having one (if you’re lucky) or have no kids for Mother Gia.


In 1992, I wrote about the tax code and the looming baby bust as part of an economic policy reform
that would have made it unnecessary for me to, nowadays, talk about such a radical reform as

The “middle class” it is currently in vogue to worry about are
those people, primarily people born in the 1950’s (middle to late
baby boomers), whose family stability and household net worth
suffered greatly as a result of these housing shortages combined
with lowering real incomes.

Throughout the 1970’s and 1980’s these 50’s babies were locked
out of homes in perpetual courtship behavior. The relative
unaffordability of housing delayed the onset of nesting far
longer than those born before 1950. Courtship behavior is
notoriously consumptive and exhausting. Nesting behavior is
investive and constructive. Thus 60 million Americans born in
the 1950’s are now suffering from low equity for their ages, and
little hope for the future.

In reality, it is too late to do anything for the members of this
group since most of its females are now leaving their
childbearing years – some desperately risking late pregnancies.
Most families have already been irreversibly damaged, assuming
they were formed at all. The best we can do now is attempt to
rebuild the middle class for future generations and try to allow
those we have decimated to build some equity for retirement with
their productive years.

It’s too late now. Not even Elon Musk, who would benefit tremendously from the reform I proposed (motivated mainly by my having participated in privatizing high risk technology businesses like launch services, and wanting to help them get capitalized as well as retain their earnings) is able to consider that far less radical (than militia money) proposal I set forth 3 decades ago. His court toadies have lobotomized him. He can’t conceive of what it would take to get the cost of family formation down for The Nation of Settlers. He can only complain about fertility rates even as he complains that people want to restrict H-1b visas (and even “worse”, green cards for them).


Over the last few decades a number of countries have implemented a variety of pronatalist incentive policies in response to falling birth rates. According to the UN, the number of countries (unweighted by population) with such policies has grown from 20% in 2005 to 28% in 2019. The results have been mixed and ambiguous. Here is a 2020 summary from the Institute for Family Studies, “Pro-Natal Policies Work, But They Come With a Hefty Price Tag”. (The insularity of this “study” is evident from its using “America” as a synonym for the United States, as opposed to two continents of diverse nations most of whom have fewer societal pathologies or delusions of empire than the latter railroad-era, continental-scale, resource-extraction empire.)

Evidence suggests that birth incentives may create a near-term baby blip by moving births forward in time by parents with high time preference motivated by the “ka-ching” of the immediate incentive or credit which, probably wisely, they suspect will be available only until the political winds shift again.

I believe the ultimate disincentive to parenthood is the abolition by the coercive state of the fundamental prerogative of parenthood—raising one’s children as best one can to be one’s successors in the eternal chain of life. This is basically how things have always worked since K strategy mammals started to eat one another, and has only been disrupted since industrial abundance has permitted the state, pretending Godhood, to dare seize children as its own.

May I dare to look at the bottom line? Why should a parent assume the liftetime financial responsibility (and liability) to raise a worthy successor if, from the earliest age, that child will be seen as “our child” by a “community” of deviants, thieves, and murderers, who will indoctrinate their “wards” with perversity, hate for his or her heritage and ancestors, celebration of savagery and destructive ideas, and persecute any parents who dare dissent from this appropriation and corruption of their children.

Dissent too openly, and they’ll burn you and your children to death in your church. Dissent more mildly, and “child protective services” may abduct them from your home to the protective embrace of the state. Better run up a “pride” flag, citizen parent, lest you lose your offspring to the rainbow press gang.

When these are the incentives in place, where “parents” perceive themselves as “breeders” producing offspring who are, from birth, the property of the state, I don’t think a couple of hundred or couple of thousand bucks a year is going to tilt the decision whether to have a kid. Let parents be parents, and let families be families, and you’ll see birth rates return to replacement or above.

(There’s been talk about abolishing “birthright citizenship” in those odd western hemisphere countries that have it. How about those countries allowing their citizens to opt out of citizenship for their own children? The Loonie-Tunes say you can’t “assign” a baby a sex at birth. Fine—then how can you say they’re a citizen of this or that socially-constructed country? Let them choose. Babies should be born stateless. Let them travel on their parents’ passports until age 18, at which time they get to elect a nationality, among nations which will have them. Assume the country where they were born will have to take them if none other will. But the whole idea of military obligation, lifetime taxpayer status, extraterritorial law constraints, etc., just goes away. Any country that doesn’t accept this doesn’t have citizens, but rather slaves. Is it any mystery why slaves won’t beget more slaves for slaver nations?)


That is pretty much the entire purpose of the minimalist rules for Sortocracy.

But since those rules do not appeal to women and they have the vote I have pretty much given up on tolerating their participation on that backstop against a rhyme with the 30 Years War. Hence I have come to focus more on militia money.

Freedom of religion is now up to We Men alone without the support of our women who seem subservient to the supremacist theocracy. This is very deep in evolutionary psychology. We may as well bite the bullet and get on with it.


Enforcing duel as mutual hunt in nature, rather than being draft age, in order to qualify as sovereign in may be necessary in order to reverse TFR decline. Duplicating Israel’s use of Holocaustianity to get inside women’s heads isn’t remotely practical.

While it is certainly reasonable to expect a fully adult female aka a woman, to recognize that gangs/governments shielding them from individual men is qualitatively different from another individual (brother or father or mate) shielding them, these group organisms have every incentive to stunt female cognitive development, rendering them, at best, pubescent girls in women’s bodies.

And while this serves the group organisms’ short-term purpose – providing what amounts to a manipulable stable of prostitutes with which to control the “johns” (ie: individualistic men deprived of real women) – it has the unintended side-effect of depopulating their prostitutes and johns.

As unlikely as it may be that these group organisms will wake up and take seriously their responsibility to themselves to sustain the natural resource of sterile workers (say, with incubators and artificial insemination, cloning etc.) the possibility of that horror should be sufficient to motivate humanity to search for alternative solutions. Israel is often held out as an exemplar with its above replacement TFR but those doing so never seriously discuss the practicality of duplicating the construction of a media empire to replace Christ with the population of men favored for propagation. They merely complain about the lack of “conservatives in media” and admonish “conservatives” to bite the bullet and play the rigged game because if they don’t, they’ll lose.

This ignores the entire universe of possibilities open to men, in evidence throughout the natural history of sex, of using force to change the rules of the game – and the evolutionary psychology of women of all species confronted with force between individual men of all species.