New insights from up north indicate the limits of socialism, re-affirm (binary) biology over social engineering, and showcase the deficiencies of 'Science™'
Ah, yes. Wealth and women. Now take a look at what happened to birth rates in the former Eastern Block in the 1990s (economic hardship) and now in South Korea (high gender inequality). Correlation is not causation, and I very much doubt that wealth per se causes people to have fewer children. No, it's that some things that increase wealth (or have at least done so in recent history), such as urbanization, a loosening of family ties and the concomitant increase in individualism (yes, you show up to work even if your cousin is in serious distress) also cause falling birth rates. If you then pull the rug from under people's feet, birth rates go down even further (see Eastern Europe). Now, in the context of rich countries, those that are more gender equal have higher birth rates than those with relatively high gender inequality (compare Scandinavia with Southern Europe). Why? Because if you force women to choose between a family and a career, a substantial minority will choose the latter (see South Korea and Japan), and those who choose the former do not have enough children to compensate for the latter.
Solid post otherwise. I'm sure endocrine disruptors play a role, both by causing ordinary infertility (hence IVF and such), and by inducing behavioral changes (most of our behavior is due to things that we aren't even aware of, and hormones play a big role).
You're right about the correlation-causation thing.
As you bring up the former Eastern bloc, none of the above issues correlate well with emigration of many skilled and ambitious people. Ever looked at, e.g., all those 'American University' kind of shenanigans offering undergraduate degrees compatible with the US 'higher ed' system?
You write: 'I'm sure endocrine disruptors play a role, both by causing ordinary infertility (hence IVF and such), and by inducing behavioral changes (most of our behavior is due to things that we aren't even aware of, and hormones play a big role).'
And there's all the crap we otherwise consume, from glyphosate to pesticides to synthetic chemicals (and hormones) via water treatment to polluted air. Most of these will affect virtually everything we humans do, and all these 'environmental hazards' fall mostly on those most vulnerable, such as women of child-bearing age and children.
I don't know exactly what is causing the decline in birth rates, wealth, material prosperity, modern medicine, and the like (and a ton of social factors) all influence the decision to have children, but as Jan J pointed out above, the biological realities of age of first motherhood are, in my view indisputable. Don't ask me what I'd consider the most important factor, though.
E: "As you bring up the former Eastern bloc, none of the above issues correlate well with emigration of many skilled and ambitious people."
I'm not sure I understand this. It obviously correlates with (a) economic collapse and (b) lower birth rates (after all, it's the young who make children).
I've never really looked into the "American University." I sort of assumed that it was a program for those who have money, but lack the brainpower and/or work habits that a "normal" degree requires. But as I said, I've never really looked into it.
Re: South Korea
Oh, immigration. This is going to backfire on South Korea very badly. South Korea has a highly conservative culture, which has so far shown itself incapable of adapting to new realities. For instance, no, it cannot afford to remain as patriarchal as it is, at least not if it wants to both remain rich and not go biologically extinct. South Korea needs women to work (doubly so given the upside-down age pyramid), but a child makes it very difficult for a woman to work (in any decent job), plus childhood is an absolutely miserable affair in South Korea (with regular school followed by many hours of cram school, meaning that kids don't get to sleep properly, let alone play). Nope, can't fix any of that. Okay, quick! Let's bring in immigrants! Now let's see how well a country like South Korea can manage to integrate those immigrants. Lemme guess: worse than *any* European country (let's not even talk about the US and Canada).
Re: age of first motherhood
That's a proximate cause of collapsing birth rates. Now what's causing that? As far as I can tell, it's mostly due to the gigification of the economy, plus very high costs of housing. People (those capable of planning, anyway) wait to have a stable income and stable housing *before* having kids. That's the *responsible* thing to do. And it's very hard to obtain those things as a 20-something. It's increasingly difficult for 30-somethings. Okay, so the woman is 35, the man is 40, and his job seems stable and well-paying enough (though hers isn't necessarily), and so maybe start trying for that first kid?
Having four kids before age thirty, or having two kids before age forty does make an impact. Plus ca 30 000 abortions per year (Sweden). Plus ftalates, PFAS, hormones and chemicals close enough to hormones to affect the body, plus taxation and housing/real estate market capitalism leading to exhorbitant pricing, plus sperm-and-egg quality, plus more.
All of it fixable, none of it fixable in a liberal capitalist system. I write it like that because Peterson*, as is increasingly the case, is wrong about socialism and fertility and poverty: he is projecting what he wants to be true instead of looking at reality, and is picking examples serving his hypothesis.
Capitalism does not want limits on pollution: the corporations opposes stopping using chemicals that are dangerous to us, such as PFAS (and those are near-impossible to get out of the water cycle, and just won't go away or break down) or DDT back in its day. Or artificial sweeteners. Or birth control pills. Or. . .
The problem of chemicals affecting humans does not care about ideology, since biology and chemistry doesn't.
*If it was true, then affluent and well-organised and highly collectivist pre-christian societies (babylonians, semites, egyptians, indians, et c) would have had low birth rates. They didn't. His perspective is (as is common to all americans and americanised anglo-sphere people) too short and narrow, reasoning as if history starts with the American Revolution.
My point about Peterson is that he called out this seemingly single-minded Nordic focus on transfer payments, which is literally all I said above.
Your point about Peterson stands, and I do think he's gone a wee bit over the top, so to speak, esp. with his interpretation of ancient history (which I'll set aside here).
As to the above focus on synthetic hormones, well, you bring up a whole range of other very important chemicals (which the authors allude to in toto), and, yes, all of them are a problem. I do object, however tentatively, about the claim that 'none of it [is] fixable in a liberal capitalist system', which may or may not be true (since we don't live in such a system anymore since the 1930s).
Case in point: DDT, which was widely used in the 1940s and 1950s until people grew more conscious of its side-effects and adverse reactions; it was eventually phased out and banned thereafter, but the key issue is: even as 'customers' (only), 'we' do have quite a lot of power. If no-one would bother about, e.g., phtalates, BPA, or the like, why would industry stop putting it at least in plastic containers for food? (No worries, it's still everywhere in other products, such as rubber boots etc.)
I suppose that a 'return' to more 'markets', supply/demand, and, of course, consequences would be a good thing. If you'd like to call that 'liberal capitalism' or sanity is a second-hand issue, I'd argue.
Capitalism is profit for the capitalist before any other concerns; as such, it will never lead to good outcomes for the whole of society or for a population/a people, only for a select group.
If it is more profitable to pollute, and to cover up the effects, and to litigate any whistleblowers into bankrupcy and to even employ death squads targetting union reps or workers speaking up, capitalism and capitalists will do so without a second thought.
Communism being what we know it to be doesn't make capitalism good - that kind of false dichotomy is one of the many errors of Peterson and his contemporaty thinkers in the Americas are guilty of (probably due to being stuck in a Cold War-mindset, much as EUropean counterparts are stuck in the world of the 1970s re: all things migration, cultures, et cetera).
When market economy and free trade has yielded an increased societal good, it has done so when it has been forced to do so: Sweden's Saltsjöbaden Treaty is a perfect example.
Industry stopped putting that stuff (ftalates) in kids' pacifiers becaused it was forced to, by legislators acting on information supplied by environmentalist activists (the real kind, from pre-globalisation days) and it still took decades despite all of the dangers being known from day one. There's a reason the very rich buy their bottled water in glass bottles, one could say to sound a little conspiracist. Indeed, Norsk Hydro in the 1990s launched a massive propaganda campaign in Sweden to stop any kind of ban on ftalates.
Think of capitalism as a horse. If you want it to plow a field or pull a cart? It needs to be harnessed to the task, well fed and tended to so it stays healthy.
(Communism would be either a cart or a horse, but never both. Postmodernism would going to the beach to make furroughs in the sand using a stick, and then claming it to be a field.)
I very much doubt that a "return to markets" would lead to higher birth rates. Markets are volatile and favor those who are flexible. Children are one of the most reliable ways of making a human *less* flexible. A child is sick, and so you don't show up for work. You do not move to a different city (or country), because that would uproot your child. Etc.
Markets are an exchange mechanism. Historically, most things that humans need to survive (and reproduce) were handled via the customary economy, not via markets. As more and more things move from the customary (informal/household) economy into the formal economy (markets), all sorts of things become less affordable. Childcare is just one of many examples.
Everyone discussing this topic is missing or ignoring the most blatantly obvious causes. These two causes are: the introduction of the birth control pill and the increased age of first time mothers. It’s really that simple. Let me demonstrate with Norwegian data:
In the graph in this article, we see the stupendous fall in “fertility” from the introduction of “the pill” in the late 60s - from 2.8 kids/woman to 1.8kids/woman over just a few years really. Thus we can already conclude that “hormonal contraception” works. What a shocking conclusion! So we were already below replacement levels 50 years ago.
Then you see a relatively stable period from late 70s to about the financial crisis where births sort of hover around 1.8. Then, a few years later, it gradually drops to 1.4.
So what else has happened? Well. Age of first time mothers is what happened: in 1967 (right before the pill was introduced) it was 23! Years old. Now it’s well over 30. but Even in the 1990s the age was 25! So first time mothers have gotten OLD. I mean, really old. This is really key. Being an old mom = less kids and less Healthty kids. Less time to have 3 kids. Etc.
It’s shocking to me that People just din’t see it. It’s right there in front of you!
EDIT: the fall Prior to 1960s is easily enough explain by the transition from an agrarian lifestyle and «every hand on deck» type lifestyle where kids are your farm hands, life insurance and retirement all in one - this (and lack of contraception) still drives births in Africa etc.
Of course you're spot-on, and I'd bet the farm on this being because the 1960s and 1970s 'socialist' governments expanded 'higher ed'.
Fun fact: every time this topic comes up at work, my Norwegian colleagues tell me that 'oh, the government knows all about the declining birth rate' and 'they have experts'. No-one offers any specifics, and the above-related media items are, believe it or not, quite representative of how 'mainstream society' deals with this. They merely conduct a fake 'debate' by discussing many 'issues' but the ones that matter (which you mentioned), and I'd add synthetic contraceptives and, possibly, the modRNA injections.
You write: 'It’s shocking to me that People just din’t see it. It’s right there in front of you!'
Of course, this is why the 'debate' is like I described above.
Thanks for the reply! What bothers me a lot after the «COVID» event is that it seems people don’t actually think for themselves very much. They’re perfectly happy to just regurgitate whatever is the general sentiment at the time, and you could place evidence right in front of them but they would not know what to make of it. What has happened? Was it allways like this or have we gotten collectively stupider?
The parable of “blind men and elephant” comes to mind. The “birth rate” is a result of multiple factors. It seems to me that there has been a concerted effort to reduce population across the globe. Our Oligarchical Rulers desire fewer humans; of this there cannot be any doubt. There is plenty of published evidence. If the aim is to reduce population from above, we ought not be surprised if they had formulated a strategy to achieve their goals. Anyone tasked with developing such a strategy would have analyzed all those factors, probably narrowed down the most promising (least cost - high effect) and deployed these. After decades of relentless systemic attack we would find ourselves in a situation similar to the one in which we find ourselves. If we desire to undo the damages of the war waged against us, we would first need to devise a winning strategy over our Enemy, while searching for ways to undo the damages they’ve unleashed onto Humanity, including deteriorating birth rates.
Unfortunately, along the birth rate, they have also attacked our cognitive ability to detect a threat and mount a vigorous defense. There is never too late to act, but we must do so from our current reality, not a synthetic reality based in delusions. KOVID was a test which we are still failing. There is no learning in the critical mass of human population of the West.
It looks ever more like the plan is to kill many, if not most, people, beginning with Westerners.
You write: 'If we desire to undo the damages of the war waged against us, we would first need to devise a winning strategy over our Enemy, while searching for ways to undo the damages they’ve unleashed onto Humanity, including deteriorating birth rates.
Unfortunately, along the birth rate, they have also attacked our cognitive ability to detect a threat and mount a vigorous defense. There is never too late to act, but we must do so from our current reality, not a synthetic reality based in delusions. KOVID was a test which we are still failing. There is no learning in the critical mass of human population of the West.'
I think that the WHO-declared, so-called 'Pandemic™' showed a share of people what the plan is (these would be the 'red-pilled' ones. The ones who don't (any longer) trust any of these 'experts™', 'journos™', and 'the gov't™' (which one?). They (we) will be the ones who keep humanity, and perhaps even our civilisation--or what's left of it, anyways--going.
As your conclusion posits it appears to be a multi pronged attack on fertility. My own hunch is that the RNA is probably one of the final nails in western fertility and that one of the symptoms of this is the rapid developing world migration to the west. I one day envision a time in the not too distant future where the surviving indigenous natives of said countries are herded onto reservations in the middle of their countries so the new denizens can drive around safari style gawking at the old beleaguered natives😅
I’ll end with some vaguely related anecdotes because the reality is very depressing to contemplate.
I actually spent the last year living in Vienna as a private teacher. It’s one to one so not too taxing. But I do remember having to remind my young student not to sit on his phone when he wasn’t using it… ‘Dude, you’re literally cooking your balls…’
I was walking past one of the university campuses in central Vienna the other week when what looked like a young female university student rode by on a bike wearing a T-shirt with ‘I ❤️ abortion’ emblazoned on the front (I found that a rather wounding statement tbh, what a thing to be proud of?).
I also happened to accidentally walk into the middle of the Vienna pride parade. I couldn’t help but notice how dead eyed and sick everyone looked and the put on and falsely joy atmosphere was a bit creepy (but each to their own it’s a free world… right🤪)
Incidentally my student came to lesson the next day after he and his friends spent their time at pride getting selfies with men openly wearing butt plugs (is that better than being on your phone 10 hours a day?) and he remarked also how sick/ill everyone looked. So I may have been on to something?
So there you go… make what you will of my rambling…
It is a multi-pronged, pluri-dimensional, and multi-decadal assault on Western Civilisation.
You write: 'I one day envision a time in the not too distant future where the surviving indigenous natives of said countries are herded onto reservations in the middle of their countries so the new denizens can drive around safari style gawking at the old beleaguered natives.'
I'm more positive inclined here; above, I wrote: I think that the WHO-declared, so-called 'Pandemic™' showed a share of people what the plan is (these would be the 'red-pilled' ones. The ones who don't (any longer) trust any of these 'experts™', 'journos™', and 'the gov't™' (which one?). They (we) will be the ones who keep humanity, and perhaps even our civilisation--or what's left of it, anyways--going.
Your report from the Vienna 'Pride™' is breath-takingly absurd, sick, and sad all at-once.
You write: 'I couldn’t help but notice how dead eyed and sick everyone looked and the put on and falsely joy atmosphere was a bit creepy (but each to their own it’s a free world… right)'
Problem is, as I see it, 'they' won't stop proselytising, but they'll also call you out for not being 'inclusive' enough if you say something like, you know, 'leave me out of this'.
Your comment about the cell phone radiation frying the balls is also spot-on.
My main take away was that the day after the parade my student’s first comment on it was the same thing I noticed… how everyone looked ill. Generations apart and we drew the same conclusions. If there’s any solace I know he and his classmates get the inclusive alphabet soup shoved down their throats all day long and anecdotally they seem to all be very much over it. The whole thing seems to serve the world’s owners very well as few if any of that brigade will ever reproduce. I have no issue what any adult does in their private life but the whole Pride thing has all the hallmarks of a cult.
I suppose that the next decades will be very wild, but eventually, because the cultists don't reproduce, the result will be a more 'conservative' society in the second half of the 21st century.
Ah, yes. Wealth and women. Now take a look at what happened to birth rates in the former Eastern Block in the 1990s (economic hardship) and now in South Korea (high gender inequality). Correlation is not causation, and I very much doubt that wealth per se causes people to have fewer children. No, it's that some things that increase wealth (or have at least done so in recent history), such as urbanization, a loosening of family ties and the concomitant increase in individualism (yes, you show up to work even if your cousin is in serious distress) also cause falling birth rates. If you then pull the rug from under people's feet, birth rates go down even further (see Eastern Europe). Now, in the context of rich countries, those that are more gender equal have higher birth rates than those with relatively high gender inequality (compare Scandinavia with Southern Europe). Why? Because if you force women to choose between a family and a career, a substantial minority will choose the latter (see South Korea and Japan), and those who choose the former do not have enough children to compensate for the latter.
Solid post otherwise. I'm sure endocrine disruptors play a role, both by causing ordinary infertility (hence IVF and such), and by inducing behavioral changes (most of our behavior is due to things that we aren't even aware of, and hormones play a big role).
You're right about the correlation-causation thing.
As you bring up the former Eastern bloc, none of the above issues correlate well with emigration of many skilled and ambitious people. Ever looked at, e.g., all those 'American University' kind of shenanigans offering undergraduate degrees compatible with the US 'higher ed' system?
Then there's South Korea, about which see, e.g., https://modernity.news/2023/12/09/south-korea-set-to-embrace-mass-migration-to-avoid-extinction/
You write: 'I'm sure endocrine disruptors play a role, both by causing ordinary infertility (hence IVF and such), and by inducing behavioral changes (most of our behavior is due to things that we aren't even aware of, and hormones play a big role).'
And there's all the crap we otherwise consume, from glyphosate to pesticides to synthetic chemicals (and hormones) via water treatment to polluted air. Most of these will affect virtually everything we humans do, and all these 'environmental hazards' fall mostly on those most vulnerable, such as women of child-bearing age and children.
I don't know exactly what is causing the decline in birth rates, wealth, material prosperity, modern medicine, and the like (and a ton of social factors) all influence the decision to have children, but as Jan J pointed out above, the biological realities of age of first motherhood are, in my view indisputable. Don't ask me what I'd consider the most important factor, though.
E: "As you bring up the former Eastern bloc, none of the above issues correlate well with emigration of many skilled and ambitious people."
I'm not sure I understand this. It obviously correlates with (a) economic collapse and (b) lower birth rates (after all, it's the young who make children).
I've never really looked into the "American University." I sort of assumed that it was a program for those who have money, but lack the brainpower and/or work habits that a "normal" degree requires. But as I said, I've never really looked into it.
Re: South Korea
Oh, immigration. This is going to backfire on South Korea very badly. South Korea has a highly conservative culture, which has so far shown itself incapable of adapting to new realities. For instance, no, it cannot afford to remain as patriarchal as it is, at least not if it wants to both remain rich and not go biologically extinct. South Korea needs women to work (doubly so given the upside-down age pyramid), but a child makes it very difficult for a woman to work (in any decent job), plus childhood is an absolutely miserable affair in South Korea (with regular school followed by many hours of cram school, meaning that kids don't get to sleep properly, let alone play). Nope, can't fix any of that. Okay, quick! Let's bring in immigrants! Now let's see how well a country like South Korea can manage to integrate those immigrants. Lemme guess: worse than *any* European country (let's not even talk about the US and Canada).
Re: age of first motherhood
That's a proximate cause of collapsing birth rates. Now what's causing that? As far as I can tell, it's mostly due to the gigification of the economy, plus very high costs of housing. People (those capable of planning, anyway) wait to have a stable income and stable housing *before* having kids. That's the *responsible* thing to do. And it's very hard to obtain those things as a 20-something. It's increasingly difficult for 30-somethings. Okay, so the woman is 35, the man is 40, and his job seems stable and well-paying enough (though hers isn't necessarily), and so maybe start trying for that first kid?
Having four kids before age thirty, or having two kids before age forty does make an impact. Plus ca 30 000 abortions per year (Sweden). Plus ftalates, PFAS, hormones and chemicals close enough to hormones to affect the body, plus taxation and housing/real estate market capitalism leading to exhorbitant pricing, plus sperm-and-egg quality, plus more.
All of it fixable, none of it fixable in a liberal capitalist system. I write it like that because Peterson*, as is increasingly the case, is wrong about socialism and fertility and poverty: he is projecting what he wants to be true instead of looking at reality, and is picking examples serving his hypothesis.
Capitalism does not want limits on pollution: the corporations opposes stopping using chemicals that are dangerous to us, such as PFAS (and those are near-impossible to get out of the water cycle, and just won't go away or break down) or DDT back in its day. Or artificial sweeteners. Or birth control pills. Or. . .
The problem of chemicals affecting humans does not care about ideology, since biology and chemistry doesn't.
*If it was true, then affluent and well-organised and highly collectivist pre-christian societies (babylonians, semites, egyptians, indians, et c) would have had low birth rates. They didn't. His perspective is (as is common to all americans and americanised anglo-sphere people) too short and narrow, reasoning as if history starts with the American Revolution.
My point about Peterson is that he called out this seemingly single-minded Nordic focus on transfer payments, which is literally all I said above.
Your point about Peterson stands, and I do think he's gone a wee bit over the top, so to speak, esp. with his interpretation of ancient history (which I'll set aside here).
As to the above focus on synthetic hormones, well, you bring up a whole range of other very important chemicals (which the authors allude to in toto), and, yes, all of them are a problem. I do object, however tentatively, about the claim that 'none of it [is] fixable in a liberal capitalist system', which may or may not be true (since we don't live in such a system anymore since the 1930s).
Case in point: DDT, which was widely used in the 1940s and 1950s until people grew more conscious of its side-effects and adverse reactions; it was eventually phased out and banned thereafter, but the key issue is: even as 'customers' (only), 'we' do have quite a lot of power. If no-one would bother about, e.g., phtalates, BPA, or the like, why would industry stop putting it at least in plastic containers for food? (No worries, it's still everywhere in other products, such as rubber boots etc.)
I suppose that a 'return' to more 'markets', supply/demand, and, of course, consequences would be a good thing. If you'd like to call that 'liberal capitalism' or sanity is a second-hand issue, I'd argue.
Capitalism is profit for the capitalist before any other concerns; as such, it will never lead to good outcomes for the whole of society or for a population/a people, only for a select group.
If it is more profitable to pollute, and to cover up the effects, and to litigate any whistleblowers into bankrupcy and to even employ death squads targetting union reps or workers speaking up, capitalism and capitalists will do so without a second thought.
Communism being what we know it to be doesn't make capitalism good - that kind of false dichotomy is one of the many errors of Peterson and his contemporaty thinkers in the Americas are guilty of (probably due to being stuck in a Cold War-mindset, much as EUropean counterparts are stuck in the world of the 1970s re: all things migration, cultures, et cetera).
When market economy and free trade has yielded an increased societal good, it has done so when it has been forced to do so: Sweden's Saltsjöbaden Treaty is a perfect example.
Industry stopped putting that stuff (ftalates) in kids' pacifiers becaused it was forced to, by legislators acting on information supplied by environmentalist activists (the real kind, from pre-globalisation days) and it still took decades despite all of the dangers being known from day one. There's a reason the very rich buy their bottled water in glass bottles, one could say to sound a little conspiracist. Indeed, Norsk Hydro in the 1990s launched a massive propaganda campaign in Sweden to stop any kind of ban on ftalates.
Think of capitalism as a horse. If you want it to plow a field or pull a cart? It needs to be harnessed to the task, well fed and tended to so it stays healthy.
(Communism would be either a cart or a horse, but never both. Postmodernism would going to the beach to make furroughs in the sand using a stick, and then claming it to be a field.)
I very much doubt that a "return to markets" would lead to higher birth rates. Markets are volatile and favor those who are flexible. Children are one of the most reliable ways of making a human *less* flexible. A child is sick, and so you don't show up for work. You do not move to a different city (or country), because that would uproot your child. Etc.
When I say 'markets' and 'consequences', I mean: we need something that's more objective than what we have right now.
And 'markets' happen to be quite good and effective 'systems' of 'communication'; sadly, they don't 'work' anymore.
You write: 'A child is sick, and so you don't show up for work.'
That's why 'the Experts™' recommended school closures during the WHO-declared, so-called 'Pandemic™'.
Markets are an exchange mechanism. Historically, most things that humans need to survive (and reproduce) were handled via the customary economy, not via markets. As more and more things move from the customary (informal/household) economy into the formal economy (markets), all sorts of things become less affordable. Childcare is just one of many examples.
Everyone discussing this topic is missing or ignoring the most blatantly obvious causes. These two causes are: the introduction of the birth control pill and the increased age of first time mothers. It’s really that simple. Let me demonstrate with Norwegian data:
https://snl.no/samlet_fruktbarhetstall#:~:text=Samlet%20fruktbarhetstall%20er%20et%20mål,1%2C4%20barn%20per%20kvinne.
In the graph in this article, we see the stupendous fall in “fertility” from the introduction of “the pill” in the late 60s - from 2.8 kids/woman to 1.8kids/woman over just a few years really. Thus we can already conclude that “hormonal contraception” works. What a shocking conclusion! So we were already below replacement levels 50 years ago.
Then you see a relatively stable period from late 70s to about the financial crisis where births sort of hover around 1.8. Then, a few years later, it gradually drops to 1.4.
So what else has happened? Well. Age of first time mothers is what happened: in 1967 (right before the pill was introduced) it was 23! Years old. Now it’s well over 30. but Even in the 1990s the age was 25! So first time mothers have gotten OLD. I mean, really old. This is really key. Being an old mom = less kids and less Healthty kids. Less time to have 3 kids. Etc.
https://www.fhi.no/op/mfr/femti-ar-med-fodsler-i-norge/
It’s shocking to me that People just din’t see it. It’s right there in front of you!
EDIT: the fall Prior to 1960s is easily enough explain by the transition from an agrarian lifestyle and «every hand on deck» type lifestyle where kids are your farm hands, life insurance and retirement all in one - this (and lack of contraception) still drives births in Africa etc.
Of course you're spot-on, and I'd bet the farm on this being because the 1960s and 1970s 'socialist' governments expanded 'higher ed'.
Fun fact: every time this topic comes up at work, my Norwegian colleagues tell me that 'oh, the government knows all about the declining birth rate' and 'they have experts'. No-one offers any specifics, and the above-related media items are, believe it or not, quite representative of how 'mainstream society' deals with this. They merely conduct a fake 'debate' by discussing many 'issues' but the ones that matter (which you mentioned), and I'd add synthetic contraceptives and, possibly, the modRNA injections.
You write: 'It’s shocking to me that People just din’t see it. It’s right there in front of you!'
Of course, this is why the 'debate' is like I described above.
Thanks for the reply! What bothers me a lot after the «COVID» event is that it seems people don’t actually think for themselves very much. They’re perfectly happy to just regurgitate whatever is the general sentiment at the time, and you could place evidence right in front of them but they would not know what to make of it. What has happened? Was it allways like this or have we gotten collectively stupider?
It is quite a spectacle to observe this, isn't it?
It leads to questions, I'd argue, inhowfar, if at-all, the Covid injections made people more stupid, eh?
The parable of “blind men and elephant” comes to mind. The “birth rate” is a result of multiple factors. It seems to me that there has been a concerted effort to reduce population across the globe. Our Oligarchical Rulers desire fewer humans; of this there cannot be any doubt. There is plenty of published evidence. If the aim is to reduce population from above, we ought not be surprised if they had formulated a strategy to achieve their goals. Anyone tasked with developing such a strategy would have analyzed all those factors, probably narrowed down the most promising (least cost - high effect) and deployed these. After decades of relentless systemic attack we would find ourselves in a situation similar to the one in which we find ourselves. If we desire to undo the damages of the war waged against us, we would first need to devise a winning strategy over our Enemy, while searching for ways to undo the damages they’ve unleashed onto Humanity, including deteriorating birth rates.
Unfortunately, along the birth rate, they have also attacked our cognitive ability to detect a threat and mount a vigorous defense. There is never too late to act, but we must do so from our current reality, not a synthetic reality based in delusions. KOVID was a test which we are still failing. There is no learning in the critical mass of human population of the West.
It looks ever more like the plan is to kill many, if not most, people, beginning with Westerners.
You write: 'If we desire to undo the damages of the war waged against us, we would first need to devise a winning strategy over our Enemy, while searching for ways to undo the damages they’ve unleashed onto Humanity, including deteriorating birth rates.
Unfortunately, along the birth rate, they have also attacked our cognitive ability to detect a threat and mount a vigorous defense. There is never too late to act, but we must do so from our current reality, not a synthetic reality based in delusions. KOVID was a test which we are still failing. There is no learning in the critical mass of human population of the West.'
I think that the WHO-declared, so-called 'Pandemic™' showed a share of people what the plan is (these would be the 'red-pilled' ones. The ones who don't (any longer) trust any of these 'experts™', 'journos™', and 'the gov't™' (which one?). They (we) will be the ones who keep humanity, and perhaps even our civilisation--or what's left of it, anyways--going.
We pose a threat to them and they will not let us be. We will be targeted in the next engineered Big Event or they will make us irrelevant.
That is 'their' plan, isn't it?
I believe it is.
As your conclusion posits it appears to be a multi pronged attack on fertility. My own hunch is that the RNA is probably one of the final nails in western fertility and that one of the symptoms of this is the rapid developing world migration to the west. I one day envision a time in the not too distant future where the surviving indigenous natives of said countries are herded onto reservations in the middle of their countries so the new denizens can drive around safari style gawking at the old beleaguered natives😅
I’ll end with some vaguely related anecdotes because the reality is very depressing to contemplate.
I actually spent the last year living in Vienna as a private teacher. It’s one to one so not too taxing. But I do remember having to remind my young student not to sit on his phone when he wasn’t using it… ‘Dude, you’re literally cooking your balls…’
I was walking past one of the university campuses in central Vienna the other week when what looked like a young female university student rode by on a bike wearing a T-shirt with ‘I ❤️ abortion’ emblazoned on the front (I found that a rather wounding statement tbh, what a thing to be proud of?).
I also happened to accidentally walk into the middle of the Vienna pride parade. I couldn’t help but notice how dead eyed and sick everyone looked and the put on and falsely joy atmosphere was a bit creepy (but each to their own it’s a free world… right🤪)
Incidentally my student came to lesson the next day after he and his friends spent their time at pride getting selfies with men openly wearing butt plugs (is that better than being on your phone 10 hours a day?) and he remarked also how sick/ill everyone looked. So I may have been on to something?
So there you go… make what you will of my rambling…
It is a multi-pronged, pluri-dimensional, and multi-decadal assault on Western Civilisation.
You write: 'I one day envision a time in the not too distant future where the surviving indigenous natives of said countries are herded onto reservations in the middle of their countries so the new denizens can drive around safari style gawking at the old beleaguered natives.'
I'm more positive inclined here; above, I wrote: I think that the WHO-declared, so-called 'Pandemic™' showed a share of people what the plan is (these would be the 'red-pilled' ones. The ones who don't (any longer) trust any of these 'experts™', 'journos™', and 'the gov't™' (which one?). They (we) will be the ones who keep humanity, and perhaps even our civilisation--or what's left of it, anyways--going.
Your report from the Vienna 'Pride™' is breath-takingly absurd, sick, and sad all at-once.
You write: 'I couldn’t help but notice how dead eyed and sick everyone looked and the put on and falsely joy atmosphere was a bit creepy (but each to their own it’s a free world… right)'
Problem is, as I see it, 'they' won't stop proselytising, but they'll also call you out for not being 'inclusive' enough if you say something like, you know, 'leave me out of this'.
Your comment about the cell phone radiation frying the balls is also spot-on.
My main take away was that the day after the parade my student’s first comment on it was the same thing I noticed… how everyone looked ill. Generations apart and we drew the same conclusions. If there’s any solace I know he and his classmates get the inclusive alphabet soup shoved down their throats all day long and anecdotally they seem to all be very much over it. The whole thing seems to serve the world’s owners very well as few if any of that brigade will ever reproduce. I have no issue what any adult does in their private life but the whole Pride thing has all the hallmarks of a cult.
'Pride' is a cult, esp. the 'Trans' feature.
I suppose that the next decades will be very wild, but eventually, because the cultists don't reproduce, the result will be a more 'conservative' society in the second half of the 21st century.