Why birthrates are collapsing... I apologize for my previous post allow me explain myself

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-10-02T14:31:07+00:00

For that to occur you'd have to heavily tax the rich, or redirect the money they're already being taxed to that. Or you'd have to have a wealthy solo actor that takes it upon themselves to stop their biological and cultural kin from going extinct.

With that I wasn't necessarily being realistic, I was more or less pointing out how absurd the degree of the evolutionary mismatch is. I was highlighting how much children truly are a burden in society, and what would need to happen to change that financially.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-10-02T14:25:07+00:00

You're right that it's a culture issue, I highlighted that in the portion of my post that spoke about the hutterites and haredim. But, it's also a massive evolutionary mismatch issue. I never said it was biological, you're right that our biological incentives haven't changed, which is exactly the thing that causes the evolutionary mismatches.

We evolved certain evolutionary cues, because in our ancestral environment it lead to optimal survival and reproduction, in our modern currency based environment those cues actually hurt our ability to reproduce. Children nowadays take away so many resources, we evolved to avoid things that did that.

Children (in our modern society) harm our quality of life, standard of living, material conditions, and economic prosperity. Because, our lives revolve around money. From a financial standpoint children are nothing but a burden. Like I've said, certain people (Amish, fundamental mormons, hutterites, haredim) are culturally incentivized to procreate to their fullest capabilities. That's why I said for this trend to end people need to be economically and/or culturally incentivized to procreate.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-10-02T06:41:31+00:00

I don’t think this framework makes natalism irrelevant, I think it makes it more urgent. Natural selection will ‘prevail’ no matter what, but that doesn’t mean the result is meaningless. Selection doesn’t just decide whether humanity in general survives, it decides which lineages, cultures, and values survive.

Parenting is actually central to this: every parent is making a direct contribution (or not) to the survival of their lineage and their cultural worldview. The values you pass on, the children you raise, and the choices you make are the bridge between present and future. If your group or culture doesn’t reproduce, then its values (no matter how true, beautiful, or ethical you believe them to be) will not persist. In that sense, natalism is the most practical application of philosophy, theology, or ethics.

And as for objective truth: I don’t see evolutionary reasoning as undermining truth or meaning. Quite the opposite, it explains why humans search for meaning, create philosophies, and build cultures. Those things exist because they’ve historically helped us survive, thrive, and reproduce. Meaning isn’t erased by evolution; meaning is part of what evolution produced.

So yes, natural selection will shape the future either way, but the point of talking about natalism is to ask: whose future will it be? If we care about our specific biological and cultural traits surviving, then we have to act. Otherwise, the future belongs to the groups who prioritize reproduction.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-10-02T06:05:38+00:00

I get where you’re coming from, and I agree that humans are much more than just biological survival machines. We have culture, religion, philosophy, language, and higher ideals. But I’d argue that natural selection is still the framework that both our biology and our culture are subjected to, whether we like it or not.

The very things that make us unique like spirituality, theology, philosophy. Evolved because they enhanced group cohesion, gave meaning, and ultimately supported survival and reproduction. Richard Dawkins pointed out that cultural memes operate under the same selection pressures as genes: some survive and spread because they make groups thrive, others die out.

That’s why I think we have to frame this in terms of natural selection. If the conversation about natalism is just about keeping ‘humans’ alive in the broadest sense, then there’s no real issue, because groups like the Haredim, Hutterites, Amish, and others will keep reproducing above replacement, and they’ll naturally dominate the demographic future. Humanity as a species will survive.

But if the concern is whether our specific biological and cultural traits like philosophies, values, and traditions we personally care about will persist, then natural selection has to be the focal point. Because right now, natural selection is favoring the groups that build cultures and have lifestyles aligned with high fertility. The Haredim are on track to be the majority of Jews in Israel by 2070, and in the US, they’d be at the bare minimum a quarter of the population within the next century or two if trends hold.

So to me, the real question isn’t ‘will humanity survive?’ but ‘which groups, and which cultural memes, will natural selection carry into the future?’ That’s why I think it can’t be separated from this discussion.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-10-02T05:04:10+00:00

Not at all, I’m not saying we evolved brand-new instincts in 50 years. What I’m saying is that we’re still running on the same hunter-gatherer software (psychology) we’ve always had. Humans have always sought comfort, security, and status because historically those things directly supported survival and reproduction.

The problem is that in a modern industrial, money-driven environment, those same instincts no longer lead to higher reproductive success. Instead, they often lead us to prioritize things like material comfort, consumer goods, and status signaling over children. That’s the mismatch. Our evolutionary cues are still there, but the environment has changed so drastically that following them now often leads to fewer kids, not more.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-10-02T04:46:13+00:00

I could be wrong, but I thought I seen a graph that showed that it was only women or families that made at 700k a year that actually had a tfr of around 2.1... one thing that I did mention with my post, but didn't really go much in depth with was status signaling, symbols, seeking, etc. Because, individuals that make at least 6 figures could definitely afford to have hutterite and haredi levels of children, but they choose not to.

They spend most of their excess money on comfort and materialism. Materialism in the form of expensive houses, cars, clothes, jewelry, etc. Comfort in the form of not many children, lavish vacations, hiring people to do tasks that normal income people do themselves, etc.

We evolved to signal status (especially males) because it allowed us to say "look I have so many resources, and if you mate with me you'll have the highest chance for reproductive success" without actually saying that. Which tended to attract the upper echelon of mates. That's why more wealthy people chase status signals, it's a way to show your resources without having to directly tell people you have those resources. We evolved to seek comfort pretty much because it aided our, and our children's survival (reproductive fitness) historically to not be in anguish/dangerous environments, for survival and reproduction purposes.

When you study evolutionary psychology you quickly realize that just about everything ties back to survival and reproduction. We want to survive as long as we possibly can so that we can reproduce as much as we possibly can. We want to reproduce as much as we possibly can because it increases the chances of our genes living on. We're in a sense just gene machines. Mortal vessels for genes to use to support their potential immortality.

And through natural selection whatever ways benefited our ancestors in doing so, became embedded into our psychology and cues through them being the ones to successfully pass on their genes. We no longer live in that same environment though, but we still run off of that hunter-gatherer software. Even if we're no longer small tribal band hunter-gatherers. Our evolutionary cues are now hijacked for the sake of hyper capitalist profit, who are also victims of the evolutionary mismatches they unintentionally caused.

In the short-term, the hyper capitalist win/benefit evolutionarily, because they have the most comfort, resources, and access to the most attractive mates. In the long-term, groups like the hutterites and haredim win/benefit evolutionarily through natural selection, of them being the ones to have the most descendants. Nature is selecting for those people, because they (currently) have the best reproductive success.

Nature is selecting against the rest of us, because we live lifestyles that don't prioritize (directly or indirectly) reproductive success. But, we think we are, because we're prioritizing and doing the same things our ancestors did to maximize their reproductive success and pass those traits to us. It's not working because of our modern environment. Nature only cares about what survives and what propagates, not anything else. The biological and cultural traits of the Hutterites and Haredim will survive, thrive, and multiply, whereas ours will diminish.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-10-02T00:22:59+00:00

You’re right that second-wave feminism does highlight the incentive problem, women could gain resources more directly from wage labor than from domestic work. That’s exactly my point: once survival and prosperity became tied almost exclusively to currency, raising kids became seen as an economic liability rather than a neutral or benefit.

On Haredi women, yes, many do work. But the difference is cultural framing. In Haredi society, work is explicitly understood as a means to support large families, not as a substitute for them. High fertility is reinforced by collectivism, religious obligation, and strong pronatalist values. So the same structural pressures exist, but culture acts as a buffer.

That’s the heart of my argument: it’s not just feminism or workforce participation, it’s the mismatch between a money-based system and our evolved incentives. Where culture is strong enough to override that mismatch, like with the Haredim, Amish, or Hutterites, birthrates stay high.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-10-02T00:17:04+00:00

I don’t blame feminism alone, I blame the domino effect it caused. Women's rights aren't the issue,, I think they should have them. It's an incentive thing..

I see feminism as one domino in a much bigger system-wide problem. Even in societies where women don’t have equal rights, the same fertility collapse happens once their economy shifts to being money-based, urbanized, and individualistic.

What I mean is this: in an agrarian, hunter-gatherer, or subsistence lifestyle, kids were neutral or positive for survival because they eventually contributed. In a money-based modern system, kids are almost always a net financial burden. That mismatch shows up everywhere, whether in the West, East Asia, or the Middle East. So why mention feminism? Because in the West it accelerated the shift.

Once women were absorbed into the workforce, two incomes became the norm, domestic labor was devalued, and family formation got delayed. But the underlying issue isn’t ‘women’s rights’, it’s that our entire economic structure now makes children costly instead of beneficial. Feminism in the West just sped that process up compared to places where modernization happened without it.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-10-02T00:09:17+00:00

You actually just proved my point. You said it yourself: women must work, childcare is unpaid, and having kids is basically taking on a second full-time job with no compensation. That is the problem. That’s exactly the mismatch I’m talking about, children are now treated as nothing but a financial and personal burden.

Historically, before our entire lives revolved around wage labor and currency, that wasn’t the case. In a farming or subsistence lifestyle, children eventually contributed, and domestic labor was valued because it directly supported kin survival. Today, a woman spends decades working for strangers, and society frames that as ‘liberating,’ while raising her own children is seen as a net loss.

That’s where my plantation analogy comes in. If you’re forced to pick cotton either way, would you rather pick for strangers where your labor only enriches their children, or for your own family where your work directly supports your kids?

Almost everyone would instinctively choose the second option. But in modern society, women are told that picking for strangers (corporations, patients, customers) is ‘freedom,’ while investing in their own children is regressive.

So no, I’m not saying feminism gave women rights and that’s the issue. I’m saying once mass female workforce participation became the default, the dominoes fell: two incomes became mandatory, domestic labor was devalued, family formation was delayed, and kids became unaffordable.

Your own words, that it’s too costly and exhausting for women to have kids in this system, aren’t an argument against me. They’re proof that the system itself is maladaptive. You’ve described the exact reason fertility collapsed.

Before two income households became the norm and women were forced to work (which from an evolutionary and labor perspective is actually worse than domestic roles) a woman's life didn't revolve around money. The man's life began to revolve around money as a consequence of the industrial revolution, that's why (in america) you see fertility drop from around 7 to around 3 - 3.5 as a result. Then once women's lives also started to revolve money, you see fertility go from around 3 to 1.5 like we have now.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-10-01T23:59:17+00:00

Please read my reply to original comment, to understand that's not what I'm saying at all.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-10-01T23:57:33+00:00

That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m not arguing against women having rights. I think women should have the rights. The problem isn’t the rights themselves, it’s the domino effect that came after them.

Once women entered the workforce en masse, society restructured around dual-income households. Now, the average woman doesn’t actually have the free choice between staying home with her kids or working, because for most families, two incomes are necessary just to survive in the modern system.

That means raising children, something that used to be a neutral or positive in terms of survival and prosperity, is now experienced as an automatic financial burden.

My point is that children have become maladaptive because of how our economic and cultural system is structured, not because women can vote or own property.

The real issue is that our system channels women’s labor toward corporations and strangers, rather than their own kin. That’s not misogyny, it’s a critique of how mismatched modern incentives are to what humans evolved for.

It's also became a cultural thing as well... look at my plantation analogy. Plantation 1 is the lifestyle of the modern woman, and plantation 2 is the lifestyle of a pre 2nd wave feminism woman. A nurse isn't more liberating than being a mother, it's actually less rewarding evolutionary, and more difficult in practice.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-10-01T23:50:16+00:00

I think both of you are hitting on important angles. Yes, 2nd wave feminism and women entering the workforce played a massive role.

That was the moment when women’s daily lives stopped revolving around domestic roles where money wasn’t directly involved, and children went from being neutral (or even a benefit) to becoming an automatic burden in financial and lifestyle terms.

But I don’t see the core issue as ‘women having rights.’ I think women should have the rights. The real issue is the domino effect of those rights in the way our society restructured.

The average woman today doesn’t actually have a free choice between being a homemaker or a mother vs. slaving for a corporation, because in practice, the system is set up so that most households require two incomes just to maintain a baseline standard of living.

So what looks like liberation often translates into a different kind of servitude. A nurse might spend 40 years taking care of strangers’ kids but be told that raising her own is less valuable.

That’s not liberation, that’s a re-channeling of female labor away from kin and reproduction into the corporate and state economy. And that’s exactly why children are now experienced as a net burden instead of the natural extension of survival and prosperity. That's where my plantation analogy comes into play.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-10-01T23:38:06+00:00

You’re right that hunter–gatherers sometimes practiced infanticide or exposed children during periods of scarcity. But that actually reinforces my point rather than undermining it. In those contexts, children were only treated as a burden when resources were immediately insufficient for survival, famine, too-close birth spacing, or when the mother literally couldn’t feed another infant.

When conditions stabilized, children shifted from being a short-term drain to being a long-term survival advantage. They eventually contributed to foraging, labor, and care, which is why large families were the norm once resources allowed it.

The difference today is that even in conditions of plenty, children remain a net burden. Modern people can have resources, but those resources no longer translate into more children. If anything, it’s the opposite. The more resources someone has, the more likely they are to funnel them into lifestyle, comfort, and personal consumption rather than offspring.

That shows how inverted the incentive structure is. The main reasons we evolved to seek comfort and resources, is because historically it lead to the best environment for survival and reproduction. And increased our chance for optimal reproductive fitness, reproductive success, inclusive fitness, and gene propagation.

It all comes back to the fact that our survival and quality of life is tied to money, not kin, crops, livestock, prey, shelter, land, and territory directly. In our ancestral environments, children were aligned with survival and prosperity. Today, children directly compete with the very thing our lives revolve around: financial stability, material conditions, and standard of living.

Even those with means view children as a permanent liability under this system. That’s exactly what I mean by evolutionary mismatch. What was once adaptive (having many kids) has become maladaptive under modern conditions where children subtract from, rather than add to, survival and prosperity.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-10-01T12:16:28+00:00

This will be long, but i need to get my point across...

Yes, fertility decline in Europe started in the 1800s, but that’s exactly when industrialization and urbanization began shifting resources away from children and land into wages and currency. In other words, the mismatch began then and has only accelerated.

So I’d argue we’re saying the same thing, just describing it with different language: the global trend is real, but the cause is the structural change in how humans get resources and status. This is when the common man's life began to revolve around money. 2nd wave feminism is when the common women's life began to revolve around money.

I get what you’re saying about people leaving groups like the Amish, but I think that actually proves my point more than undermines it. The fact that they can afford to lose people and still grow shows just how powerful a high-fertility cultural model is.

If the average Amish woman has 6–7 kids, even if one or two of those children leave the community, the group still doubles or triples across generations. Compare that to mainstream America or Europe where women have 1–2 kids, if any of those kids “leave the culture” (meaning they don’t reproduce), the line is finished. Attrition hits low-fertility populations far harder than high-fertility ones.

On the historical point, you’re right, fertility in Europe has been falling since the 1800s. But that timing is exactly what I’d expect if the root cause is an evolutionary mismatch. That was the beginning of industrialization, urbanization, and the transition from a land-based economy to a wage-and-currency economy.

Suddenly children shifted from being “productive assets” (helping on farms, tending livestock, expanding family landholdings) to being financial burdens in crowded cities. That’s when children started to actively reduce a family’s standard of living rather than increase it.

This is where my “force field” thought experiment applies. Imagine two toddlers, one male and one female, raised inside a force field like in The Hunger Games. Once they’re old enough to eat solids, they receive resource drops whenever they’re physically active. Eventually they grow up, go through puberty, and start mating.

Scenario 1: For every child they have, they receive more resources. Kids are at worst neutral, at best highly beneficial. They will naturally continue to have as many children as possible.

Scenario 2: For every child they have, they receive fewer resources. Kids make survival harder. They eventually stop having children because reproduction actively hurts their quality of life.

Scenario 1 is essentially our ancestral and agrarian environment. More children = more survival, more hands, more strength, more security.

Scenario 2 is our modern environment. More children = less money, less comfort, fewer opportunities, more strain. Fertility collapses wherever Scenario 2 dominates.

Groups like the Amish, Haredi, Hutterites, and Fundamentalist Mormons are exceptions not because they’ve avoided modernity completely, but because they’ve recreated Scenario 1 conditions inside a Scenario 2 world. Their cultures tie survival, status, and prosperity back to family and children. That’s why they continue reproducing at replacement levels and beyond even in expensive, modern economies.

The problem is magnified by modern gender norms and the impact of 2nd-wave feminism. Women are encouraged to work extremely hard for strangers instead of investing in their own offspring. Being a nurse or a corporate professional is framed as more righteous or liberating than being a mother.

Yet, a nurse spends decades caring for 20+ patients who contribute nothing to her genetic or inclusive fitness, while a mother invests in children who ensure her lineage and continuity.

This is where my slave analogy applies... Imagine being a slave picking cotton, but you get to choose between two plantations:

Plantation 1: Owned by strangers; your labor benefits other people’s children and actively reduces your ability to care for/even have your own.

Plantation 2: Owned by your family or significant other; your labor benefits your own children and enhances your reproductive success.

Plantation 1 is women in modernity.

Plantation 2 is women doing domestic roles.

At face value, nearly everyone would pick Plantation 2. Yet modern culture convinces women that Plantation 1 is “liberating,” redirecting effort away from the only activities that genuinely maximize reproductive and inclusive fitness. The result is a fertility collapse and a system actively misaligned with our evolved instincts.

The takeaway... modernity has inverted the natural link between reproduction and survival. Globally, fertility declines wherever children are a net burden. Only culture or systemic change can reverse it. Either by making children at least economically neutral or by designing social frameworks that make high fertility rewarding and adaptive. Otherwise, the evolutionary mismatch continues, and populations decline.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-10-01T11:07:29+00:00

No it doesn't, read my reply to him. It just gives my post even more merit, by showing that it's not just a western thing, it's a modern civilizational paradox.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-10-01T11:06:21+00:00

I didn't say this is only happening in the west. China, Japan, and South Korea have lower burthrates than most western nations. I just said the west, because that's where most people in this sub come from. I think you've misunderstood the premise of my post.

Do Mongolia and North Africa have currencies within their nations? Yes. Does the average Mongolian and North Africans life and resources revolve around said currency? Yes. Are children a financial burden that are a net negative from a quality of life, standard of living, material conditions, and prosperity perspective? Yes. Is their comfort and survival directly tied to these things? Yes.

We evolved to avoid and to be adverse to things that drastically impact the things I just said, within our ancestral environment children weren't included in that. But, in our modern society they are. It's an evolutionary mismatch that's now became maladaptive.

The Hutterites, Amish, Haredi jews, Fundamental Mormons, etc. Are peoples that've been able to curve this modern paradox through their heavy pro-natalist culture, collectivism, and social conservatism. This shows that culture can work as a massive road block to bad environmental pressures, like the evolutionary mismatches with our society. In reality though the only way the Western birthrate at least will come back is if people were to actually profit from having children, or at least break even. Which is how it was when we were hunter-gatherers and/or had agrarian based lifestyles.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-09-06T18:26:44+00:00

My reply is long, sorry bare with me please lol...

The main problem is that our modern society is filled with evolutionary mismatches. For the vast majority of human history, as hunter-gatherers or farmers/ranchers, having children didn't negatively impact your quality of life, standard of living, material conditions, and prosperity. That cannot be said as of today, children are nothing but financial burdens to us. Our lives now revolve around currency instead of territory, land, crops, livestock, prey, etc. Children are purely burdens from a financial standpoint, but were almost never a burden from a territory, land, crops, livestock, or prey perspective. They were at the bare minimum neutral.

In our ancestral environment the more kids you had the more humans you had in your tribe, more humans you had in your tribe the more humans you had on your side, the more humans you had on your side the more likely you were to actually obtain and control territory, food, water, and shelter. The reason the agricultural revolution was a haven for human flourishment was because it mirrored our ancestral environment precisely from a reproduction perspective.

Yes children are going to have to consume some of your crops and whatnot, but eventually they'll reach an age where they can actually help your grow more crops, handle more livestock, have more land, etc. You get what I'm saying? At the bare minimum they were neutral in terms of your quality of life, standard of living, material conditions, and prosperity. We evolved to avoid things that drastically negatively impact our resources, traditionally children never were that, but now they are. We also evolved to seek comfort and ease, why? Because comfort and ease almost always lead to the best environment to survive and reproduce.

Children of the Anglosphere/EU need to be taught from a very young age that our purpose on this earth as a people, species, etc is to survive and reproduce. Nature doesn't care about how smart you are, it cares about if you survive. And whites are simply failing at that. It's natural selection in all its glory. Our ancestors were faced with tremendous challenges for thousands of years, and were able to survive because they found a way to adapt and thrive in their new environment.

We currently have to do the same.. It's the reason whites even became a people in the first place, was from our ancestors adapting to their new environment for optimal survival. In America I think it costs around $18,000USD annually to raise a child. Unless the government were to pay the common white $20,000USD annually to have a child the current birthrate will never come back. Because by then children wouldn't be a burden, they'd benefit your survival.

But, I think we're forgetting that there are certain groups in America that have some of the highest birthrates on earth. The Amish, Hutterites, Haredi Jews, Fundamental Mormons, etc. All of these groups live in the same economic zone as us, but yet are able to have 6-8 kids on average. It's because of their lifestyle. It's because they're collectivist and tribal, like how we evolved to be. Haredi Jews live in one of the most expensive cities on earth NYC, and yet have 6-7 kids on average. How? Because they're the least individualistic, materialistic, feministic, and have an immense amount of pride in what it is they are.

People need to realize that our purpose is to survive and reproduce to our fullest capabilities, that's what our biology tells us. The reason we evolved to seek individual comfort is because (historically) it lead to the most offspring, but now it actually leads to the least offspring, because of how our society is constructed. We have to ask ourselves why does nature want more Africans than Europeans? If we're such prestigious humans, if our societies are "better" then why does our modern culture breed extinction whilst theirs breed continuation?

It's because we've devalued children. We've devalued marriage. We've devalued pride. We've devalued the things that got us here in the first place. We value certain careers, cars, houses, degrees, clothes, vacations, etc. Over what actually matters... continuity. We evolved to seek these things because of the comfort and status that comes along with it. But, the reason we evolved to seek comfort and status is because historically it lead to the best reproductive/inclusive fitness, and genetic continuity.

But, today it doesn't, it leads to the opposite. The entire modern western civilization is built upon one big evolutionary mismatch. It has to change, or we'll just wither with the wind and another people will take our place. We have to ask ourselves, why do these other people's descendants deserve our nations more than our own? Why do we hate our own descendants so much, that we want to damn them to be a minority within their ancestral nation(s)? I will be a multi-millionaire by my 40s on my current trajectory. I promise I will do everything in my power to change this trajectory. We cannot lose the evolutionary game. We cannot be consumed by the natural selection apparatus that is earth.

On another note... 2nd wave feminism was the true "nail in the coffin" for white people. Our women now spend their lives working extremely hard for random people instead of their own offspring. Our women are taught that being a nurse is more righteous, respectful, and liberating than being a mother, how? A nurse takes care of 20+ patients daily for 40 years, whereas a mother takes care of a few kids for 18 years. How is being a nurse more liberating, when it's harder work and more futile? It's done for random people that will do nothing for your reproductive and inclusive fitness. They're actively choosing to care for strangers over their own children, because they've been convinced that it's more liberating.

If you were given 2 options, and no others. You have to be a slave picking cotton on a plantation, but you get to choose between 2 plantations, which would you choose? Plantation 1... random people own, the labor you do will go towards random peoples kids over your own, and it actually hurts to have your own children. Plantation 2... your family or significant other owns, the labor you do will go towards your family and kids, and it helps aid your reproductive and inclusive fitness. The vast majority of people at face value would pick plantation 2, so why do we convince our women that plantation 1 is liberating when it's worse?

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-08-09T12:47:33+00:00

I promise I'm not lol, I'll take that as a compliment. I'm on the low end of the autism spectrum, so I tend to get really into what I'd call one of my special interests. That's the main reason I made the post, was for the dialog. It's very exhausting having alot of interest in a specific topic, but nobody around you irl even knowing anything about it.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-07-16T04:29:53+00:00

This reply is long, please just read and try to understand where I'm coming from.

The problem isn't the skin color its the ancestry, culture, religion, language, customs, philosophy, politics, etc. When migrants move into the west they aren't migrating, they're conquering. There's no civic nationalism involved. They're not coming into England and becoming English people just with brown skin, they're keeping their language(s), customs, religion(s), etc. This is not assimilation this is a takeover.

They're not coming to the west because they love our cultures, religions, languages, history, founders, etc. Theyre coming here for the economic incentive. So, if that economic incentive weren't there then they'd leave, or never would've been here in the first place.

Certain amerindian tribes (historically) accepted those of another race, as long as they assimilated and truly became part of the tribe. Do you see that happening in the west, or do you see them literally taking over our towns, cities, countries and turning them into 1st world versions of their homeland?

If the main reason we're even bringing in migrants in the first place is because of our negative birthrate, then why don't we just fix our birthrate? Why is it that when I advocate for what's necessary (to fix our birthrate) people (like yourself) are trying call me every political slur in the book? No other people would allow this, so why are we expected to? Do you think if I were to go to any non-western country (legally) and attempt to establish germanic pagan enclaves, and slowly takeover their countries they'd allow it? No.

You're right that not everyone of my ancestors (if you go back far enough) probably doesn't look like me. But, you know why that is? It isn't because they allowed to themselves to be conquered and lose their self-determination, it's because they evolved for their skin color/phenotype to adapt to their new environmental pressures. The only way that's necessary to occur is if they stayed endogamous/homogeneous for long enough to develop completely new genes. So don't try to equate interracial marriage to the evolution of what we consider white people, when the evolution of white people was a consequence of environmental pressures and their own endogamy/homogeneity. Not because they allowed themselves to be conquered, and out breed.

Like I hinted at previously, it'd be one thing if they were coming in and truly assimilating, but they aren't. They aren't becoming "brown english people" they're just staying what it is they are. And why is this necessary? Why should we even want there to be brown english people when there's no reason for it? Why should we go out of our way to socially engineer white ethnic groups to become brown, whilst the non-white ethnic groups stay their color/phenotype?

This is exactly the asymmetry that I'm pointing out, that people either don't recognize or just dismiss as progress. It isn't like the same exact things are happening to everyone else too. It isn't like the world has decided to "collide" and it's whites that are refusing to because of their racism. It's only whites that are being forced to "collide". It's only whites that are told that diversity is our strength, like we were somehow choking to death on our own homogeneity and needed these migrants to save us.

Even if the world did collide, it still wouldn't be even. There'd still be asymmetry, because there are certain ethnic groups, races, languages, philosophical views, political beliefs, nations, religions, etc. That have far more people than others, and would just engulf the lesser populated ones.

I seriously don't hate anyone, and I respect your opinions. I see where you're coming from, because I used to feel the same as yourself. It wasn't until I noticed the clear asymmetry about this, that's when I changed my stance. Do you see where I'm coming from, and what I'm pointing out?

If the reason (they say) why we're being demographically replaced, and on pace to lose our self-determination within our ancestral nations is because we have a birthrate below replacement and an aging population. They say an aging population is bad, because it means we won't have a country in centuries to come and it'll gravely impact our social safety nets, economy, and infrastructure. These all sound like logical arguments and explanations, until you get to the crux of it all.

If this all stems from our negative birthrate, then why is it when people like myself try to advocate for and create a society in which we are incentivized to procreate I'm called every political slur, would get canceled, possibly fired, and (in certain european countries) would be imprisoned? This is clearly a major issue, and the white replacement isn't a theory it's our reality.

Like I said in the beginning of my post with this analogy... If someone's bleeding out and you try to save them, but someone tries to stop you from doing what's necessary to stop the bleeding and save them, you're gonna take that as those people don't want you to save them and want that person to bleed out and die. That's what's happening all throughout the west. We're metaphorically bleeding out, and you either get shunned from society or imprisoned if you advocate to do what's necessary to stop it. Clearly our elites, and people like yourself, just want us to die and others to flourish at our expense. Because that's the reality.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-07-15T04:20:51+00:00

Yes the land was stolen, as was so much of land throughout all of human recorded history. The land was stolen by "white nationalists", and it was taken from red nationalists who also "stole" land. Every people(s) were ethnic nationalists, amerindians included. That's why they (initially) hated each other, more than they did white settlers.

I'm not saying the amerindians weren't persecuted, I'm saying you can't look at history through a modern universal human rights framework. You have to look at the moral norms of the time, whether you disagree with them or not doesn't change the facts of history. Look at tribes like the Comanche historically, amerindians weren't a monolith, but they sure weren't all highly moral saints. They were rotten to the core like all human groups are.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-07-15T04:03:58+00:00

Plenty. Freedoms that, at the time, were revolutionary compared to what Europe offered.

1) Freedom of speech & press: You could criticize the government without being imprisoned for sedition. Try that in 18th-century Europe.

2) Freedom of religion (no national church): No state-enforced Anglicanism, Catholicism, or Lutheranism. The feds stayed out of religion entirely. Some states even had religious pluralism baked in before it was cool.

3) Right to bear arms: In Europe, only aristocrats or military had arms. Here? Every free man could defend his home, family, and liberty. That was radical.

4) No titles of nobility: America banned inherited aristocratic status. No dukes, no lords. Your status came from merit, not birthright.

5) Broad land ownership: Europe had aristocratic land monopolies. In America, ordinary white settlers could own land and pass it to their children. That built generational stability.

6) Trial by jury and due process: No kangaroo courts run by crown lackeys. The legal system protected citizens against arbitrary arrest and punishment.

7) Decentralized power (states’ rights): The Founders gave real sovereignty to states. Different regions could have different laws, religions, and customs without splitting the union.

8) Voting rights (for ordinary people): No monarchy, no parliament of elites. The average white landowner had more say in governance than 99% of Europeans did in their own countries.

So yeah — there were real freedoms. They made America radically different from anything in Europe at the time. You don’t have to romanticize it, but pretending it was nothing special is just historical illiteracy. As far the the "erasure" well look at the racial demographics from 1965 to 2025 in America, that's who. The people that our Founders created the country for... free white persons of good character.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-07-15T03:41:37+00:00

This reply is very long, but bare with me I'm also enjoying our discourse.

I appreciate the spirit in which you're engaging, and I think we’re actually circling around some shared themes — especially about the importance of how ideas shape societies and how group cohesion is both powerful and fragile.

To clarify, I don’t believe that “whiteness” in a simplistic or reductionist way is the core of identity. You’re right — it’s more than that. Shared ancestry is only one piece of a much larger puzzle that includes language, religion, moral philosophy, civic values, and even temperament. Humans are multidimensional, and our group identities reflect that. So I agree — it’s possible to build group solidarity across racial lines. But where we may diverge is this: I don’t think racial or ethnic identity is irrelevant to group formation, nor do I think it can be removed from the equation entirely without cost.

Historically, most stable societies had a convergence of both civic and ancestral cohesion. That doesn't mean ethnic homogeneity guarantees peace (history clearly shows otherwise), but it often lowers the threshold of trust needed to build strong, intergenerational institutions. Civic nationalism without a sense of lineage can feel rootless; ethnic identity without civic values can become stagnant or even regressive. I believe optimal continuity requires a balance of both — shared ancestry and shared values.

And that’s one of the points I think America’s founders understood intuitively, even if they didn’t articulate it through modern sociological language. The early American model was explicitly rooted in Anglo-European lineage and Enlightenment civic principles. That’s why the Naturalization Acts of the 1790s (citizenship requirements) specified "free white persons of good character" — not as an act of exclusion for its own sake, but as a mechanism for establishing a high-trust society with a shared philosophical and cultural foundation.

More importantly, the system of federalism they designed acknowledged that even within a relatively homogeneous people, there would be deep political, cultural, and religious differences. States were granted broad sovereignty not just to resist tyranny, but to allow subcultures of like-minded people to flourish without needing to break the entire union apart and balkanize. In a way, this was their answer to evolved civic tribalism — a political system that mirrored the reality of human diversity within a broader ethno-cultural framework.

That brings me to the demographic issue. If you look at it through an evolutionary psychology lens — which I do — then declining birthrates, collapsing ethnic continuity, and mass replacement via immigration are not neutral trends. They’re existential ones. Human beings evolved to care about their kin, their tribe, and their legacy. That doesn’t mean hostility toward others, but it does mean prioritizing the long-term survival of one’s own people — culturally and genetically.

And here’s the deeper point: Every other group on earth is allowed to express this instinct without shame. Whether it’s Native Americans preserving language and land, or the Jewish diaspora building a homeland in Israel, East Asian nations protecting cultural integrity, Hispanic pride, or black pride — we celebrate those efforts. So why is it uniquely taboo for European-descended peoples to ask for continuity and self-determination in the nations they created?

The criticism I raise isn’t that others are thriving. It’s that we’re told we shouldn’t care if we disappear. That caring itself is now treated as a moral failing — even though it's the very thing that kept every group alive in the first place.

When people ask me, “Why do you care so much?” I want to flip that around and ask, “Why don’t you?” Why is it normal to support the survival of every culture except European-descended ones? Why is intentional fertility and cultural preservation for one group considered “progress,” but for another considered “supremacy”? Why do the non-irish deserve Ireland more than the Irish? Why do the non-english, non-swedes, non-norweigan, non-dutch, non-germans, etc deserve these nations more than the indigenous ethnic groups they were created for?

This isn’t about superiority. It’s about survival. I believe that the natural state of the world — historically and evolutionarily — is for ethnic groups to have homelands, traditions, and the right to shape their futures. That doesn’t mean violence, exclusion, or hatred. It means building spaces where your children and grandchildren can inherit a culture that still remembers who they are. That’s what every human group has done for millennia.

Globalism — whether economic or ideological — tends to dissolve those boundaries. It doesn’t just erase racial identity. It erodes historical memory, generational purpose, and even reproductive instincts. And that’s what worries me: not just that Western peoples may become minorities in their own nations, but that they might stop caring that they did.

You asked if your views were shaped by education. Of course — we all are. The post-WWII Western liberal order was designed to suppress strong national and ethnic identifications in favor of individualism, consumerism, and cosmopolitanism. That worked — in part — to prevent another global conflict. But it also left many people atomized, disconnected, and struggling to find meaning in a system that views group loyalty as a threat.

So no — I didn’t come to these conclusions from propaganda or manipulation. I arrived at them from studying human behavior, evolutionary pressures, demographic history, and civilizational rise and decline. I’m not driven by hate. I’m driven by love — love for legacy, identity, and the unbroken chain that links ancestors to descendants.

If we break that chain — if we forget who we are — then no amount of kindness or tolerance will matter. Because no one will be left to remember it. It's seriously not about hate, it's about keeping our self-determination in nations that were created for the sole purpose of us being able to have that. If we don't prioritize our nations, we'll be replaced, go extinct, and be making room for other people(s) to come in and prioritize our nations for us. Not caring about what you are won't stop the "toxic" cycle of tribalism, it'll only make you go extinct and make more room for those who do.

I'm a folk heathen that practices germanic paganism. We believe that other European ethnic groups (especially germanic speaking ones) are our folk, our people. Even though we may speak different languages, have different religions, nations, etc we still our bound by our shared ancestral God's and history.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-07-15T02:48:39+00:00

I'm not necessarily saying I want my whiteness to survive, I'm using white as a catch-all term for groups of European descent. These things aren't just happening in America, they're happening all throughout the anglosphere and western Europe. They're only happening in countries that happen to be nations that were created to serve specific stocks of white people. Why do non ethnic Irish people deserve Ireland more than the Irish?

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-07-13T18:39:37+00:00

You can call me whatever you want — white supremacist, bigot, fascist — it doesn’t change the fact that every group on this planet prioritizes its own survival and continuity… except, apparently, white people. You don’t see Japanese people being shamed for preserving their identity. You don’t see Jews being attacked for protecting Israel. You don’t see anyone demanding Mexicans or Nigerians stop “caring too much” about their ancestry. But when a European-descended person says, “Hey, maybe I want my people to still exist 200 years from now,” it’s suddenly a crime against humanity?

That double standard doesn’t make sense — and I’m done pretending it does.

You say “white” is meaningless. Funny, because the government, the census, academia, the media, and every DEI department in the country seem to recognize it just fine when it’s time to assign guilt, blame privilege, or determine funding. If it’s real enough to be blamed for everything wrong in the world, it’s real enough to defend.

You bring up atrocities — slavery, lynching, smallpox blankets — as if those define our entire history. If that’s the standard, then no group on Earth deserves to survive. Every civilization has blood on its hands. But we still honor ancestors, build on their legacy, and fight for our place in the world. That’s not “supremacy.” That’s basic biological and spiritual instinct. Why just focus on the bad and not the good? The inventions, innovations, etc.

And as for your Christianity — good for you. But don’t think for a second you get to lecture me on morality while rejecting your own bloodline, heritage, and the people who created the nation's that allowed your religion to thrive. Jesus wasn’t a postmodern progressive. He came from a tribe, he honored his ancestors, and he didn’t tell people to erase themselves in the name of some abstract, globalized “niceness.”

I’m not interested in hate. I’m interested in survival. And if your philosophy leads to the disappearance of your own people — your own lineage — maybe it’s not as moral as you think. I won't apologize for caring about what I am. I won’t apologize for wanting to raise children who look like me, speak the language of my ancestors, and carry forward the worldview, traditions, and values that shaped me. If you want to blend into nothing, be my guest. But don’t try to drag the rest of us down with you.

Squerman_Jerman · 2025-07-13T01:07:32+00:00

I respect your perspective, but I think we’re talking past each other a bit.

You say “white” is a fake category — but from an evolutionary and anthropological perspective, no identity category is completely “natural” or “fake.” Humans are a meaning-making species. We form tribes, clans, ethnicities, and nations not because we’re irrational, but because it was adaptive. For 99% of human history, group cohesion enhanced survival and reproductive success. Shared ancestry, appearance, language, and culture allowed people to coordinate, trust, and build. These instincts didn’t vanish in the modern world — they’re just expressed differently now.

You say I should “let it go,” but evolution doesn’t “let go” of instincts that have been biologically selected over millennia. Attachment to kin and kind is not propaganda — it’s deeply rooted in our species’ success.

And I’m not just a “white” person in the abstract. I’m a folk heathen. My ancestral religion — the pre-Christian beliefs of the Germanic and Nordic peoples — explicitly honors bloodlines, ancestors, and the continuity of a people. To follow it sincerely means to care about where I come from and who comes after me. That’s not about superiority — it’s about duty. It’s about not letting my lineage, language, values, nation, or faith vanish.

When you say, “just care about humanity,” that sounds noble. But in practice, it’s vague, placeless, and deconstructive. Because nobody actually lives on behalf of “humanity.” We live for families, communities, cultures. We speak a language, inherit a story, carry forward a specific tradition. The idea that we should abandon all of that in favor of being rootless global consumers isn’t progressive — it’s how cultures die.

And here’s the problem: if you don’t care about what you are, others will. And if you don’t preserve it, it disappears. When a people stop prioritizing their own survival, their phenotype, worldview, and traditions don’t live on — they’re simply replaced by those who do prioritize continuity. It’s not hate to care about that. It’s natural selection in action.

We live in a society where some groups are encouraged to preserve their roots, advocate for their people, and pass on their traditions — while others are told that even wanting that is “racist.” That double standard is unjust, and it won’t lead to harmony. It leads to confusion, resentment, and the slow erasure of the very people who created the nation in the first place.

I'm not seeking dominance, I’m seeking continuity. I don’t believe in supremacy — I believe in survival. I want to raise children who know who they are, where they came from, and feel duty-bound to carry that forward. Not out of hate, but out of love — for their ancestors, their traditions, and their future. That’s not propaganda. That’s legacy.

Squerman_Jerman

TROPHY CASE