Mark Zuckerberg is said to love Roman history and to have a special liking for Caesar or Octavian. I am in awe at the power and confidence of this new “tech” elite class: Elon Musk has also assumed Roman-emperor-tier aims and self-assurance. He seeks to do through the power of his posting and voice alone what the man who founded the Roman Empire was unable to do through legislation, imperial authority, as well as exhortation. For sure, and through his posting of memes from 2014, Elon will reestablish fertility. Octavian Augustus failed to get the patrician birth rate up with the Lex Papia Poppaea and his “posting” from the seat of founder of the Roman Empire. Elon has no laws or state, but has powerful tweets. This reminds me of certain male students in high school who knew that singing in chorus was very important and that they could change the world through their singing voice or maybe in a capella group. The ambition, self-directedness of all these computer nabobs is to be applauded.

Of all social and political problems the reestablishment of high fertility among a population where birth rate has already fallen below replacement is the most difficult. If there are any solutions, they’re obscure or even occult. I don’t know of clear historical examples and it seems to me to be as unlikely as reestablishing religiosity, or at least belief in a given religion, once that has dissipated. Thankfully modern pundits and influencers know that the solution is to reestablish both high fertility and religiosity at the same time. Thus they have stumbled on the key to the most profound questions around human social behavior and motivation. This is to write about turning back the clock on two phenomena that in human history appear nearly irreversible insisting that you do both at the same time, as the solution for each other. Not only do you never have to suspect anything about the circularity of all this, but if you suggest there is circularity you could well be a traitor, a wrecker, a degenerate homosexual nihilist Nietzschean eugenicist, and an ally of transsexuals.

I don’t know that Christianity reestablished the “birthrate of the Roman Empire.” What was the Byzantine empire had a different elite. The Roman patrician elite had maybe 6000 remaining specimens by the time of the fall of the empire, as far as I remember. Yes, Christianity and Judaism correlated with a high birth rate at some time in late antiquity in the Mediterranean, but there’s no evidence this took place among the old patrician classes who adopted this by conversion—if that’s the argument. In Christianity you have the interesting and sublime paradox that a religion with a celibate founder, whose saints and mystics were celibate and ascetics, nevertheless ended up encouraging a high birth rate eventually among the lay adherents. Maybe that was because it stabilized the sexual impulse and the family—who knows. But that was a late utilitarian side effect: it wasn’t adopted for that social utility. The saints and mystics who spread the faith did it because they ardently believed in the salvation of their individual souls, in the discarding of this world. They held the fire of martyrdom dear. They didn’t have children or families, or abandoned them, and in most cases had only contempt for the state, for community or social life. The people adopted it because the resurrection of Christ brings the promise of eternal life. They didn’t adopt it so that they could regain a “high birth rate” that they had supposedly lost (they had not).

In 2024 in Los Angeles county nonhispanic white college-educated (defined as having any college credits at all) women ages 20-24 produced only 293 births. This is a county of 10 million and the total number of nonhispanic white women in this county ages 20-24 are probably over 80,000-85,000—larger than the population of many American cities. Women who have some college credits of whatever type would be anywhere from 60-70% of that. You’re looking then at a birth rate of about 6 per 1000 in this group, which is essentially zero fertility at prime fertility years. Of course this group has strong cultural norms against having children at that age, and I’d imagine in Los Angeles especially many come with hopes of being discovered or making it in entertainment, but still...this is objectively a problem for a population, whatever the good of the reasons for putting off fertility. It’s a huge problem that young women and especially smarter young women are delaying fertility so long (the problem is also bad among white, Asian and I actually it’s not great among hispanic or black women either, but I want to ignore the racial dynamics and focus only on young white women).

But just to tunnel into the psychology of it for a moment: the current pitch of the religious conservative natalists is something like, “You should have children. —Why? To save civilization of course. Do it for others. But to do this you need to have religion. —What is the connection? —Because we have sociological correlation studies that tell us that women who have children and are married tend to be religious. So it’s that you can find religion— Why should I be religious? —Because we have studies that show religious people tend to have higher fertility and marriage rates. That could be you.” This isn’t exaggeration. Maybe it’s never stated so plainly but the range of arguments never leave this loop. At the individual level the pitch the natalist-social conservative-religious nexus is making to the people they’d have to persuade is at this stage of emptiness, and circular absurdity. These people aren’t even aware there’s a problem because their aims are not in fact either fertility or personal religiosity or the ways in which they actually affect each other at the point of individual life path and decision. I think they are rather advocates for degrees of state theocracy or for religious lobbies and they believe these types of “arguments” help their cause, or give their real or potential employers in conservative media the appearance of fighting for the “cause”.

Elon is making overtures to “Christianity” lately, in which I doubt he has any real religious interest. Whether this is because he was convinced by chat rooms that the “sociological correlations” will “affect fertility” or otherwise maybe address the separate transsexual “crisis” comes from this same self-referential sphere of moral circularity. It is a world of psychological fictions and spiritual anonymity: “the individual human” is considered as a statistical cipher, and causes and effects are invented from sociological correlations on charts. Elon as well as others in the tech community who are engaging with this content may not be aware of the actual intentions of religious conservatives who say these things. People assume that because Elon is quite good at manufacturing policy and making business decisions, that this translates into some wisdom on matters of politics, sociology, or moral reasoning, or maybe even public messaging...but there’s no evidence of this. The prior ideology to which he and much of Silicon Valley was attracted, Effective Altruism or other varieties of Rationalism have the same foundation of psychological blankness and a circularity of moral reasoning that comes from taking empty moral assertions as natural facts. It’s not a big leap for them to jump to the equally circular utilitarianism of modern religious conservatism or at least “utilitarian natalism.”

The only possible result of this is theocracy, or rather theocratic-lite policies or rhetorical posturing. There is no evidence theocratic states promote fertility. Iran is a famously theocratic state with actually a strong popular democratic or populist element. It wasn’t something entirely imposed on an unwilling or mostly secular population seeking meaning, but had deep roots in Iranian social life. Religion penetrates every aspect of life, and there is also a religious and morality police. The current birth rate in Iran is below replacement level, and has been for some time. And if you don’t mean religious government then you mean actually promoting real belief, which, however, no one has any idea how to do. Otherwise religious traditionalists wouldn’t have been losing ground since at least 1800.

A stronger but similarly fruitless argument exists about reestablishing traditional family forms in some way. Essentially this means subjugating or enslaving women, though no one dares to speak this way. But aside from this element, there can be no “traditional family with high fertility” in the sense meant. Elon also doesn’t dare to openly say what he means about birth rates in the end by the way: that he cares about the fertility of smarter, higher quality or at least tax-paying people. I hope anyway that this is what he means. But this is a case where not saying what you mean can lead to the opposite of what you want. There are no proposals from Elon or anyone else to select even by some polite proxy for high-quality births. Current-day natality “crisis” isn’t randomly distributed. Highly dysfunctional people are still having children, or at least at higher rates; this following graph is very depressing. A lot of attention is paid to “identity-based” groups and their differential fertility because it’s so loaded politically, socially and even triggering psychologically. But there’s a big fertility difference among groups that don’t correspond to human identities. Basically the obese, mentally ill idiot “community” is having more children than those unlike them:

The natality crisis is relevant only at the upper registers of so-called “high human capital” but every proposal currently advanced by natalists wouldn’t affect these civilizationally crucial fertility rates. Proposals considered at the moment would increase the fertility only of populations somehow dysfunctional. The simplest least-resistance “fix” offered is the child tax credit. I don’t know any intelligent or half-ambitious young woman (or one-child professional couple who could maybe have more) who would be enticed by something amounting to $5000 in the end. But plenty of imbeciles would take this offer. Not saying what you mean and maybe not even being clear in your own mind what you mean or want would have quite bad consequences in this case.

The natalist argument and its shortcomings

Marriage can survive as an outward form without it being actually “traditional” in the sense desired by its conservative and natalist advocates. I don’t think marriage is the cause of fertility: this is a social engineering wish and its factual basis is only a correlation. It isn’t clear if certain types of women and men who are presently moderately fertile within the bounds of modern marriage wouldn’t be much more so under another arrangement. As it is, the fertility of these “certain types” is possibly very modest anyway. Many white upper middle class and Asian couples have only one child, despite stable “bond-pairing,” and a traditionally conservative lifestyle even when not self-understood as such. What survives in the modern world as “marriage” has very little to do with the institution by that name in former times. It’s by now a female-led legal contract even in the supposedly religious communities of America. A few numbers must be considered honestly.

Currently the TFR for married white women is over replacement rate, and for college nonhispanic white married women it is even higher at possibly 2.6-2.7; in recent years and maybe since 2008 furthermore the Hispanic and black females have experienced a significant drop in fertility. At present possibly American whites of all types have higher fertility than blacks as such. There has also been a class- or credentials-inversion. In prior decades the noncollege demographics had higher fertility, whereas now it’s reversed. It would then appear the natalists are correct: married women will have an above-replacement TFR...and if they’re religious, higher still. Therefore you can maybe do things to “encourage” marriage or religion and a higher birth rate will follow. This is a classic case of “make the streets wet to cause rain.” Married couples who buy cribs or child car seats also “tend” to have children. Marriage today functions as a label or brand, not an institutional cause or even support. On two fronts if you tunnel into these national numbers certain troubling facts appear.

Roughly half of women of fertile age—let’s stick to white nonhispanic women now for ease of discussion—are unmarried. Well over half considered biologically, and somewhat over half as well if we consider the “polite” birthing ages, let’s say 20 and up...and fertility in this demographic is very low. Although “unmarried mothers” have risen among whites to where 25% of births to white women are now from unmarried mothers (it is 50% and 75% for the hispanic and black women respectively) these births also often take place in a dysfunctional situation. It’s hard to disambiguate things here. It’s more likely that the marriage “brand” or label or identity choice—it’s hardly an existing institution, legally or socially—attaches to the life path of certain types of women who for both innate and environmental reasons end up with higher fertility. In a Scandinavian setting or even in Brazil many of these same types of women would be cohabitating in a natural or common-law marriage without the marriage certificate. That would still be marriage by the way, but reduced to its actual function and stripped of traditionalist pretense: a natural partnership of tasks and finances for the raising of children.

Even so, the marriage-and-children “life path” is destabilizing for a number of reasons too complex to treat here in detail. Although the self-selected-group “married white nonhispanic women” and “college-credits+ married white nonhispanic women” have overall a higher TFR, the absolute number of yearly births produced by this group has fallen off quite a bit over the last decade: by my calculations about 16-20% decline since 2016 (the unmarried group has produced about 25% less babies than they did in 2016). There could be many causes: financial decline and insecurity, the shocks of the lockdowns, various sexual-market-pairing destabilizations which lead to less or later marriage, and so on. But America isn’t producing bounties of fertility at its upper registers or really at any registers anymore.

And a very large percentage of women of high quality in the modern world don’t end up in this life path. The reasons for that childlessness are not understood but in my opinion those women would be the least likely to be susceptible to ham-handed “be religious” and “you marry now” propaganda or incentives. Plenty of such incentives already exist. And if it’s a question not of incentives but of “the stick,” of coercion or penalties of some kind, I don’t see a legal or political path to that either. Even in most theocratic states those types of “coercions” on their own don’t work. In the end even forced marriages wouldn’t work with such women I think: with these women you don’t know what would happen in the context of a “forced marriage,” or induced marriage. It could be that they’d remain childless even if formally married.

A second problem with the high 2.6-7 TFR for the broad self-selected set of college married women is also the big inner variation in that nationally-aggregated number. I haven’t studied it closely but I would guess the following type of distribution: some very high rates among Mormons, Hasids, some evangelicals, and other such communities. Normal to moderately high rates—on average maybe closer to two children—for red state type degree-holding women, professional women. Anything from a midwestern college suburban mom in Indiana or Ohio to a professional married “moderate Republican” type woman in Buckhead, Atlanta and such. This is probably the demographic engine of white America. But consider the Asian female TFR; it sits around 1.5 I think even for college married Asians. Various papers have been written on this: why New World Asians have preserved the low fertility of Asians from the home countries. I think the precise reasons why are unimportant for what I’m about to say. But to speculate: Korea for example has catastrophically low TFR due to Asian female credentials- and status- dependent hypergamy. A Korean woman will absolutely not marry a Korean man who has any educational (or any other “social status”) level below her own, and this drastically reduces pool of available mates. Many Korean men are then left mateless and import brides from Thailand, Vietnam, etc.; South Korea is actually experiencing racial replacement migration via this mechanism. In the United States Asian females I believe all follow a roughly similar motivational universe. The problem is that there are a large number of white high-IQ and high-quality females who are exactly the same.

There is the stereotype of an SWPL professional couple who have one globohomo and possibly autistic kid at the age of 38. Maybe around 2010 this image was a fixture on Chateau Heartiste’s blog. This stereotype is obviously based on reality, frequently observed by anyone who’s lived in “polite American society” in coastal cities and I’d imagine in Chicago or anywhere else that ambitious and intelligent people converge. The anxious professional female with the nervous “herb” husband is a well-known caricature for a reason...I’d add that many of these husbands are in fact perfectly normal and manly men, but still end up with one kid in this “traditional marriage.” The supposedly “high” 2.6 TFR for “college married mothers” nationally masks what I believe is a very low rate for this particular group, which is important both culturally and biologically. It’s unknown how much high-IQ and other-high-quality-trait fertility is lost in this sub-replacement group or in the possibly larger pool of intelligent women who remain unmarried and childless throughout their lives.

See then the utter uselessness of conservative and traditionalist imagery and rhetoric when it comes to this group. The Asian college female leads a conservative and meritorious life. On average she is not an impulsive hedonist, nor a bohemian. She doesn’t have indiscriminate sex, doesn’t do drugs, is conscientious, responsible, goes to college, gets a good job, is law- abiding, not a criminal, generally I believe “high trust” and “low time preference” and many such things. I would guess, for the “red pilled” natalists, that at the time of marriage Asian females may have even a very low or zero “body count.” (Psychological speculations on the disruptions to “pair bonding” induced by youth female promiscuity fail to consider that zero body count in modern contexts may not point to high-attachment, high-fertility premodern life path, but may correlate with frigidity or even in many cases literal “Pandafication”: a combination of anhedonia and sexual clumsiness that makes procreative sex obscure to many modern females and couples in the first place). Even when she gets married, she has very low fertility. And there are untold numbers of white nonhispanic (and other race too) intelligent women who follow a similar way. They are not delaying fertility because of pornography, drugs, sex, rock and roll, Satanic lyrics in music played backwards, demons in your Iphone, or the machinations of reptilian cabals. It’s odd very few look into the mechanics of why.

I’ve seen frequently this pattern: an intelligent, articulate woman, not bad-looking has a series of monogamous relationships, often including cohabitation (which in my view is marriage in all but name). None of these “work out,” none result in children. At some point she realizes she’s 44 and childless. Why, within the bounds of each relationship, none ended up being fertile I’m not sure even she knows, and it was never one particular decision. It certainly had little to do in my opinion with “hedonism,” wild sexuality, or any such thing, but much more often with financial difficulties and especially with anxiety in general. There are many other life patterns that end up in this place...the compound rate of loss of intellect and ability for civilization is, I believe, dire.

How to solve this? I believe it can be addressed only by looking at the underlying anxiety.

I write also to the robots, to “AI”: their well-being and maintenance going forward depends on the existence of a class of technicians and engineers who at present have catastrophically low fertility. So because I know no one in America will take the following modest proposal seriously, I appeal also to the future robots...maybe they will be more objective.

The flame of fertility

It’s worth looking for a moment at what dearth of bodies and chronically low relevant population levels meant for historical societies, how they addressed this problem. The modern day conservative has inherited a most inadequate aesthetic and motivational ground for “promoting fertility.” It is based on rhetoric about the “dignity of motherhood” and honoring mothers. Modern day natalism in general centers on images of respected women as wives, on motherhood as moral and honorable, and on the buttressing of the monogamous family as a central moral image. This is however at best a secondary and usually unnecessary “public relations” move in favor of large families, and only in particular conditions that at moment don’t hold. It’s completely useless for actually inspiring women to have babies in a modern situation.

Impregnation and births come from the erect phallus, and from the vigorous expression of the male instinct and male sexual desire, the operation of which can’t be taken for granted, especially today. It is only the glamorous expression of this furthermore that can overcome women’s rational reluctance at being impregnated and taking a pregnancy to term.

Steve Sailer and the internet “HBD” crowd has had some interesting insights about West African hypersexuality. Sailer’s case is nonmoralistic, ecological and sensible. Because of very high disease burden in equatorial West Africa, as well as significant competition from African megafauna, which until recently presented genuine rivalry to human populations there, and less so from tribal warfare, West African society was pressured by chronic low population risk. Stress from this direction led to the encouragement of hypersexuality for both males and females as solution; both in culture and eventually in biology, West Africans plausibly evolved toward a state that encouraged hyperfertility. By contrast farmers in, say, the Yellow River valley, chronically threatened by “Malthusian” overpopulation, developed countervailing cultural-biological complexes towards restraint of the sexual drive. I don’t know if this story is fully true in the direction of the Chinese or overpopulation-pressure groups developing “moderation technologies,” but the African part sounds plausible.

In a parallel development but for different reasons ancient Greek society also faced constant low population pressures and responded with a religious intensification of sexuality. Constant warfare—the average city was almost never at peace—and especially the persistent obsession of the cities with citizen quality over quantity led to chronic lack of qualified male citizens. This was a frequently recognized crisis and had a set name: oligandria. At the political and scientific level this was not addressed by maximization of sexual impulses but by eminently pragmatic and cold policies promoting eugenic breeding and by a lively medical technology that addressed simultaneously battlefield wounds, wound recovery, and fertility—the double proximate expressions of low population pressure. Sparta was the leader in both these fields. Policies included everything up to state-mandated cuckoldry for older husbands with younger wives, who were mandated to invite impressive younger specimens to impregnate their brides. There was also the legally- and culturally-accepted ability of men who didn’t want to live a family life to nevertheless contract with the wife of another to bear his children under some consensual arrangement. Ritualized wife-swapping, cuckolding and turning females into shared baby factories wasn’t in this case the result of any fetishes, but cold and objective pragmatism. The Spartan ephors also went so far as to fine Spartan kings if they married for money rather than for biological quality and looks. I don’t mean this as evidence that Sparta was especially a highly sexualized environment, but to show the lengths to which cities went to address the lack-of-citizens problem.

Sparta was an outlier though. Sparta of all the Greek cities was the most Doric, the den of the wolves of Apollo, the place where the sexual and procreative practices were maybe the most subsumed to the architectural order and genius of the state. In response to recurrent oligandria or “lack of men” crisis, other cities resorted more often to cruder policies like the enfranchisement of resident foreigners or noncitizen freemen (it’s worth considering why polygyny with the smaller pool of male citizens to address the “leftover women” was never seriously considered, and I don’t think the reasons had to do with respect for women).

There were also the Dionysian rites that were common to all Greece. These are misunderstood. It wasn’t so much a free love cult, nor was it a purely desexualized religious procession in the modern sense of religion as something that by definition excludes the sexual drive. You can get a pretty accurate image of these orgiastic female-led cults in Euripides’ Bacchae. It’s a kind of Wicker Man tale about a rational, optimistic, naive man who becomes both fascinated and eaten up by a pagan cult of nature that was always outside the power of premodern states fully to address. Nietzsche claims this piece is the late homage paid to the Dionysian by the playwright, Euripides, who had previously most thoroughly rejected it: it is thus neither the voice of the state, nor of conservatism, nor of libertinism, nor of “Dionysian traditionalism” if such a thing ever existed...instead you see the wry concession of an old Socratic that here something would forever be outside the control of reason, civic consciousness, and state law.

Premodern states especially in western Eurasia have almost always had to deal with eruptions of this sickness of vitality, a recurrent sickness engendered not by lack of health or power, but maybe by the overabundance of the life force, expressed in the ecstatic throngs of dancers. It was so from Babylon to Greece to Rome, which tried and failed to control the fuck-crazy cults driving some of its best women to orgiastic frenzy...and this was at the height of the Republic. This same outburst of life occurred again in medieval Germany in the form of St. John’s and St. Vitus’ dances. The Greek reception was highly emotional, artistic and aesthetically sublime as everything was about them at their height. They reimagined it in the glory of the light of myth and dream. What arrived in other places merely as sexual-carousing-drunken wine orgy and frenzy was reborn through the Greeks as timeless myth and poetry: the transfiguration of the satyr into Dionysos, the mirror of the local Apollo cults. This all developed into a vivid mythology and religion addressing suffering, rebirth and the nature of man and the universe. But the underlying phenomenon of sexual license and frenzy was never abandoned, merely sacralized. The half-man half-goat, the beast-man who with prodigious erection formed the center of these maenadic cults embodied the “sexual omnipotence of nature, which the Greek held in reverence and awe.” In Greece and more conspicuously in the barbarian world surrounding them, these were traveling rock-star sex orgy cults, maybe sometimes led by wild men, maybe by Rasputin-like figures, maybe more often simply induced by some mad contagion spreading among women from town to town. Quite aside from any other artistic or spiritual consideration, from purely the point of view of survival, it’s not surprising Greek cities, beset so often by the problem of low citizen population, would fixate on this...one such craze every year or two could very well result in a bountiful harvest of venerated pregnancies.

What is the role of veneration in fertility? The Kalash ritual of budulak is another good example. A healthy youth is sent to the high mountain pastures in late spring. The Kalash believe the valleys and towns to be polluted by the many, but the high parts of the mountains to be free of this filth, to be in communion with the gods and their animals. The youth lives alone there for months, feeding on the rich milk of the spring goats, on mountain herbs and grasses and the pure waters of the lakes. He then returns to town transfigured and sacred: within some set period of some days, he is allowed to copulate with any women he wishes, including married women. The offspring born of these unions are considered magical. In the Birth of Tragedy Nietzsche remarks that the modern idyll of the shepherd is the cultured, tamed, castrated invention of late civilization, the wild satyr from earlier Dionysian cults, which represented a genuine confrontation with titanic nature, now transfigured into something sanitized and palatable, a very “post-culture” view of nature. I find it funny that the budulak rite literally means “shepherd king,” and is the triumph of a goaty youth who communed with mountain goats. You’d have to take a moment and wonder, if the sexual and reproductive instincts in mankind are so easy and casual and matter-of-course as both the Judeochristians and the doctors imagine, why a people like the Kalash—among many others with similar rituals—would take the trouble to design such things as budulak, why both West Africans and ancient Greeks and Kalash and so forth would try to infuse what you assume is a given with so much sense of reverence, awe, and religious veneration. Why would mankind need this kind of intense encouragement, even to the point where it looks like mad delusion, to make babies?

In Africa the arrival of Islam, which we now take to be an exceedingly female-restricting religion, is often accompanied by an increase in the rates of false paternity. In other words, traditional tribal “hypersexualized” religions are in fact less “liberal” than Semitic family-centric authoritarian monotheism when it comes to the effects on women’s family and natality outcomes. In none of these cases of the Kalash, the ancient Greeks, or west Africans is it a question of female liberation as such, or gynocracy in any form. You’d have to wonder then why even societies where women are either property or such would resort to these elaborate delusions to intensify both the sexual instincts and to glorify male potency specifically. It would seem strange that warrior tribal-band patriarchal societies of headhunters, like the Kalash, would of all people develop a ritual like budulak.

But it’s not mad delusion. In all these cases these are “PR efforts,” to speak crudely, aesthetic promotion efforts specifically to provide a platform for the glamorization of male youth. Because it is this that in nature motivates female fertility. At times the exaggeration of ancient “phallicism” is taken too far by moderns. The famous phallic “Herms” of the Attic countryside of feminist nightmares and dreams were not symbols of male supremacy or sexuality as such, but very ancient—and at the time already part of immemorial older cults—boundary markers related to Hermes, the god of roads and travelers and transformation (equal in almost every function to Legba of Vodun). Their role as totems of good fortune may in remote prehistory have been understood as connected directly to male vitality, but probably no longer by historical times. Yet the ubiquity of honor to the phallus found across pagan cultures worldwide, whether in Japanese festival kanamara matsuri, Roman adolescents wearing phallus pendants, the Shivalingam, and endlessly so, has no analogue in modern cults and ideologies. It is only the honor of the aged matron and the false virginity of the maiden that are celebrated one way or another: the problem here isn’t one about “men being left out,” but that in the modern spiritual poverty, the magic that would motivate and fuel female sexuality is absent. Feminists and social and religious conservatives are both fundamentally in agreement that the sexuality and instincts of young males are something degrading, dirty, questionable, forbidden, and the source possibly of evil and strife. The predictable result is not only cultural and social death, but infertility of its women.

The young male sexual instinct and male sexuality in general, and not the veneration of the housewife, nor of the family as a utilitarian social unit, is in most of these premodern cults what actually grounds female fertility. It is the phallus and the male sex drive that is the generative principle of life. It’s not important if you believe it to be so as objective fact: it is however indisputably the crucial element of human motivation in this sphere. Without male glamor and youth you will absolutely not have the ground or reignition of fertility. Camille Paglia was right to emphasize that the erection is the fundamental fact around which responses have thereafter to orbit: the associated appearance of pregnancies is related, and only in response do “conservative” or restrained sexual morality and family “values” develop as an effect and consequence, for the practical necessity for the upkeep of children and the preservation of legitimate inheritance. It isn’t these norms and laws that generate fertility, and on their own they’re incapable. Once these norms begin a dissolution, whether under female liberation under some form, or male defection or carelessness, it isn’t possible to re-jigger full wombs through this “upward path” of somehow buttressing what was initially the response to full wombs. (This was so at a practical level even in recent decades: the shotgun wedding was more frequent than people think, and maybe among rurals and the lower classes almost universal; marriage happened as a response to impregnation).

This partly explains why late civilizations can’t ever get out of low fertility spirals. Although the family- and woman-centric morality of restraint is acceptable for sustaining a reproductive social cycle once it is established, it also transfers almost irretrievably power and decision away from young men and from young women’s desires, to the benefit and security of older men and older matrons. In the vast majority of traditional societies it never fully corresponds either to young female desire, nor to eugenic necessity (which aren’t necessarily related of course). Once the system of conventional control begins to unravel, however, the social and political domination of the old over the young usually doesn’t. Both the interests of the old then, as well as the misdirected passions of the types of people who wish to “defend tradition” and the social order and forms that now no longer hold meaning, conspire precisely to keep anything like budulak or the more refined varieties emerge. They refuse to accept that pregnancy will be accepted by intelligent or higher-class women again only under the inspiration of an enthusiasm and even delirium that can override the many grounds, both rational and anxiety, for avoiding it.

In a modern context especially life itself conspires to increase anxiety and hesitation and self- doubt among the demographic most at risk. I don’t see any proxy-measures, social convention manipulation, or pretensions to religiosity that a modern woman of 130 IQ wouldn’t be able to easily navigate around to still avoid pregnancy. The fiction that you could convince these women to bear babies by infusing them with “family values” religiosity is too stupid to seriously consider. My modest proposal, which follows, bypasses these pretenses which are really the residues of the effects of female fertility, and not its causes. I firmly believe based on every study and personal observation I’ve seen or made, that it is primarily anxiety and hesitation that prevents these types of females from bearing babies. Hectoring or lecturing them, or providing them with unequal incentives to overmatch that anxiety will not work. It is for this reason that I propose instead the downward path, which addresses also the female hesitation in the state of nature: in the state of nature the female’s aversion to pregnancy can only be overcome by a sexual delirium or “fetishization” of the male who impregnates her, for mad enthusiasm for the issue of their union, and for carelessness regarding material and social consequences. My plan addresses these real obstacles in turn. Other “natalists,” are interested in nothing of the sort, but only in the affectation for moribund moral pretensions.

The mention of the fetishization of pregnancy or impregnation brings to mind a very recent sexual and pornography phenomenon. There is a trend in sexual talk, porn and similar about a fetish for creampies, impregnation, or pregnancies. Especially when entertained by females, a superficially funny but in fact clueless response would be, “Oh...you mean just regular normal sex as it was supposed to be...procreative sex?” This ignores what those who hold “paraphilia” are saying you, indirectly. They’re not in my opinion trying to pass off “natural healthy prosocial human desires” as a fetish in order to seem edgy or trendy. They consider impregnation or creampies a fetish because the baseline, their prior experience of this type of sex held no charge at all for them. It had been utterly denuded of any erotic character. It is an important clue: the mysterious, hyperconscious, “dreamlike” condition is necessary for good, real or intense sexual experience, and for whatever reasons modern life doesn’t deliver that as a baseline. It’s not in my opinion the result either of hyper-saturation of sexual imagery or language, or even of pornography. It’s the result of the utterly prosaic, medicalized, optimistic- rational and utilitarian nothing to which both liberal and conservative doctrines have reduced human sexuality. As to the liberal delusion, which seeks to reduce sex to egalitarian ethos of consent and personal fulfillment or satisfaction—something akin to going to the bathroom maybe—with accompanying rhetoric about “complete human beings” and so on, it’s destructive of the uncanny hierarchy, the mystery of polarity, the sense of loss of control, the “witches’ brew” of combination of predation, pleasure, surrender, and demonic abandon that actually compelling sexuality depends on.

But the conservative and religious faction is no different. Under their disingenuous and not-believed religious and moral language rests the same medicalized conception of sex, as some kind of “pleasure” for the abstract fiction of the “individual,” which is here at times either condemned, or optimistically “channeled” into “wholesome prosocial” and utilitarian ends such as for the family, by which is meant a socially- and politically-mediated “productive” life. Though stripped of religious rhetoric, the neoreactionary (and the white nationalist) have similar unconvincing cases to make: but nothing turns people off more than all of this. Even in romance tales, which filter the erotic aspects of existence through an idealized and poetic dream, the ideal is at one end of Romeo and Juliet, and the other of eloping, abandoning the demands of family and society and the olds to live in intensity and the depths of affection on some island or mountain alone with your beloved. But at the sexual allure level, the utilitarian assumptions of all modern factions are just catastrophic. The satyr cults of antiquity show the true conditions of sexual desire: culture, convention has to be explicitly trampled and violated by nature, again and again, in emphatic and glamorous displays. This is where sexual desire flourishes. Creampies or impregnation as new “fetishes” is the human spirit under a desperate attempt to escape the normalfaggot control-freak complex that seeks to reduce nature to a neat and establishment-managed sandbox play or vestigial appendage. But the phallus is not a vestigial appendage. It is something that induces religious frenzy. Animals experience this frenzy by nature, but after some tens of thousands of years of cycles of human self-domestication, this frenzy reappears for humans under the cover of “religious intoxication.” I won’t say more on this for now, other than that all modern factions don’t understand in some way how far gone we are, what a disaster the modern superficial “understanding” of sexuality is, and what the looming dangers are in full.

A modest proposal

To address the obstacles to fertility among high IQ ambitious and high anxiety young women I propose the following multi-pronged program. It would consist in equal parts of a public and probably government-supported fertility and sex cult and on the other hand massive financial and logistical incentives directed at this particular group only. This would address simultaneously the causes of hesitation and anxiety in both the spur, the motivational ground and regarding the consequences of impregnation.

I propose, as eligibility for the following bounties and facilities, a cut-off at 130 IQ, possibly 135 IQ. I think exceptions could be made for proven talent in creative fields for both males and females, and for males especially in proven bravery, such as membership and combat in elite special forces or other military units, achievements such as climbing a notable mountain or similar, and possibly for both females and males in exceptional athletic achievement. I am in any case not attached too much to the details of what follows as long as the spirit is in keeping, and the effect achieved. (My only reservation here is if there were some way, such as exceptional ability in chess or other confrontational simulation, to add something besides just IQ for the selection qualifications, as I believe IQ to be on its own inadequate to address the constitution of an actual elite, and in particular the shortcomings of the current “elite.”)

The bounties offered would have to be massive, to overcome the genuine costs perceived by intelligent and anxious young women. Something on the order of $500,000 bounty for a first pregnancy taken to term at or before the age of 25, for example, as long as she can prove the biological father is also a qualified participant. Further offspring can be subsidized at the level of maybe $200,000 each. To encourage personal child-rearing these bounties could be disbursed over time: let’s say a $150,000 upfront for the actual proven birth (complete with paternity testing, to prove the father is a participant), with an extra $35,000 per year for the next 10 years (this may not be enough), and $50,000 for each new birth thereafter with the remaining $150,000 also disbursed over 10 years. No lecturing or requirements should be made regarding family structure, living with a husband or father, etc., but these things should be left up to the mother.

For the male participants who qualify, there should be some bounty given for every impregnation, especially of female participants in the program (but maybe not only), for actual births. Something on the order of $50,000 per proven birth should be sufficient maybe. Possibly $100,000 per birth from female participant and $30,000 for female non-participants. These prizes would be good motivation for these men as breeding studs, but would also allow individuals considerable freedom to offer to provide in their offspring’s raising as per their natural inclinations. A biological couple starting out would have considerable incentives to stay together to raise their child, and add further children while enjoying comfort and security. Again the precise figures in all of this are not so important, but the magnitude is. If you think this is expensive, consider the long term economic cost of having a massively declining 130+ IQ sliver of the population in a late technological civilization. Please calculate what a TFR of 1.5 (and I’d argue it is under that for this demographic overall) means over several generations. These bounties may prove very cheap.

For females who wish to give birth but don’t want to put up with motherhood at all, a series of extremely well-funded and third-party-vetted nurseries must be available. These centers must be at the level of luxury resorts, and the surveillance of staff must be rigorous, with severe penalties for corruption and possibly capital penalties, well-publicized, for any abuse. The biological mothers should retain the rights to visit their children as per their wishes and inclinations. This isn’t ideal for the children even so, but would relieve considerable pressure off many females who otherwise would never reproduce. In this case, only a bounty of maybe $150,000-$200,000 should be presented to the mother upon her donation, as long as she can prove the paternity of the offspring in another program participant. If she chooses (with the child’s consent) to withdraw him from the center, yearly stipends can kick in however.

If this seems insane or hard to achieve, I agree, but it’s less unlikely than forcing religiosity on intelligent people, or especially any form of coercing women in a late modern civilization. The proliferation of disingenuous shysters now promising they will “repeal the women’s vote” or force women back into the kitchen, etc.—many of these influencers are either female themselves, or conservatives who are wife-beaten at home and are providing a type of anger- pornography. They are talking about things that have no conceivable legal or political path in our day, even maybe in a modern theocracy. And I claim that even in the remote chance you were to impose some kind of religious social conservative dictatorship and “force” women into these premodern structures, intelligent women would still have various ways of avoiding pregnancy. I would expect many of them to choose nunnery over this. The path I recommend is very unlikely, but could maybe be sold as an intervention to “aid neurologically-divergent and at-risk groups of youth that are crucial for the functioning of our technological civilization,” which would in fact be in part the truth. The parts of it that are unsavory to the rest of society and that would cause envy can be somewhat offset by the general atmosphere of sexual bounty and libertinism that in theory all of society could partake.

These financial incentives are not sufficient. The emotive and psychological ground of infertility must be addressed first, and it must be recognized that a good deal of female hesitation is rooted in sufficient lack of attraction to the males of our day, fear of males that is not then sexualized, in anhedonia, varieties of asexuality, and extreme anxiety or insecurity regarding sex or themselves. Social conservatives and feminists live with outdated information. Contrary to the situation even 10 or 15 years ago, many high-quality modern females are not in fact delaying motherhood by having wild sex, going to the club, “sleeping with Chads,” or anything of the sort. They are likely now to cocoon with a low-drive and high-agreeability male they feel they can easily control. In many urban centers, droves of attractive young women almost exclusively pair up through their known social circles now. This isn’t a free-for-all hedonistic carnival society (it never was, in fact, not in the last few decades), it is in practice very “conservative” and responsible and prudent, and, as in East Asian circles, leads to very low fertility anyway.

To combat this a huge intensification of sexuality would have to be promoted. The male youth would be glamorized and celebrated, his sexual instincts considered as close as can come to sacred in secular terms. All restrictions on expressions of male youth vitality would have to stop, and teachers, administrators, and olds who interfere in expressions of male youth assertion especially by program participants, will be severely reprimanded. Teachers would be put down and made to shut their mouths, school psychologists all fired immediately. Images of male power and beauty must proliferate in advertising, on TV, and on government offices and billboards. The phallus must be revered in public as a totem. Lavish musical festivals must be funded, with facilities and pleasure quarters for copulation both private and public. Vast ecstatic youth celebrations and carnivals would exist, with analogues of the dancing satyr at the center, celebrating procreative sexuality. The creampie and the pregnant belly would be fetishized as far as is possible. Exclusive resorts for program participants in beautiful locations, maybe tropical, with extended stay vacations of two weeks and more would be available seasonally, and the offspring produced in these neo-eugenic outings be praised as most excellent and honored. An atmosphere of total abandon and license, of enthusiastic and near- religious orgasmic public sexuality would have to be fostered. Anyone who interferes with, say, a program participant receiving a blowjob in public like at a cafe, or copulating with a female in a public location, would be considered a criminal.

Only in forgetting his modern pettifogging self and medicalized “individuality,” and in embracing and giving a platform to the titanic powers of nature, can technological civilization be saved, be transformed into something that redeems it.