All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 21, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:05:28
The Truth About Birth Rates!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right.
Good morning, everybody.
Time to break it down to Chinatown.
It is Sefan Molyneux from FreeDomain.
Don't forget shop.freedomain.com for your swaggy pirate philosophy merch.
That is shop.freedomain.com.
Also freedomaine.com slash donate to help out the show now.
A listener has asked to break down low birth rates like your Aristotle.
Well, I can certainly break down, I don't know exactly how it would be like Aristotle.
What am I, AI?
No, just I.
But it's certainly worth a discussion.
This is going to be a lengthy but very powerful discussion.
So here is the situation with birth rates.
So as you know, across the developed world, in general, among the higher IQ native population, birth rates are down to absolutely catastrophic levels.
It's like civilization is a virus that kills reproduction.
Civilization can be viewed almost as an antibacterial or an antibiotic or something like that, except it kills healthy cells, not cancer or viruses or bacteria.
In many ways, of course, you can look at civilization as an autoimmune disorder which attacks healthy cells.
So the question is, how is it possible that success is failure?
How is it possible that the staggering wealth that we have accumulated over the past couple of hundred years, say 200 years, the staggering wealth that we have accumulated should be an extinction event for so many civilizations?
And don't kid yourself, like it is, I hate that sort of phrase, it's an existential crisis because it's overused.
But it is.
But it is.
If you have a birth rate, as some East Asian countries have, of 1.2, I mean, you're basically wiped out in a couple of generations.
I mean, the story of humanity is a million years old.
And birth rates in the last 70 years or so have collapsed to the point where the million year or four billion year march of dumb genetics to high intelligence can be functionally and effectively wiped out.
That's number one, just to give a very clear sense of how important this issue is, how essential it is.
So that's number one.
Number two is that no one knows how to do two things, how to permanently increase IQ and how to reverse a decline in the birth rate.
I mean, I know how to do it, but I don't know that people have the stomach to do it.
Civilization makes you soft.
You don't have to make hard and tough decisions.
Again, this is Roman's critique of civilization for my novel, The Future, that you get out of the habit of making tough decisions and then you get neurotic and weak about everything and you toast.
You're just taken over.
So the fundamental question to me is, is the birth rate decline artificial or natural?
Is it the result of propaganda or is it the result of inevitable social, economic, political, biological forces?
Well, it is certainly not innate in that excess resources breed a lower birth rate.
No, that is not the case at all.
Because if you look at the continent of Africa in general, it has received trillions and trillions of dollars of aid, thus producing wealth that before that aid arrived on the continent was incomprehensible.
And the birth rate is in some places five, six, or more to two, right?
You need 2.1 because of slight mortality, a 5% mortality, you need 2.1 births to maintain population without immigration.
And it is five, six, or more per couple in Africa.
And Africa has staggering wealth relative to its evolution and its access to wealth in the past.
And the birth rate has not gone down at all.
So there are those who are intelligent and those who wish to control others.
And there are those who are intelligent who wish to be free.
And the most foundational war is waged against the control smarts and the freedom smarts, the controllers and the libertarians.
The sociopathy of the controllers is pretty well documented.
It's sort of not much point going over it here.
I think it's all pretty well understood that they live to control, they live to dominate, they live to bully, they live to bribe, they live to manipulate.
And the people who are the libertarians, the freedom lovers, we live to be free and we want to control others is horrible because we want love and you can't have love while controlling others.
That's not a possibility that exists in this or any other universe.
To be loved, the person has to choose you.
And if you force that choice, if you control that person's environment, then you can't be left.
And love is the greatest treasure.
So if you want to be loved, you have to promote freedom.
If you want to think, you have to promote freedom.
And of course, there are countless sociopathic control freaks in the world who hate themselves, who hate humanity, and who love control.
They're power junkies, right?
Addicts to controlling others.
They have given up on love in the same way that an addict who chooses heroin cannot also choose to be loved.
Because when you become a heroin addict, you become a thief, a manipulator, an emotional terrorist, and you can't be left.
You've chosen the drug over your humanity.
And that's the reality of the situation.
You either choose the drug or you choose love.
And the people who are in charge or in control have chosen the drug of power, and therefore they cannot stop their control.
They can only increase and escalate their control.
Love is a pleasure that grows in the practice.
Addiction is an emptiness that grows in the practice, which is why you need more and more drugs, more and more stimuli, to try to achieve the same level of happiness, or at least to prevent the crash.
There are many addicts who are so addicted that they would rather die than fail to have their drug, fail to get their drug.
And we know this because they will take the drug even at the risk of death.
Overdoses are very common.
So they have so wired up their biology that it is preferable for them to risk death or to die rather than give up their control.
This is sort of a foundational psychological reality of humanity.
It's a fork in the road.
It's a fork in the road.
If you take the genuine happiness of virtue and love, you're not an addict.
If you take the unholy joy of power, control, subjugation, and violence, if you choose to be a thief rather than a producer, then you're all in.
You're all in, which is why historically people don't give up power.
They have to be taken out of power in one way or another, such as the American Revolution.
So the people who are controllers, the controllers versus the libertarians, they're natural enemies.
Of course, people who want to control you are going to be natural antipathies to you who want to be free of control.
Now, the people who want to control others who are highly intelligent are vastly outnumbered by the people who want to be free, who are highly intelligent.
The controllers are a far smaller number than the libertarians.
And people generally side with freedom fighters over controllers.
And so the controllers have a problem in that the libertarians are in the way of their control, but they are vastly outnumbered by the libertarians.
So what do they do?
Well, they have to reduce the number of the libertarians without provoking open conflict.
Because in open conflict, the controllers lose and the libertarians win.
I mean, imagine if it was a gun battle, right, in America, the controllers versus the average American gun owner, like it would not be a very, a very long, long battle, right?
So there's a problem.
Now, what you have to do, if you're a controller, is you have to reduce the number of libertarians, of freedom lovers.
So what do you do?
And, you know, a lot of times this is whites or white males.
White males in particular tend to be sort of very pro-liberty, pro-free speech, pro-free market, and so on, right?
Tons of exceptions, but certainly much more so than most.
So you have to reduce the number of white males who are your natural enemies if you are a controller.
So what do you do?
Well, what you do is you make the natural differences between men and women injustice.
So men generally make more money than women in the free market because women are having babies and women don't tend to have the same level of testosterone-driven work mania.
And women tend to focus on people rather than things, and more profit is in the things than in the people.
So men will make more money as a whole than women.
And what you do is you say, this is men exploiting women, right?
Like smart people tend to make more money than less smart people.
But you hide all of that intelligence stuff and you say, no, no, they're just thieves and exploiters.
They're just exploiting the poor, hapless, helpless workers, and they're evil incarnate.
And we must use violence to return what was stolen from the workers, blah, Countries with free markets tend to make more money than countries without free markets.
But then what you do is you say, oh no, the only reason the countries with free markets have more money is because they stole all that money from the countries without free markets.
So you take the natural disparities in life, some of which are choices and some of which are innate.
You take the natural disparities of life and you recast them as foundational injustices.
Now, I want you to imagine trying to do this in a society where there was a free market in education.
So what would happen, of course, is if you tried this, if you tried saying to little girls, well, your mothers were exploited and stolen from, and you make only 70 cents on the dollar.
You're going to grow up to make only 70 cents on the dollar.
Well, how many parents, you know, assuming that the mothers and fathers have great affection for each other, how many parents would send their children to a school where their daughters were told that their fathers are exploiting their mothers, stealing from their mothers, that their mothers are oppressed by an evil patriarchy that robs them blind.
I mean, would you?
You love your wife.
If you're a wife, you love your husband.
You have children because that's a great way to express and experience love.
Would you want to send your daughter to a school where the teacher taught your daughter that you, as a father, were an evil exploiter and you, as a mother, were oppressed and robbed?
Well, of course not.
Of course you wouldn't.
It would be the equivalent of saying to a Christian family, would you send your child to the school of Satan where they openly preach Satanism and so on?
Well, of course they wouldn't.
You would never in a million years send your child to be educated by an evil propagandist who taught your child to hate you as a father and to pity you as a mother.
Would never happen.
As a parent or as parents, would you send your child to a school that taught your child to hate himself or herself based upon immutable and innate characteristics such as race and sex and so on?
No, of course you wouldn't.
Of course you wouldn't.
So if there was a free market in education, parents would send their children to schools that reflected the values of the parents, if indeed such a thing as school was necessary in the future.
I mean, as it's sort of been historically done.
I would imagine, probably not so much, right?
So there's just no way.
There's no way.
If you were a parent, would you send your child voluntarily to a school that taught little kids about anal sex?
No, of course you wouldn't.
That's horrendous and is a form of child abuse.
Would I send my child to a school that preached and promoted a communism?
In other words, would I send my child to a school that promoted a system that would have my family killed?
So the root of propaganda lies in the involuntary nature of education.
Government-run education is the giant lever that can be used to redirect and reshape values in society against the wishes of most parents, particularly if the parents are not allowed to homeschool.
And of course, you can say, ah, yes, well, private school, but that's a luxury.
And also, private schools very often have to follow the curriculum of the government schools.
So the controllers versus the libertarians, the high IQ sociopaths versus the high IQ empaths, well, the first thing you need to do is establish control over the schools.
And once you've established control over the schools, you can begin the process of demoralizing the children by teaching them that their ancestors were evil, that they are evil, that the only wrongs in history that exist have been done by their people and just endless attacks upon that.
And of course, what that does is it makes people less likely to reproduce.
If you can put in people's minds that they and their people are kind of like a virus or a cancer that is harmful to the planet, then, well, they won't want to reproduce.
I mean, because they're empathetic, right?
Empaths tend to be sensitive to wrongs and very self-critical, which is why Western society ended slavery and promoted the free market and ended serfdom and so on.
And that very strength, if the parents and the culture retain control over the education of children, then that's a great strength.
If, unfortunately, the culture loses control of the education of the children to one sort of central lever that then is inevitably controlled by the controllers, like the sociopathic control freaks, then the sensitivity to wrong is then used, judo style, to eviscerate the morality and confidence of the children.
I mean, of course, it was white people who said slavery is wrong.
And so when you use propaganda to hammer into white kids how evil white slavery was, well, the same kind of sensitivity that has white people end slavery ends up with white people being very susceptible to the collectivist guilt of slavery.
And cultures improve because they are self-critical.
So the Western society had slaves in many places, and not that many, but had slavery and was very self-critical about that.
And so, if you are self-critical and empathetic to wrongs, sensitive to wrongs, then you can be very easily controlled and bullied by sociopaths who understand how sensitive and empathetic you are and then use that to guilt and humiliate you and turn education into a struggle session where you are constantly attacking yourself or the attacks against you are provoked and you are susceptible to those.
attacks because of your sensitivity.
Right.
So a woman who really, really, really, really wants to please her boyfriend, well, that gives the boyfriend a great deal of power and control over her, which if he's wise, he will never use in any way, shape, or form.
And if he's unwise, he will use to bully and control her.
People who are self-critical, if they have a criticism of someone else, the other person can turn it back on them and the self-critical person will be like, oh, yeah, maybe you're right.
Maybe I should look into that.
And so on, right?
So that's all pretty ratchet, right?
So when you tell people their ancestors, their culture, you know, the we're on stolen land, the genocide of the natives, the slavery, and you just hammer people.
I mean, you know, if you try hammering narcissists with the supposed wrongs of people that aren't even directly related to, they'll just kind of laugh at you.
I mean, this is why Generally, Christian culture is the one that gets attacked the most because it is generally the most self-critical and most sensitive to wrongs because it is a universalist philosophy.
So that's one way that you will reduce the birth rate: make people depressed, self-loathing, anxious to make them make the men lose self-confidence and the women fill the women with contempt for their men, for their men, right?
Not for men as a whole.
I mean, if you want to look at a real patriarchy, you would look at something like Islam, right?
And so it is not patriarchy.
It is white males.
Again, the traditional enemy of the sociopath controllers.
It is the white males that everyone is taught to hate, not the patriarchy.
Because there are patriarchal cultures that certainly fit far better the definition of patriarchy than sort of white Western Christian culture does.
And that is not criticized.
In fact, to criticize those cultures is considered a bet, right?
Islamophobic or whatever, right?
So what you do is you tell women that white males are uniquely evil.
And this makes white males kind of anxious and depressed because generally that's what happens when you are a conquered territory.
You get this kind of propaganda against the native population and it makes them less attractive.
And it also makes them kind of resentful and avoidant of education and society.
And this is the sort of checking out or opting out that is happening as a whole in the West, particularly among white males, like the incel stuff, right?
Video games and pornography and media and all of that is just the way that this stuff goes.
So you tell women that white men are oppressing them, that there's an evil patriarchy, that there's a wage gap, that they're being undervalued, and that their men, not men as a whole, but their men, are evil and bad and wrong.
And this makes the men insecure and avoidant.
And then you tell the men that women don't want to be approached, that women just want to live their lives, that women don't need them, that women are doing just fine.
Thank you very much.
And then, because the men tend to be sensitive and empathetic, they're like, oh, well, gosh, I'm constantly being told that it's annoying for me to approach women and women just want to be left alone.
And women who are out, you know, dressed very attractively, well, they're not out there to meet men, don't you know?
They're just out there for themselves, right?
They're just out there for themselves.
They're just out there to have fun with their girlfriends.
They don't want men coming up to them.
And this, you then portray women as haughty and self-reliant and don't need no men and all of that sort of stuff.
So, of course, the other thing that you do is women respond to competence.
So another thing that you want to do to lower the birth rate is you want to reshape education to favor females and thwart males.
And this makes women vain and it makes men insecure.
It makes girls vain and boys insecure.
Because the boys are constantly getting in trouble and the girls are constantly getting praised.
So what you do is you make the education boring for boys by making it sort of repetition and recitation and stagnant and sitting and all of that.
And then you put people in group projects for sure.
And you lock the boys in chairs for 30 hours a week, and you reduce the amount of physical activity.
You make everything paper-based rather than hands-on.
You get rid of things like shop classes, or at least you reduce their access to that.
And so you reshape education to favor girls and to thwart and harm boys, which makes girls feel super confident and competent, and boys feel insecure and incompetent.
Because again, females respond to male confidence, authority, and competence.
And so if you reshape education to ridiculously favor girls and to ridiculously harm boys, then the boys look chaotic.
They look dumb.
They look reactive.
They look uncontrollable.
The boys are so immature.
And it's like, well, because all of the education is geared towards girls and there to praise girls and there to harm boys.
And what you do, of course, is you take male advocates out of the educational system, for sure.
That you have to do.
You have to take any male advocates.
And the way you do that is you relentlessly promote female teachers, particularly in the early years, right?
You want to get kids early if you're going to harm them because otherwise they have antibodies called maturity or formed personality.
So what you want to do is you want to make sure that male authority figures are kept far away from boys.
So what you do is you promote the female, females should educate, and you say that any boy, sorry, any male who wants to educate little children is probably a pedophile.
And so you desperately work to keep, right, as the sort of controlling sociopaths, you desperately work to keep males away from young boys.
And that way they grow up in a matriarchy, which is constantly praising females and constantly denigrating boys.
And we know this, right?
I mean, in the sort of, you give test answers to teachers where their teachers don't know if it's male or female.
And the marks for boys go up enormously, go up considerably.
So the boys are marked down for being boys.
And because the educational system is set up completely for girls, the boys' insecurity, lack of confidence, lack of success gives girls the impression that boys are dumb.
Boys are loud, boys are obnoxious, boys are dumb.
I mean, if you can imagine an educational system, like a really Spartan style educational system, which involved a lot of physical danger, involved a lot of physical labor, involved a lot of teaching through doing, the girls would be appalled and would do really badly.
And then the boys would roll their eyes at the girls and say, oh, girls can't do anything right.
They can't even do this.
They can't even do that.
They're fready cats.
They're this, that, and the other, right?
That's because it would be against female nature and towards boys.
So by gearing women, by gearing education towards females, then the natural desire for women to look up at male confidence and competence, well, by overpraising the females, you raise their vanity.
And by attacking and undermining the boys, you lower their authority and competence.
And therefore, the girls, as they grow up, have no males to look up to.
And because female pair bonding has to do with admiring the male, if you jig the education so that males are harmed and females are massively praised, then the females grow up with no males to look up to.
And of course, there's a whole load of things about keeping males out of the family, right?
And with easy divorce, you're paying women huge amounts of money to divorce the men and all of that.
So, I mean, that's sort of that's a pretty easy one to figure out.
So the welfare state drives men out of the household and educational, female in-group preference, educational hiring keeps men out of the early childhood education sphere.
And so by the time men inherit males, the males are kind of broken and the women are already rolling their eyes at the males and thinking that males are unnecessary and loud and obnoxious and they don't sit still and they can't concentrate and have all these learning disabilities, whereas the girls are just sailing along doing beautifully, getting A's with little hearts in them and being praised.
It's all sabotage, right?
It's all complete sabotage towards the birthright.
And it is making sure that the white males aren't respected, right?
And grow up with hostility towards themselves and hostility towards them from the women.
And of course, when females roll their eyes and have scorn for the males, well, males are not happy.
And males then gravitate to areas where they do feel respect, which is sports and video games and other things where it's male-male activities, right?
Because men need respect.
I mean, we need respect.
And so if we can't get respect from women, then we will get respect from other males.
In the same way that women need praise and support, and if they can't get it from men, then women will get it from other women.
And men turning to men for reinforcement, women turning to women for reinforcement breaks the pair bond.
Men are supposed to get respect from women and women are supposed to get support and praise from men.
And because they have been programmed to not get it through dysfunctional culture, media, education, blah, blah, blah, then where do they get it from?
Well, they get it from women get it from women and men get it from men.
It is a form of emotional homosexuality.
So that's another way that you, I'm trying to give you the non-obvious ways that you lower the birth rate.
Of course, the other thing you do is you promote education for women, right?
You say to women, oh, you've got to get educated and education is the most important thing and you can't rely on a man and so on.
And this, of course, is simply to burn up a woman's precious fertility window in promiscuity, right?
You turn women into sex addicts and men into sex addicts through the promotion of the promotion of hypersexual material when they're young, right?
Hypersexual material presented when kids are young turns kids into promiscuity, addicts into sex addicts and so on.
So that's really important to do that, right?
This is why it promotes our selection for reproductive strategies and inhibits or harms the K-selection, right?
So the earlier you introduce females and males to sexual content, the sooner you can get them to be sex addicts.
And sex addicts will trade all kinds of freedoms for access to sexual activity.
So that's why you put all of this hypersexual material in children, turns them into sex addicts, sex maniacs, and then they don't particularly care about the freedoms that their ancestors fought for.
What they care about is access to sexual activity.
That's the big deal for them.
So then, of course, the purpose of education for the young is to promote hypersexuality, to promote female vanity, and to break the will and spirit and confidence of the boys and of the young men.
And then the coup de grace, well, there's a sort of one-two coup de cra that goes from there.
The first, of course, is obvious, we don't need to talk about it much, is you tell young women that they have to go and get educated, that a career is cool, you know, a day in the life of lattes and rooftop patios and Zoom meetings and diversity and HR and, you know, all kinds of nonsense.
But you endlessly promote the cool boss, babe, businesswoman chic, and that they have to go.
And then, of course, you will constantly talk about and promote and show in movies and shows how much fun a university is, what a blast it is, so that women want to go and be hedonists.
You train them in hedonism.
So when you pump up people's egos and their vanity when they're young, then they become hedonists, right?
Vanity leads to hedonism.
Hedonism is a foundational lack of self-respect, and you are chasing dopamine like an animal based upon pleasure stimulus, discos, sex, drinking, drugs.
You are chasing stimulus, approval, and so on fitting in.
You are chasing pleasure stimulus.
And that comes out of vanity.
If you overinflate people's egos, then they will not subjugate themselves to anything that is particularly difficult in order to gain happiness.
So there's that.
Now, you teach women that education is cool.
It's not education, right?
It's just indoctrination.
But you teach women that education is cool.
You teach women that they need to have careers.
Marriage and kids, of course, can come in some indeterminate bit of later, right?
Just kind of later-ish.
You will get your marriage and you will get your kids if you want them.
And so girls go to college and they sleep around in general and they get drunk and they have regret sex.
And it sort of becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because they're told that men are kind of trashy.
So the only use that they have for men is sex.
So then they get used by men for sex.
And the men who use women for sex are kind of trashy.
And so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And so they end up bitter and angry and upset.
And then they're told that this is because there's a patriarchy and their rights are being stripped from them and minorities are being mistreated.
And a lot of people, when they feel down, the way that they try to survive or recover themselves from feeling down is they really try and aim to get into some kind of course where they can feel superior and better and effective and do goodery and so on.
It's really causes are depression judoed into oppression.
And so then the women graduate and they usually haven't found a boyfriend or a husband.
And then people say, of course, oh, what else do they say?
Oh, yeah, in the media, to lower the birth rate, what you say is that you have to have money in order to get married.
I can't tell you how many, particularly young men I've talked to over the course of doing my show for 20 years, how many young men I've talked to, where what happens is they say, well, I can't get married because I'm in university and I don't have much money, or I can't get married because I'm just starting my career.
And so you put forward the idea that marriage requires a middle-class income.
And maybe this is partly to do with the fact that people grow up in these middle-class households, you know, the 2,000 square foot house with three or four bedrooms and a car or two cars, maybe, a nice backyard.
And they say, well, that's what I need.
I need that because that's what my parents had.
So that's what marriage is.
And it's like, nope.
No, no, it's not.
No, it's not.
When my wife and I got married, we lived in 800 square feet.
That was our life.
So, yeah, you don't need it.
You don't need all that stuff.
And of course, our ancestors didn't have these big-ass houses and all kinds of crazy stuff, right?
They didn't have that at all.
So you don't need it.
Just get married.
I mean, our ancestors got married in dirt huts and made seven children on a dollar a day.
So, yeah, so you say, marriage comes later, focus on me.
And then you, of course, you also promote travel, right?
Because when you promote travel, then women, unless they some independently wealthy family, how do women travel?
I mean, yeah, they save up money to some degree, but a lot of women travel to meet guys.
Guys will pay them to come out and travel.
And basically, it's rent of a JJ to get women to come out.
Oh, I'll fly you out to wherever.
I'll fly you out to France.
And you should come and meet me and see if we can hit it off.
It's not the only way, but it's a pretty significant way of doing it.
So you promote travel and you also promote empty consumerism, right?
The Sex in the City stuff, right?
So you promote all of this empty consumerism.
And that means that women go into debt.
There's a semi-famous scene from Sex in the City where Miranda tells the Carrie, is it Carrie Bradshaw?
Sarah Jessica Parker character that she's got, you know, 200 shoes at $200 a piece.
That's 40 grand.
It could be a down payment on a condo and so on, right?
And so you tell women to buy things that they don't need, including degrees, right?
So you make sure that they get into as much debt as possible.
And of course, the other thing you do in university is you train them to sort of hate men and hate capitalism and hate their culture.
And if they're white, hate whiteness.
And if they're not white, hate whiteness and so on, right?
And you get women to go into debt.
And that's another way of lowering the birth rate.
Because when women go into debt, men don't want to marry them.
Right.
I've said this repeatedly, but in case you haven't heard, like picked up a woman at the gym, went out for coffee, and she told me that she was trying to pay off $17,000 worth of debt.
And I was like, okay, good luck with that.
But I think it was an ex-boyfriend who had abused her credit cards or something.
And what's those bad judgment and lots of debt?
And I'm not, I'm not paying for another man's goodies.
Yes, let me, if we, if we get together, maybe, just maybe, I can take my hard-earned money and use it to pay off your ex-boyfriend's debt.
I don't think so.
Oh, my God.
What a nightmare.
That's absolute cuckholdery.
So, yeah, get women into, get women into debt.
Of course, you also want to hide from women the fertility cliff, right?
That 90% of eggs are gone by the time you're 30, 98% are gone by the time you're 40.
And you want to avoid the term geriatric pregnancy and you want to give women, lull them into this car-like trust-in-me sense that there's just an infinity of time ahead of them.
They don't need to make any particular decisions.
And you let women enjoy the full flower, of course, of their youthful sexual desirability and their energy, all of the stuff that should be melted down in the furnace of actually making children.
You just let them enjoy it.
Because women are born, you know, sort of as adults, right?
Born 18 plus, they're born extremely wealthy.
They're at the height of the fertility, youthful attractiveness.
They're not broken and worn down by endless exploitation and breakup and all that kind of stuff.
And so, yeah, you just enjoy your youth.
Go find yourself.
Go find yourself, which usually has something to do with finding the clitoris, but go find yourself and go travel and get a degree and work and you promote all of that stuff.
And of course, that's going to crush the birth rate.
But there's something else that's sort of the most obvious ones.
There's something that's a little bit more subtle.
And I've sort of been thinking about this for a while, and I think it coalesces in this particular sort of situation.
So hopefully this makes sense.
I think it does.
So, of course, the other thing, of course, but the other thing you do is you promote sociopathy.
Ooh, that's a big one.
That is a very, very big one in life as it is.
You promote sociopathy.
So, what do I mean by that?
Well, what I mean by that is that you promote instant sex.
You can see this in Woody Allen films all the time.
People get together and they just immediately have sex.
Well, that's sociopathic.
You promote materialism, which is all of these women and these immaculate condos sipping wine on snow-white couches, undisturbed by mess and children.
You promote greed in terms of money and so on, that the Kardashians and that kind of stuff, right?
So, everyone's got plastic surgery, everyone has lipo, everyone has Botox, and everyone is sexy, and everyone is in a very wealthy environment.
And so, you promote happiness through materialism, which is sociopathic.
And you tell people that all human relations are based on power.
You don't want to surrender your power to a man, do you?
You want to give up your power the moment you settle down, you've given up your power.
Because sociopaths analyze the world merely in terms of power.
What gives me more power?
What takes away my power?
And so, a woman's sexual power, which is designed, of course, for pair bonding and child raising, or having children and raising children, but a woman's sexual power, well, she gives it up to some degree when she gets married.
A man's economic power, he gives up when he has children, because the money that he makes, he gives to his wife and children.
90% of his money goes to his wife and his children.
So, his power to spend on himself diminishes.
So, this is why you see what do they always talk about.
And I remember being with my daughter at a county fair and some guy came up and wanted to put a bracelet on her.
It's like, girl power.
I'm like, back off, bro.
I'm going to be this girl power.
So girl power, girl boss, that is to say, or that is trying to stimulate in people an analysis of the world that it only exists in terms of power relations.
Are you in charge or are you subjugated?
Do you get your way or do other people get their way?
Don't give up your power.
Don't surrender your power.
Hold on to your power.
Girl power, power, power, power.
You're just constantly telling people that power is the foundation of human relations.
Who controls the means of production has the power.
White privilege means whites have the power and so on, right?
So you do this also in movies and television shows where you show, you know, the attractive female lawyers who are always winning and always have the power and they smirk as men crumble before them and you just give them power, power, power.
Now, the reason you do this is to devalue motherhood.
Because if power is sexual and economic and political, let's just say sexual and economic primarily because voting is just once in a while.
So if power is sexual and economic and power is the essence of human relations, you either have power over others or they have power over you.
And you can see this, of course, the pictures of, say, the attractive woman walking down the street in Italy and all the men's eyes are trailing after her like hush puppies or just puppies.
So you want to make sure that you get women to believe that either you dominate others or others dominate you, which is a sociopath's view.
Sociopaths can't do win-lose because win-lose would require the sociopath to emotionally deeply recognize and understand and appreciate the existence of another person just like him or her that also wants to get their way.
It would require mutualism.
It would require empathy and sympathy and a recognition that there's someone else just like you who also wants to get their way.
And so you should work for something that you should work towards something that works for you both.
No, no, that's not how sociopaths work.
Sociopath, it's like, I win by destroying you or subjugating you or frightening you or dominating you or humiliating you or bribing you if I don't have the power to humiliate you by seducing you or like, but it's win-lose.
I get my way and, you know, screw your way.
There is no your way.
There is only my way.
It is a very sort of primitive mindset, of course.
It has all of the empathy of your average lion chasing a baby zebra.
So you tell women that the most important things in life are sexual and economic power, that you either dominate or you're dominated.
This is why people love courtroom dramas, because there's no win-win in a courtroom drama, right?
If you win, then the other party loses.
If you're the prosecutor and you win, the defendant loses and vice versa.
So you tell women that sexual power and economic power are all that matters.
Power is all that exists.
And the greatest power women have is sexual and economic power.
So then, by being a monogamous wife and a stay-at-home mother, you have given up all your power, right?
Because you don't have economic power anymore because you're dependent upon your husband's income.
And you don't have sexual power because you are a monogamous wife and mother.
You have, you know, baby juice on your nursing bra and you're in sweatpants with your hair pinned up and no makeup on, and you have no sexual power because you're monogamous and less attractive, and you have a child or children.
You have no economic power because you're dependent upon the man.
So you promote all of these incredibly sexy, economically successful women who are constantly dominating others and never being dominated themselves, unless it's by a man that they like.
So you promote sociopathy.
Now, what is the value of a baby to a sociopath?
Well, that's a good question, right?
So the reason you promote sociopathy is a sociopath will only coldly calculate advantage or disadvantage with others.
Can this person give me something or can I get something from this person?
And if you are a mother and you are looking at your baby and you're a sociopath, let me have fathers too, but talking about the birth rate is to some degree dictated by women, to a large degree.
So if you're a sociopath and you look at a baby, what can the baby offer you?
Well, maybe some status, but what you do is you, as a society, you denigrate motherhood to the point where having a baby is not a status.
So you're home alone with the baby.
What can the baby give you?
Well, nothing.
Everything flows from you to the baby.
And this is why, of course, a lot of women and men, but just talking about women, and I wrote about this in my novel, Dissolution, this is why a lot of women have postpartum depression, because they have been programmed into thinking that all in life is power.
And by having a baby, they've given up their sexual and economic power, and therefore they are powerless, and therefore they are dominated.
And even more frighteningly and even more deeply, they cannot get ego gratification from a baby.
When you have a child, your life is focused on the benefit to that child or those children.
If my daughter needs a drive somewhere, I get in and drive her.
It's not even a question.
What your children want is what you, or what they need and sort of justly deserve, is what you provide.
And you don't do it for your own benefit.
You don't do it to look good.
You don't do it, right?
I mean, hopefully they appreciate it.
And my daughter certainly does, but you are there to love the baby.
The baby can't give you anything.
I mean, you know, they can respond to cuddles and, you know, it's, and I don't want to say like they're just lumps of black hole absorption.
But in order to get positive things out of a baby, you have to unreservedly pour positive things into a baby.
Smiles, coups, loves, caresses, eye contact, funny faces, grins, music, playing, dancing, all.
You have to do all for the baby, which sociopaths can't do.
They can't do it because all is power, all is exploitation, and you cannot exploit a baby.
And because sociopaths believe that everything is power and dominance, they get enraged at the baby because the baby they perceive as dominating them.
The baby cries.
I have to get up.
The baby needs something.
I have to provide it.
I have to all day with the baby, all focusing on the baby.
And so by promoting sociopathy in society, you automatically make mothers depressed who fall for that propaganda, which most people do.
And look, please understand, I'm far, far, far from saying that I was immune to this kind of propaganda and I just rose and rode above it all.
And no, no, I fell for propaganda.
I fell for propaganda.
I really did.
So I say this with all deep humility and with no absolutely zero sense of superiority and absolutely zero sense of being above it all or anything like that.
No, I absolutely fell for propaganda.
I'm sure I still do in some areas.
I think I've gotten rid of most of it.
So when you promote everything is power, everything is win-lose.
Well, the sociopath can't win anything with the baby.
The sociopath is revealed by the baby.
The baby scans for generosity, kindness, empathy, sympathy, affection, love.
And the sociopath can't provide any of that because none of those fit into the win-lose, everything is power paradigm, which is most of human history, of course.
So what happens is the women feel incredibly depressed and empty because they have bought into, or maybe are, they bought into the sociopath ideal.
And it happens with guys too, right?
So the sociopath ideal for guys is, you know, the James Bond or the Conan or the Thor or, you know, He-Man Masters of the Universe or things like that, which is, you know, incredibly powerful and dominant and big muscles.
And right.
So they go for that stuff.
And, you know, the Jason, Jason, Jason, I can do the word, I really can't.
Jason Statham, you know, walking away from the explosion with sunglasses and super cool, cool, right?
I did a whole video years ago on how much I hate this idea of cool because cool is just, well, a sociopath, right?
The fonts, right?
Get your library card.
So women get depressed then and feel empty and horrified because they've been trained into sociopathy with the vanity, right?
Vanity is where you don't think you have to improve.
And if you don't think you have to improve, you don't develop the ego strength to value criticism.
I'm not kidding when I say at the beginning of my shows, you know, thoughts, criticisms, feedback, pushback, whatever.
I mean, I really, really like being criticized.
I really do.
Like I post on X, what can I do better?
What's bad about what I do?
And so, yeah, vanity means you can't be criticized, which means you can't improve, which means you can't relate to people because you're always in the right.
And it's another sociopath.
Sociopathy means never admitting that you're wrong because everything's power.
And if you admit you're wrong, then other people are going to use their power against you and brutalize you.
They will destroy you because you've destroyed other people when you've been in the right and they've been in the wrong.
And so, you know, you reap what you sell.
So if you as a sociopath, not you, the listener, right?
But you, if one as a sociopath has destroyed others for being wrong, then you can't admit being wrong because you expect the same bullet to go through your head that you put through metaphorically other people's heads in the past.
So the women then complain and it becomes cool to complain about how boring being around a baby is.
And to a sociopath, to cold-hearted people, being around a baby is really boring.
It's really boring.
It would be like if the only thing that you value in any kind of interaction with another human being is witty banter, well, babies ain't going to be providing that, right?
It's like, ugh, babies, you know, roll your eyes.
And then what happens is, and this is a marker of sociopathy in society, and it's a really, really important one.
And you can see this all over social media.
I just really want you to understand it for what it is.
So to a sociopath, a baby is just a bundle of understimulating, disappointing, low status demands.
That's all.
That's all.
Because it has to grow into a human being who can be exploited.
And it is in a state of exploiting the mother, according to the sociopath, because you either win or you lose.
You either get taken advantage of or you take advantage of other people.
Now, you sure as heck aren't able to take advantage of a baby and the baby is crying and the baby needs things.
You've got to serve the baby.
And so you feel that the baby is dominating you and bullying you and controlling you and all of this kind of stuff.
It's horrible.
It's a horrible mindset.
It really is just a horrible mindset.
But depressingly common.
And so on social media, you will see motherhood referred to as being a brood mare, being a baby maker.
Women have no obligations, right?
Because you can't have obligations.
Like I put this out on X yesterday.
I was still trying to figure out what obligations women have to society that women actually accept.
What are their obligations to society as a whole?
Well, there's none.
Because you can't have obligations.
Because obligations are, if you accept that you have an obligation to someone else, then they will use that to dominate you.
So you cannot admit obligations because you will be dominated.
So you will see women say things like, I have better things to do than change dirty diapers all day, right?
See, because the baby doesn't have utility in the mind of the sociopath, and there's no joy, pleasure, happiness, excitement, love, connection with the baby, because the baby has no utility, but is rather in the mind of the sociopath, the baby is exploiting the mother or the father.
So then it is simply a series of mechanical taking care ofs that motherhood represents.
That's all motherhood is.
It's not a joyful connection.
It's not the creation of life.
It's not the fostering of a new mind and a new spirit and a new set of thoughts.
It is not the creation of a beautiful and wonderful human being and so on, right?
And nothing to do with that.
Nothing.
It is only simply and forever a mechanical series of feedings and wiping butts and getting up and rolling your eyes.
And oh my God, there she goes again.
Oh, what else do you need now, Your Majesty, Your Highness?
Right?
So there was this program, I guess.
You can get these dolls that simulate babies, right?
They cry, they wet themselves, you need to change them and so on, right?
Now, to a sociopath, the baby is a doll.
It doesn't really have any identity of its own because the sociopath can't recognize an identity other than his own or her own, because that would be then to have some sort of empathy and you wouldn't be able to dominate them.
So if you were given, you had a job that you loved and gave you a lot of status and money and power, and then somebody said, no, no, no, now you have to stay home and take care of this doll.
You've got to wipe its butt.
You have to get up when it cries three times the night and hold it to your boob and so on, right?
But it's a doll.
It's a doll.
I mean, you would consider that horrible.
I would.
I can't do philosophy anymore.
Can't do philosophy, because I've got to take care of a doll.
That would be depressing beyond words.
But to the sociopath, the baby has the sort of psychological reality of your average doll, to the sociopath.
And so when you see women on social media, I'm not just going to be a broodmare for some man.
Well, they just view the birthing process as purely mechanical, like giving a kidney.
It's just purely mechanical.
And, you know, I've got better things to do than wipe diapers.
And you all see this wipe runny noses all day, right?
There's not a person there.
There's a nose, there's a butt full of extrament, and there's a mouth that needs a nipple in it a couple of times a night, and so on.
And so all of that is how the sociopath processes motherhood.
And I do sort of point this out because I see this all the time whenever this topic or subject comes up.
I really see this all the time on social media.
All these women coming in saying that they don't want to be a broodmare.
They've got better things to do than wipe runny noses all day and change dirty diapers and they want to go out and conquer the world and they don't just want to stay home and be around babies all day.
And so they view the baby as a doll.
So the promotion of sociopathy, I believe, is one of the biggest drivers of the lower birth rates as a whole.
Babies are annoying.
Babies are intrusive.
Babies get in the way.
Babies prevent you from doing the things that you want.
Babies prevent, like you see this all the time.
There's this war on social media.
Well, I'm interested in having kids, but I also want to travel.
And then all these people saying, hey, man, I've got four kids and I travel all the time.
I love that, right?
But it's certainly more complicated and more expensive to travel with kids.
I remember when Izzy was very little, we went on.
I used to travel all the time for work.
That sort of ended with deplatforming and COVID.
But I remember being on a plane, on a plane with my daughter, she never sat still, was very restless.
And I remember she would run up and down the aisles of the plane and saying hi to everyone.
And it was great.
But yes, it was a mild challenge to travel, to put it mildly.
And so people say, well, I want to travel.
And babies get in the way of that.
As if the journey to go to Krakow or Budapest or something like that or Thailand, as if that journey by flesh is anywhere close to the magnificent journey your heart goes through by being a parent.
I mean, that's the real journey.
That's the one that really matters is the, you know, my family has opened my heart to previously unguessed dimensions.
And it hasn't always been an easy process, but, you know, my somewhat scarred and battered heart from my childhood and combat in the world is a healed, revivified, and expanded, it's like a supernova, really, by my wife and daughter and friends.
And I thank them all for that.
And I thank you for your support.
Now, the other last thing that you have to do to lower the birth rate, and then there's more, but this is sort of the major issues that I see.
The major thing that you want to do to lower the birth rate is to hide the miserable single women and to hide the miserable old women.
Men can handle solitude better than women.
Women can do things better than men, for sure, but men can handle solitude better than women.
And you desperately need to hide unhappy women.
And they simply cannot show up.
You cannot show a movie.
You could make a very powerful movie about an old woman and her regrets when she's 70 and she's got another 15 years or 20 years on the planet and she's all alone.
Oh my God, that's just horrible beyond words.
That is just horrible beyond words.
So you have to hide all of that.
And you also have to show families, children, you know, being noisy, parents having headaches, children screaming, running around, and all of that.
And I remember there was some movie or show from many years ago.
There was a guy, I remember being quite shocked by a guy who was like, really, I just, I want more, I want more kids running around the house.
I want the bitter patter of little feet, right?
I hope to see more than fences running around your garden.
May all your troubles be little ones, right?
This sort of pronatalism stuff was kind of deeply shocking to see.
So you have to prime women through vanity and the denigration of the males.
You have to prime women for dissatisfaction.
You have to throw jobs and money at women to make them so high status that they can't settle for a man, right?
That's really important, right?
Raise women's income.
I talked about this with Janice Heimlich many, many years ago, right?
That as women get more degrees, more income, more status, they become progressively less satisfied with the men.
And the high status men then basically have a harem of women if they want, which then reinforces women's belief in the nasty patriarchy.
Because when a successful man has a lot of women after him, sort of chasing him, and they don't chase very well because they're used to, now the vanity means that they shouldn't.
They can't.
They mustn't.
It shouldn't be, it shouldn't ever be necessary.
Then, of course, the men end up sleeping around with a lot of women, won't settle down.
In other words, the men do to the women what the women did to the men when they were younger.
The men do to women as they age, and then they can't settle down.
They can't find a good enough guy because of the vanity.
So all of these things, it's like beautifully orchestrated.
Like you really have to hand it to, you know, the enemies, so to speak.
They've really orchestrated it beautifully.
They have a deep, powerful understanding of human nature.
Not for good, unfortunately.
Not for good, but for ill.
And they've done a fantastic job.
They've done a really, really bang-up job of destroying the birth rate of the people who are interested in freedom and not reducing the birth rate of people who want to prey on the free.
So I hope this makes sense.
Of course, I'm not saying this is the end of the topic.
I'd love to hear what you think.
Freedomman.com/slash annate.
Lots of love from up here, my friends.
I'll talk to you soon.
▲
Export Selection