Why Johnny Can’t Breed

Shoulda been sexist when you had the chance, boy!

We Need More Kids, but Not the Way the GOP’s Talking About It

Going on about “barren cat ladies” may rile up the base, but it’s just crude insult comedy to anyone else.

h ttps://www.thedailybeast.com/we-need-more-kids-but-not-the-way-the-gops-talking-about-it

By Matt Lewis, 23 August 2021

I doubt there’s a second way to make a baby but let’s not be hasty. Pfizer is incredibly well-funded at the moment.

Let’s talk about sex, baby. The long-simmering debate in American politics about babies and whether people should have more of them is flaring up again.

LEGALIZE SEX! I cannot believe I even had to say that! But we are now in year two of “Fourteen Days to Flatten the Fertility Curve”. Stay socially distant, peeps! Mother Earth cries when a second mother comes along!

It seems self-evident that an aging society unable to reach a replacement-level birth rate has problems—that the choice to be child-free (at the macro level) is a bad sign for a civilization.

Whew, they finally noticed the inevitable consequences of their beliefs!

But…

NOOOO!!!

But the question of what to do about that is being litigated in our political realm in increasingly unhealthy ways, even as birth rates are well below the replacement level of about 2.1 not just in the United States but across the developed world.

Litigating reproduction is not only the problem, it’s undeniable proof that our government is guilty of war crimes against us. No government was ever created to bring about the extinction of its own people.

No, Barbie, the government will never INCREASE the fertility rate. You can’t hug a child with nuclear arms, remember? Government produces coercion, not fathers, and if Government wasn’t totally fucking up society then there’s wouldn’t be a fertility problem in the first place. People naturally want to have kids. It takes a lot of GOVERNMENT to beat that out of ’em.

Some members of the “life of Julia” left view children as either expensive baggage (because “the United States is hell for mothers”) or a moot point (since climate change will kill us all and more people would only expedite the process). In the center are people on both sides of the aisle who want to make parenthood more affordable—a shift that might (on the margins) help increase birth rates.

Meanwhile, some on the right are so pro-natalist that they are on the verge of shaming families that don’t procreate enough to field a baseball team each (never mind whether those people want kids or even can have them). Whether this is because they want to win the culture war or (more problematically) fend off “the great replacement” demographic time bomb is open to debate. Maybe they are simply God-fearing family-values conservatives who want to give us more babies to love. In any event, this incipient worldview is gaining political traction and deserves more attention.

Which is it? Do we need more babies or do we need to accept that demographic time bomb? This besotted author wants new Progtards to emerge from nowhere so they can die already. He wants to preserve the status quo forever, like the first generation of a Communist revolution that’s all loot and no bills due.

Why do you care if they shame you for the life you’ve voluntarily chosen? Serious question.

Take J.D. Vance, the Hillbilly Elegy author running for the U.S. Senate in Ohio, who recently floated the idea of letting parents cast additional votes for their underage children in elections.

Why stop there? One sperm, one vote! Make America Christian Again!

During a speech to a conservative think tank last month, he attacked the “childless left” who have no “physical commitment to the future of this country” but still represent an “elite model” for America. He also “spoke fondly of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s pro-natal policies, explaining that ‘they offer loans to newly married couples that are forgiven at some point later if those couples have actually stayed together and had kids.’” Vance later went on Fox News and added: “You look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC–the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children.” (Note: Harris has two stepchildren and Buttigieg recently announced that he and his husband Chasten have become parents.)

Neither adoption nor, God help us, purchasing a baby for use as a campaign prop is a replacement for sex between man and wife.

We are effectively run in the country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too,” he continued.

THAT is why you Wokes care about being shamed for the life you voluntarily chose. You know the bitter cat ladies need to be told to FOAD but you’ll just… never… do it.

Trump had the guts to grab ’em by the pussy. You Wokes, though? You ARE the pussy.

The notion that parenthood is a prerequisite to political insight or patriotic devotion is not new. Back in 2013, Harvard historian Niall Ferguson sparked controversy when he made a similar argument, suggesting that economist John Maynard Keynes’ famous line, “In the long run we are all dead,” was the product of a childless worldview. Ferguson compared this supposedly nihilistic philosophy to that of conservative Edmund Burke, who conversely argued that there is a partnership “between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”

I always thought Ferguson had a point—even if he badly botched the details. Being a father has most certainly changed my perspective, including giving me more “skin in the game.” But that’s me admitting that I wouldn’t care quite as much about the rest of you if the fruit of my loins weren’t going to (I hope) be here long after I’m gone.

But it strikes me as politically unwise for a movement to alienate potential or current allies who either cannot have children or have chosen not to have children. Take, for example, Townhall.com columnist Kurt Schlicther, who recently said we should “Penalize barren, non-familial lifestyles through taxes and disqualification from political participation.” If you want to win hearts and minds (and elections), it’s unhelpful to issue such threats or to throw around insulting terms like “barren” and “cat ladies.” This is especially true at a time when this cohort of childless adults is growing.

Liberals are constantly surprised when their enemies do what they do. First they passed laws celebrating homosexuality, now they’re scared that laws might be passed celebrating heterosexuality.

And I’m still waiting to hear where babies come from, other than a drunken night of fun after a MAGA rally.

The crux of the problem is this: government incentives are about as good at getting people to start having kids as they are at stopping teens from engaging in the act that leads to kids. That hasn’t stopped them from trying. Stalin gave out “maternity medals”; Putin’s Russia now offers “maternity capital.” Japan offers cash incentives, which has delivered (no pun intended) a slight increase. Singapore has a “Baby Support Grant.” The aforementioned Hungary is offering tax exemption and interest-free loans for mothers who have large families.

Government cannot make babies. Homosexual government officials cannot make babies. Oh, where DO those smelly, noisy things come from? It’s a Scooby-Doo mystery, or possibly a Fred and Daphne mystery.

Here, [Ann] Coulter offers a valid, if elusive, solution: “As a matter of psychology, it’s probably true that a people who are pessimistic about the future of their country won’t be keen on having a lot of kids. But the solution to that is to fix the country, not to pay people to simulate one single behavioral characteristic of optimists.”

That’s well put. But “fixing the country” means throwing the Rainbow Party in the dustbin of history. It means confronting those childless crones in high office before it’s too late. The reason kids aren’t happening has nothing to do with recombinant DNA efforts or bricks of cash. The reason is our rulers liberated themselves from being human then began lashing out at those of us who still are.

Overcoming our biology is turning out to be a horrible idea.

Johnny can’t breed because the government wants to help.

4 thoughts on “Why Johnny Can’t Breed

  1. “During a speech to a conservative think tank last month, he attacked the ‘childless left'[.]”

    Why attack them? The fewer Leftists, the better.

    And although I think she’s a sexually frustrated attention-whore, Tran Coulter has a point. Bringing kids into the world in its current state is insane.

    Like

  2. Maniac,

    The Left doesn’t give birth to kids; they convert ours. When we finally decide to inoculate our kids against godlessness and leftism, we’ll have a chance of watching the Left shrivel and die.

    But until then, we’re on the road to collapse.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I’ll tell you why “we” aren’t having babies: feminism. It’s our wives that won’t have babies. I’m a married man and it has been a battle. I can’t understand how the women of Scripture desired to have babies for their husbands? Jacob’s wives both WANTED to bear him children. I get married to the woman who would have me, and as near as I can tell bearing children for me is a huge inconvenience. I want more children. She was angry about the first, agreed to the second, and after years of me pushing agreed to a third. I don’t know if I will have the strength to push her hard enough for a fourth someday. It’s fcking horrible.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s