Elites · Society · Subversion

Indirectly Suppressing the Birth Rate with Antagonistic Policies

A while ago I wrote an article on suburbanism and the two-children family and pointed out how much more difficult it is to have three children as opposed to two. I wrote that having three kids int the back of your car is only suitable for short trips, and even that can be a bit of a hassle. As Steven added in the comments, in some jurisdictions this is even worse because it is not even possible to fit three kids into the back of your car, thanks to safety regulations:

With regard to fitting three children in the back of a car. Some jurisdictions, like my own, mandate that children under a certain age must be carried in an approved child-seat that takes up half the space in the back of a standard motor vehicle. Even with one young child in that approved child-seat and one older child in a seat-belt, you cannot fit a third child in the backseat. When I was young, decades ago, my parents would place three children of varying ages in the back and the baby on my mother’s lap in the front; that is completely illegal today.

I do not want to make the claim that safety regulations are bad, but with my schizo hat firmly on my head, I cannot help but wonder if there are regulations out there that exists for a different reason than the stated one. To give you a pretty well-known example: the banking industry is heavily regulated. Getting a banking license takes lot of time and costs a lot of money. The barriers to entry are high. This is not necessarily in order to regulate the industry. Instead, it is an attempt to keep competition out. Good luck starting your own investment bank! Quite obviously, banks are engaged in a lot of shady business and if they mess up, they throw their hands up in the air, point out that they are too big to fail, and take taxpayer money. Sometimes, some low-level employee gets locked up but the industry as a whole seems to be quite invincible, and genuine regulation is not intended.

Obviously, car accidents are a societal issue. I am not against airbags in cars, for instance, and putting children into special children’s seats in order to provide extra protection is not a bad idea either. However, what if the regulations were designed in such a way that children’s seats need to have a certain minimum width, ostensibly to provide extra safety but actually to take away some space in the back, making it impossible to put a third kid into the back of the car? Compared to the government mandating that you need to get vaxxed, such regulations are downright quaint. Yet, the question needs to be asked if it was not possible to specify a narrower width for those seats that has the same safety properties?

There are also social engineering campaigns that aim at limiting family sizes. Even as late as the early 20th century, it was not at all uncommon that the entire family slept in one room, and those were larger families. If families were a bit better off, they had a separate children’s room, but this was one room for all children. Fast-forward a few decades, and parents believe that every child needs to not only have its own room but a room of a certain size, and if you cannot afford that, it may be better if you did not have any children. Somehow, such messaging is reserved for the native population, for some strange reason. Related is the often-repeated claim that you need to be able to provide a certain material standard for children, leading to “studies” showing that a child will cost you a few hundred thousand dollars, without the cost of tertiary education.

I do not have proof that the fact that some jurisdictions demand that children’s seats have an excessive width is ill-intended, but I would be quite surprised if this was not the case. In a lot of Western cities with radical leftist governments, traffic flow has been modified to make the experience of driving in a car a lot less pleasant. In addition, many cities have reduced the number of available parking spots. This was not ill-intended, of course. It is for the environment, just like making it more cumbersome to have more children is good for the environment! Leftist rags like The Guardian often remind us that it is your duty as a white man or woman to not have children, which is a good expression of the sickening world view of the political class.

7 thoughts on “Indirectly Suppressing the Birth Rate with Antagonistic Policies

  1. I was the third kid. A mistake of course LOL. I always had to sit on “the bump” in the middle of those old car’s back seats. Not sure if my sisters blamed me for my parents staying together longer, or for their divorce. But it’s crazy I even know I was a mistake. Right in front of me, my oldest sister said my mom was being irresponsible when she forgot to take the pill.

    1. My mom also said she was ready to leave my dad. Then said with regret, “then I got pregnant.” Nice, eh?

    2. Sorry to hear that you had to go through this. I have heard similar stories, i.e. women who were unhappy with their lives psychologically harming their children. This is probably the root of female toxicity, no matter in which context. An unfortunate aspect is that most women could lead perfectly happy lives if they did not compare themselves to a completely unrealistic notion of an ideal life they could lead in some parallel universe.

    3. Thanks Aaron. I very recently got it off my chest to her, for the first time ever. She is very bad at taking criticism. I even asked if abortion was discussed. She said no, and I believe her. My dad wouldn’t let it happen anyway. I asked why my sisters knew about it, and she claimed that they must have heard my parents talking (probably yelling if my childhood memories serve) about it. I also have memories of my sisters telling me that I was never wanted. I didn’t know what they meant because I was at most 7 years old.

      I told my mom that it is the source of why they abuse me. She said I was “reaching.” On the bright side, she said she would trade them in for me. I definitely need to find the right therapist.

    4. Oh Aaron, about the “perfectly happy life.” My mom said my dad emotionally abused her. I asked how, with concern. She said, that he said that no man wants a single woman with three kids. That’s it? She was almost out the door at this point anyway. And he was right. The longest relationship she had after that was about 5 months.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.