If you care about the future of America, it's time to tune in to major policy developments happening in Russia and China. The demographic decline is steepening, and nations with serious governments are doing what needs to be done to slam on the brakes and throw the car in reverse. We are not yet free-falling with no statistical chance of recovery, like Japan, but we are not far behind.

We're going to talk about feminism, the scourge of society. It has killed more people than communism and has set western societies on this path of self-induced terminal decline. We ought to learn from the way Russia and China are currently addressing this issue, in hopes of falling somewhere short of Hungary, the current gold standard in rejecting Western globalism.

When I refer to the West I mean liberal democracy and the failed experiment known as the Enlightenment, known by it signature calling card of moral relativism (do as thou wilt, if it make you happy, if it's not hurting anyone else, etc). Inverted foreign policy references a one-way 'rules-based order', and attempts to 'spread democracy', both of which mean removing a leader it has no business removing and installing a puppet who will open the gates for degeneracy and economic shackling. To the globalists, democracy is a good talking point for those who have been taught by our 'education system' that a democracy is what we have, and that it is good. But as soon as the people of a nation express a will that is counter to western liberalism, it quickly gets rebranded as fascism or populism. It must be dealt with by circumventing the democratic process in order to derail the natural move towards nationalism which inevitably results as a counter to a firehose of progressive propaganda campaigns.

One of those progressive campaigns is feminism. Some may make the argument that first wave feminism was valid, and has since gone off the rails, likening it to the initial need for labor unions in light of brutal factory conditions before they became equally exploitative organizations themselves. I think that's a position many on the right would take, though I don't buy it. If we were to grant merit to those foaming at the mouth in support of voting for the sake of voting, because democracy is inherently good, then I'd argue the original founders' limitations on voting rights were much closer to the stated intent of representative democracy. Finding a compromise to better align with the economic structure of the 21st century, I'd limit voting rights to one vote per tax return. The family ought to be a cohesive unit with shared incentives, not a paper entity encircling multiple unrelated economic and moral interests.

But the fruit of first wave feminism, which enshrined the mere act of voting as a moral imperative, is generally accepted as a net positive. Taking that at face value, if we allow it, would have been a sufficient stopping point for the movement. But what has transpired in the successive iterations of feminist ideology can only rightfully be described as the death knell of society.

I understand that sounds extreme, but let's jump forward to the current demographic crisis in America, which has a birth rate officially below the requisite 2.1 children per couple replacement rate and declining. Then look at the number of American babies who have been ripped apart in utero and vacuum-sucked out of their mothers in the name of convenience, lifestyle preservation, or any of the other common justifications for infanticide. In a country of 340 million, avoiding 63 million abortions since Roe v Wade was unjustifiably passed into law based on 'emanating penumbras' would yield an 18% population growth. We are at the point where the only measurable population growth is coming from recent immigrants, who share no cultural values and have no intent of adopting to and integrating into our society. This is civilization ending: import the third world, get the third world. Yet that is where we are, and we are there as a result of many things, but I wager that feminism will one day be highlighted by historians as a primary reason for the fall of the United States.

We as men have in large part forfeited our duties of provider and protector of families on the altar of inclusion and sensitivity. The shrill shrieks of feminists, demanding equality where it is convenient, has drowned out the remnant of men still fulfilling their roles regardless of the social stigma, so that weaker men on the fence tend to fall in line with the noise. This takes the form of passive acceptance of ever-changing goalposts of morality, to the point we can only whisper our objection to chemically castrating children, or gay men buying (overwhelmingly male) babies to parade as accessories and to create future gays. [Google the average age of loss of virginity (read: rape) in gay men, and then resolve never to let such predators around your sons.]

We have a desperate need for men to ignore social shame, be willing to get fired or worse, in the name of reclaiming our role in society. We still have a long shot chance to save America, and it's as simple as getting married, having many children, and shielding them from the cultural rot with everything in you. That is what we can do in our own lives to counter the impacts of a force that has led to more deaths than communism. But what can we do at a national level?

Here we turn to Russia and China. You ought to be asking how the country that until 2015 had a one-child policy is going to teach us about reversing catastrophic demographic decline. There should be no surprise, on the other hand, that Russia, a country which has been experiencing a surge of religious and nationalistic revival since the 2014 Euromaidan coup, is recognizing this western-influenced crisis and taking appropriate measures to correct them.

Let's examine each country's diagnosis and response in turn, and find the common thread at the heart of the issue.

China

The Chinese have observed the impacts of plummeting birth rates in their education system, which has seen a 25% decline in the kindergarten age cohort since 2020. While China is not as far gone as Japan, for instance, they are expected to have one of the most rapid population declines in the world. The one-child policy officially ended in 2015, and that is obviously a major contributing factor to the demographic issues they are experiencing. But a decade later, the decline has only escalated as families are having fewer children by choice, rather than by mandate.

In a Britannica piece on the one child policy we find western feminism rearing its ugly head. Among the reasons cited for couples choosing not to have a second child in spite of the policy change were, 'concerns about being able to afford another child, the lack of available childcare, and worries about how having another child would affect their careers, especially for mothers.' To look at my second daughter and think that she may not be here had we been concerned with childcare, which my wife does better than anyone possibly could for our girls, or because it might impact her career, which she gladly replaced with childcare, is an appalling thought. Those concerns see children as secondary to careers and financial metrics, an inversion precisely attributable to western feminism.

What is their policy directive to address this issue? The first is a major overhaul of the divorce laws, which had previously been in line with western practices that were overwhelmingly slanted towards women. The two major changes were 1) changing property division from equal distribution to ownership based on who paid for the property and 2) equal custody outside extenuating circumstances. There is also a mandatory 30 day cooling off period before finalizing the divorce. The second policy directive is not yet codified, but can be reliably assumed to come to fruition before long. It will likely mirror Russia's ongoing policy deliberations, which we'll cover in the next section. For now we'll focus on the changes to divorce laws.

These changes are derived from the perception that the current divorce laws are dissuading men from entering into marriage in the first place. Without the ability to use child visitation rights as a bargaining chip, or the prospect of losing half one's estate, it is thought that more men will reconsider marrying. These laws may seem harsh, and perhaps they are, as critics rightfully point out that making it more difficult for women to leave marriages could keep some in abusive relationships. But regardless of how far we'd go in changing the current structure, it is undeniable that men will have more incentive to marry with these laws in place. It's a very Chinese way to address the issue, but it will certainly lead to more children being born than if it wasn't implemented.

Russia

Russia is similarly experiencing negative population growth, despite an increase in immigrants. Their population also increased with the unification of Crimea in 2014 as well as the 2022 annexation of four former Ukrainian regions, but birth rates continue to decline.

Unlike western democracies, where the mere mention of a demographic crisis sends the American Pravda mouthpieces into shrieks of xenophobia and racism, Russia has a Demography Commission whose role is to study and propose policy solutions to an obvious problem.

Getting married later and having fewer children at a later age are so obviously the culprit here that there ought not be any need for further explanation or study. In the west, we would be greeted with feminist protests for pointing out the obvious. Russia has set out to address how these factors can be remedied. If society directs young people to finish formal education before starting families, it naturally follows that the longer one spends in the school system, the later one starts a family.

“A shorter education period would enable young people to reach adulthood and plan to have children for two years earlier,” says Sergey Rybalchenko, head of the Public Chamber’s Demography Commission. "Getting married and having children at a higher age is linked to a longer period of social maturation. Young people only start to think about children by the age of 27, as they spend 17 years getting an education and dedicate an additional three years to social adaptation after finishing university."

This ought to resonate with us, it certainly does with me. It's the norm, but we need to view it as the root of failure rather than a path to success. Three years of social adaptation after finishing university? Yet when we tell people our daughters will be home-schooled, we are reminded of the necessary socialization that public education provides... I'll pass on that, and you can keep your socialization if it yields the results I observe in children today. But why would 17 years of socialization in the education pipeline then require three years of social adaptation? The short answer is obviously that they don't. None of this is needed, and if we continue to believe this nonsense we deserve the outcomes we are experiencing now.

We ought to watch the moves Russia makes here and adapt them. By encouraging young people, particularly young women, to pursue higher education, the age of motherhood is pushed back. I don't think it's a stretch at all to say this is intentional, given what we see playing out in western democracies. But that aside, if we desire to at least attain replacement rate numbers, we clearly must have our young people starting families sooner, which means less education. The expectation is that Russia will encourage less 'education' of its young women, which is fine, because education does not remotely require the university system as we know it. We need to eliminate the trash response programmed into us that believes forced equality is a good thing, that men and women have the same roles, and that education in its current form is in any way a net positive that one can be deprived of.

Russia is serious about this. From the article:

"To address the demographic challenge, the government has increased financial incentives for families with children, taken steps to promote traditional family values, and in 2024 outlawed the promotion of the “child-free” ideology.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously emphasized the importance of creating favorable economic and social conditions to encourage people to have larger families and increase the birth rate."

Imagine if America, facing increasingly dire demographic and economic prospects for the younger generations, had 63 million more natural citizens because abortion was a capital punishment. Imagine if 75% of those under 30 who have college degrees skipped college entirely, and the debt, lack of practical education, and leftist propaganda that came with it. We'd have a lot fewer gay communists, a lot less crippling debt, and a lot more babies.

China will certainly follow suit, and both will leave America behind over the next century as we wallow in the failing vestiges of the enlightenment. Or we can stop the trend, at least in our own lives and communities. We can become outspoken advocates for young people skipping the education pipeline in favor of having families in their early 20s. We can have more children and completely ignore the societal pressures for women to join the meat grinder of careerism. We can provide for and protect our children so they never encounter the LGBT horrorshow, never know how much academia hates them, never experience the chaos that is a major American city. We can't change national policy, but we can implement our own policies for our families and leave it all on the field in the reclamation of our duties as men.