Locking the nursery door after the birth rate has bolted

Okay, I'm mixing my metaphors a bit here, but I think you may nevertheless get the point...

In response to the UK's Prime Minister Keir Starmer declaring he "wouldn't tell people to have more children", former Tory MP Miriam Cates said:

"Very concerning that the Prime Minister doesn’t appear to understand the basic mathematical problem underpinning the UK’s sluggish growth; namely that falling birth rates mean we have fewer and fewer working people supporting growing numbers of pensioners."

To which I replied:

"He understands it very well. That is why he is currently engaged in a multi-pronged attack against the elderly to finish them off. Everything from the winter fuel axe to "assisted dying" to targeting pensioners with endless injections is all designed to solve this "problem".

There has been a lot of focus recently, especially from Republican presidential candidates (more on that later), about the need for people to have more children, given that the birth rate has collapsed in all Western nations to such a low level that most countries are below (some far below) replacement level fertility. This has created a "demographic winter", where we now have huge cohorts of elderly people, without the corresponding numbers of working-age people to support them.

Well, here's the problem with telling people to have more children now to solve this problem: it's too late. The pensioners are already here, and need support right now, not in two decades' time when whatever children are born now subsequently become adults.

To avoid the scenario we now find ourselves facing, we needed to have tackled the falling birth rate decades ago, by the 1970s at the latest. By that point - with the introduction of the Pill and legalised abortion in the 1960s - the birth rate had already dramatically declined, and so any casual observer could have predicted that, if we didn't do something about it, we would be facing the demographic difficulties we now have.

Instead, we were all encouraged to focus on the mythical problem of "overpopulation", with authorities insisting the only way to save the planet was to dramatically reduce the birth rate, so all the focus was at one end of the life cycle - at, as we now see, the huge expense of the other.

Other countries are already much more deeply embedded in this crisis than we are, especially China. Due to its infamous one-child policy - enacted between 1980 and 2016 - China is now grappling with what they call "the 4-2-1 problem": four elderly grandparents, two ageing parents, and only one working-age child to support them all.

As I say, this problem is already here. Increasing the birth rate now therefore doesn't solve it.

So how are governments solving it?

It's obvious, isn't it?

As I said to Ms. Cates - they are "solving" it by killing the elderly.

They've been targeting the elderly for years with the flu vaccine campaign - an annual injection which becomes free the minute you reach pension age - because they want to reduce the burden on the public purse in terms of pensions (which account for by far the largest chunk of welfare spending).

Obviously, the government has no incentive at all to prolong the lives of people once they have stopped working and paying income tax, so it would make no sense to spend a fortune on a free injection for the over-65s if the injection's purpose was to extend life, and thus extend the time people spend claiming a pension.

The free flu vaccine campaign only makes any economic sense if its actual purpose is to reduce lifespan and therefore save on pensions: and that's exactly what it does do and the government even admits it (they confirm the vaccine kills people off and therefore saves on pensions, but claim the vaccinated keep dying because "the wrong strain was targeted" therefore the injected weren't "protected". Obviously, if that were the case, the unvaccinated would be dying in equal quantities to the vaccinated, which of course they aren't).

The Covid vaccine programme was particularly targeted at the elderly for similar reasons, and now - with the winter fuel axe and assisted dying bill - the velvet glove is well and truly coming off the iron fist.

The ruling classes were being tacit before, but now they're being explicit: the elderly are a burden and we want them gone. And when you become a burden, we'll want you gone, too.

What do you mean you don't want to be euthanised at the age of 60? You should have thought of that before you selfishly failed to have enough children.

The reason that now - after decades of disincentivising having children in every way possible - significant arms of the establishment are suddenly claiming to be pro-procreation again, is so (just like everything they do) this claim can be used against us.

The world's governments (whether "left-wing" or "right-wing") have been stealth-sterilising young people for years, a campaign that was greatly intensified in 2008 (2006 in the USA) by the introduction of the HPV vaccine (estimated to permanently sterilise 25% of girls who receive it) - and then of course in 2021, with the Covid vaccine.

And, in addition to spiralling levels of female infertility, male sperm counts are set to hit zero by 2045.

Yet it's only NOW that the world's establishment decides it's a good idea for people to have more children? When more than ever before physically cannot?

Note that Donald Trump is cynically pretending to be pro-babies by saying, as president, he would offer all couples free IVF.

What a lovely guy, eh? So caring. So compassionate. So pro-children!

But hang on a minute... Why do so many couples now NEED this procedure? Shouldn't we be rather more urgently investigating that question, rather than immediately shoving them down the medical route... not least because IVF is famously not very successful?

And if a couple is completely sterile, e.g., producing no gametes at all as is predicted for men by 2045, then obviously it won't be successful at all.

This is kind of what I mean by my newly coined mixed metaphor regarding locked nurseries and bolted birth rates - it's all very well offering IVF to sterile people, but it's not going to be very effective, is it? If one was really interested in promoting the birth rate, one would be looking to investigate and reverse whatever's causing so many people to be infertile in the first place, but of course, "the father of the vaccine" is never going to do that.

I wrote previously about the insidious and growing campaign to blame people for their own infertility by coldly informing them that they "left it too late" - yet now, "too late" doesn't mean over 40 or even over 35 - but over 30.

That's because all the intensively HPV-vaccinated girls are now approaching 30, and so a big campaign is gearing up for "explaining" to them why, when they try to start their families, they can't.

As we have been clearly warned by hugely visible predictive programming vehicles, Children of Men (set 2027) and The Handmaid's Tale, we are hurtling into a future where most people are infertile.

And, just as was depicted to us by these offerings, that necessarily means a two-tier society will develop, where your social status will be largely defined by your ability to have children, and by how many you can have.

We can see this clearly reflected by some of the most powerful cultural influencers, who have huge numbers of children. Elon Musk has fathered 12. Andrew Tate has "at least" ten (and this figure is several years old, so he probably has about 30 by now - and indeed, Tate was taunting someone on Twitter recently who was boasting of having five children. "Five?" Said Tate mockingly. "Five? You mean per year, right?").

Meanwhile, the Vice Presidential candidate, JD Vance, who will almost certainly be installed in the White House come November after the latest Trump "assassination attempt", has explicitly suggested tying the amount of social and political power people have, to the number of children they have.

At a time where millions have been sterilised therefore making having any children at all impossible.

These are not coincidental timings. The elites have been able to avoid most of the fertility decimating poisons and injections foisted on the masses, so their fertility remains in tact - so now, they can offer incentives and benefits to those who have (many) children, knowing most of the masses won't be able to claim these benefits, and thus further solidifying and increasing their own social and political power.

As I said, Trump offering free IVF to everyone after they have all already been sterilised by the vaccine that he claims credit for, is a cynical ruse. Horses and stable doors etc., as I alluded to in the title of this piece.

The point is that when his administration introduces a two-tier society where parents of large families accrue extra cache and power, he can claim he offered everyone the opportunity to access these benefits by offering free IVF. It makes him look fair and democratic. It's clever.

The point is that, outside of their own families, no members of the ruling classes - who are all ruthless eugenicists and depopulationists - want more babies to be born. That's why they so heavily subsidise contraception and abortion - and abortifacient injections in pregnancy, and SIDS-inducing injections in infancy.

The only reason they ever did promote large families was when they needed large quantities of human labour to operate their factories and machinery. Now that that need has elapsed, as the abilities of AI to do more and more human jobs (and to do them better than humans can) has and continues to accelerate, the need for further human labour is largely obsolete. So, that is why the birth rate has been engineered to be in steep decline since the 1960s, and why, in the last few years, vast swathes of young people have been permanently sterilised.

These trends are responsible for the demographic crisis we discussed at the beginning of this essay, and it is a crisis that the ruling classes always anticipated. I mean, obviously: you really don't need to be a professional demographer to anticipate that, if the birth rate suddenly and dramatically drops from over 5 children per woman to under 2, you're going to have a disproportionately large cohort of elderly people and increasing struggles to care for them all.

As we move forward, then, the elderly are going to be blamed for their difficulties, just as the young are being blamed for their struggles to conceive now.

"You wanted children?" Doctors will coldly tell young women in their early thirties. "You should have started sooner. It's too late."

Subsequently, when these same people become elderly and are struggling with health problems, financial issues, cold and hunger, they will be told:

"You wanted to have a comfortable old age? You should have had children whilst you had the chance. Now you're just a state burden and we need to do something about you."

Of course, this will be applied to people who did have children, too, if for whatever reason their children are not able to care for them. Perhaps the child themselves has health problems, or lives too far away, or has caring responsibilities for another elderly adult (if, for instance - and like me - you are an only child and your divorced parents live at opposite ends of the country, then obviously you can't provide care for both at the same time).

I bring all this to light now so we can avoid it. It's not a foregone conclusion that this is how the future will be - nothing is preordained and the overlords always need our cooperation and consent to co-create their desired "reality" for them.

They want us to agree that the elderly are a burden, and to accept that this burden is our fault for failing to have enough children for the past 50-odd years. That is why politicos like Miriam Cates are talking about encouraging people to have children now to deal with the current elderly care crisis.

Of course Ms. Cates is fully aware that babies born in 2024 or subsequently cannot help with the current elderly care issues, but she is cynically sewing seeds to get us to accept a society moving forward where the masses accept the demographic problems are their fault... and therefore, that the state may need to take drastic action to solve them.

Bluntly, we are moving perilously nearer to a society where it is considered your social and moral duty to die once you reach a certain age, or require a certain level of care - if, in other words, you are seen as too much of a "burden".

This is precisely why the Covid vaccine was primarily directed at 1) the elderly, and 2) people with health problems, including learning disabilities. The learning disabilities targeting was a dead giveaway of this eugenic injection's real purpose, because even if one believed every word authorities said about Covid, there was never any rational explanation as to why those with learning disabilities would be any more at risk of it than anyone else.

They were targeted with that injection for the same reason the elderly were: because the powers that be want them gone.

The eugenic psychopaths who rule the world are always trying to demarcate the rest of us into "worthy" and "not worthy" brackets, and if we are in the latter compartment (which, in their eyes, we all are by the time we are elderly), they want us dead.

The only way to challenge this therefore is to affirm and reaffirm the sanctity of life and inherent value of all human life, whatever someone's age, health status, family circumstances, or whatever.

We can never allow "assisted dying" to become morally acceptable, because if we do, it will very quickly, if not immediately, become legalised murder of problem people, as is already happening in countries where it is legal, such as Canada.

It is hopelessly naive to imagine it would be restricted only to the irrevocably terminally ill who definitely want to die. It would quickly become the default option for anyone struggling or "burdening" the state in any way.

If someone is terminally ill and in a lot of pain, then we certainly have a duty to make them as comfortable as possible and to reduce their pain as much as we can. We certainly do not have a duty, or a right, to kill them.

Their suffering may well be difficult for them to bear or for loved ones to witness, but suffering is a fact of life, we all have to endure it at some stage, and therefore it is an obviously very sinister slippery slope to justify state euthanasia by claiming it is "ending someone's suffering". This inevitably leads to hideous scenarios where perfectly physically healthy twenty-somethings are euthanised because they are "suffering".

The fact is that, despite the falling birth rate - and yes, steps do need to be taken to address that, but NOT free state IVF - we still possess the energy and the resources to provide for everyone, and to ensure they have a good standard of living as they age, or deal with other struggles.

Social care certainly needs a shake-up and these vital jobs should be overhauled so they attract more people and better qualified people (indeed, 'care' is one of the few sectors expected to expand in subsequent years, as many others contract due to AI).

But we cannot fall for the dark magicians' parlour tricks of people like Donald Trump, when they now (and only now) cynically pretend to care about the birth rate or the implications of this for the elderly. They don't care, they don't want more babies born, they've sterilised half the world on purpose.

They are simply engaging in performative political theatre, to cover up their own complicity in the demographic difficulties we currently face, in order to make us blame ourselves for them.

Essentially, the only difference between Keir Starmer (and "the left" generally) and Donald Trump (and "the right" generally) is that Keir Starmer is being open and honest about his eugenic depopulationist desires: he's telling you he doesn't want you to have children. He's telling you the elderly should be frozen to death or "assisted" to die.

Trump is simply putting a thin veneer over his true intentions, but their endgame agendas - depopulate, depopulate, depopulate - remain exactly the same, and the "left" and "right" have long since been in cahoots in working together to create the demographic difficulties we now face.

Yet we must remember that a 'difficulty' need not mean 'disaster'. There are always creative solutions to be found to any problem. Yes, it's true we have - and will continue to have - a disproportionately large number of elderly people as compared to younger working-age adults.

But is that really the "disaster" it's being presented as? Couldn't being elderly be a time of life we could actively look forward to and continue to enjoy, rather than it being seen as a time of being nothing but a bleak and unnecessary "burden"?

For instance, my grandmother is 91. She has some short term memory loss, but is otherwise in excellent health, and lives independently in an over-55s village with about 150 other residents. She's lived there for 14 years, following my grandfather's death 20 years ago.

The complex she inhabits has trained medical staff onsite should they be required, but, equally importantly, has many communal areas, including a music room, restaurant, bingo hall, etc., and a well-maintained outside area to sit in in the summer. All the residents are frequently invited to various meetings and events.

The idea that elderly people should spend their twilight years rocking alone by the fireside in the homes of their children is outdated and doesn't suit most older people these days, who have their own lives. My grandmother has five children, but they all left the local area years ago, and she does not wish to leave the locality she's lived in for more than seventy years, abandoning her friends and memories, to go and "start again" in her nineties. Moreover, her independence is very important to her (she tells me this every time I visit), and she actually doesn't want to live with any of her children, lovely as they all are.

So, supported independent accommodation in her hometown, where she has her own flat and is surrounded by contemporaries, suits her much better.

There's no reason we all shouldn't continue to enjoy similar independence and sociability into our old age, and this is still possible even with some health challenges. My great-grandmother, who lived to the age of 96, lived independently until she died, despite having been blind from early adulthood.

She did not have a partner, having split up with my great-grandfather in her forties, and did not live with her children - she only had one (my grandfather), but he lived miles away, and - like my grandmother today - she preferred to stay where she was. She was very sociable and popular, and whenever I would go to visit (she died when I was 14), she almost always had a friend around.

So I know firsthand that elderly people - even those with some health challenges - can still enjoy rich, full, and sociable lives, and there is absolutely no justification for claiming or implying they are "burdens" that the state must "deal with" just because they reach a certain age. They may well need some extra support, but so do many younger people.

In fact, I have to admit, I rather eye with envy my grandmother's living facilities. She has a lovely flat with all the home comforts you would expect, so she can certainly have as much privacy as she wants... but only has to open her front door and can access multiple communal and social events, sit and chat with neighbours, share a meal or game of cards... I can't do that on my street and I rather suspect you can't, either.

We're fed an image of the elderly as lonely, cold, and isolated, huddled up by their one-bar heater with nothing but the television for company (an image which possesses an underlying and rather grim implication that they might be better off dead), and whilst this picture is certainly, and very sadly, an accurate depiction for some, it isn't for all and there's no need for it to be true for any. Winter may be the final season, but that is no reason not to embrace and enjoy it every bit as much as the preceding three.

We simply need to manage that time of life more strategically, which is eminently possible (including taking steps to avoid the kind of health challenges that can make continued independence difficult, such as Alzheimer's), to make it a buoyant and rewarding time of life, full of interesting activities and meaningful relationships. This is not least because, by remaining sociable and active, older people actively ward off many health conditions which can be directly caused and exacerbated by loneliness and isolation.

So, yes, we do face demographic difficulties currently. But 'difficulty' need not imply 'disaster', and, as I often like to remind people, in some Chinese dialects, the symbol for 'crisis' is also the symbol for 'opportunity'... (learning Chinese! Now there's one of many interesting and stimulating things you can consider undertaking in your colourful and rewarding old age. Though, the way the world's going, it might be more prudent to learn Russian...).

Thanks for reading! This article was originally published at miriaf.co.uk, which is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly at Substack or Patreon (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you’d like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.