Pro-natalist policies in the infertility age

It's not often that Nigel Farage would be dubbed more left-wing than Keir Starmer - or Kid Starver, as the UK's new PM has recently been re-christened by Corbynite party rebels - but on one particular issue, apparently he is:

The two-child benefit cap.

Introduced by David Cameron's Conservative government in 2015, this policy meant, while most parents could claim a payment from the government for their first and second child, they couldn't make claims for any further children they had.

The Tories defended this policy by claiming it made the system fairer for taxpayers, ensuring households on benefits "face the same financial choices about having children as those supporting themselves solely through work".

The Labour Party is under increasing pressure to scrap this cap, predictably from some of its own more left-wing MPs, but also, rather improbably, from Reform's Nigel Farage.

Father-of-four Mr. Farage said:

'We feel that, actually, support for families is really rather important. We should be encouraging people to have children, we should even perhaps through the tax system be encouraging marriage, as well.'

This is a very significant and very revealing political turnaround, since, if the cap is scrapped - and it seems increasingly likely it will be - it would be one of the first clear and unambiguous incentives to have children sponsored by the establishment for decades.

For more than fifty years, the entire Western establishment has worked zealously hard to put people off procreating. From doom-laden warnings about "the population bomb", to sanctimonious sermons about the 'selfishness' of large families - and, of course, heavily subsidised contraception and abortion - the societal programming has been very clear: don't have (certainly not a lot of) children.

Society has also been deftly engineered to make it much harder for couples to have children, as a single wage is now rarely enough to support a family, whilst parents face eye-watering childcare costs to enable both to work.

In addition to financial pressures, more transient and mobile societies have meant parents often lack the support networks they once had, leaving many feeling isolated and overburdened (it is not uncommon for even married mothers to state they 'feel like single parents' because their husbands have to work so much to support the family).

In short, social engineers have done everything possible to make family life difficult, expensive, and unappealing. The two-child benefit cap was just meant as yet another deterrent to (larger) family life.

So why the sudden turnaround? And why would Nigel Farage, of all people, support this benefit cap being scrapped?

It is of note that Farage is a good friend of tech billionaire, Peter Thiel.

That would be the same Peter Thiel who has closely mentored and generously bankrolled US Vice Presidential candidate, JD Vance.

Vance is on record as claiming parents should have more political power and representation than non-parents, and the more children they have, the more influence they should wield.

He has gone so far as to suggest that for every child a parent has, they should get an additional vote.

Vance is now extremely close to the Oval Office, which he will almost certainly be occupying as Trump's VP come November, and, it is highly likely, as the POTUS himself not long after.

I have hypothesised Trump might be "assassinated" whilst in office, enabling Vance to take over, and even Trump's own son has confirmed the chances of Vance being president come 2028 are very high.

It is also not beyond the realms of possibility that Nigel Farage could become the UK Prime Minister the following year.

Labour is going to be such an unmitigated disaster for this country that there is no way they will win a second term, and - having got himself and four other Reform MPs into parliament, as the Conservative Party continues to implode - Farage is already styling himself and his party as the true opposition.

If he has the backing of ultra-wealthy business mogul and political 'kingmaker', Peter Thiel, as he apparently does, I would say Farage's chances of succeeding to the top job are very high.

So what is the significance of all this, and how does it relate to the issue of having children?

As I documented in a recent article, we are currently in a - rapidly intensifying - infertility crisis. Courtesy of the stealth sterilisation programme known as "HPV vaccination" - an injection estimated to have left around 1 in 4 women permanently sterile, and leaving many others enduring recurrent miscarriages - fertility has, in recent years, already been severely undermined. Then came the genocidal bioweapon Covid "vaccine", which has obliterated the fertility of many more people, women and men alike.

So why is it only now, after more than fifty years of anti-child propaganda, and when we are facing an unprecedented infertility crisis, that key members of the establishment have suddenly decided they like children again?

It's highly strategic, and it's about putting in place a new feudal society where some members are explicitly labelled as being more valuable and more significant than others.

Were a system such as JD Vance has suggested - giving parents an extra vote per child - ever to emerge, a blatant and undisguised caste system would exist, where parents - especially parents of large families - would be a much more powerful and influential class than everyone else.

So then we have to ask: what kind of people have large families?

Generally, the very wealthy, who can not only afford it, but who are usually well connected enough to know not to take sterilant bioweapon injections, so remain fertile.

Consider Elon Musk, generous contributor to Trump's political campaign, who has fathered 12 children.

Then there's the notorious Andrew Tate, also a Trump supporter, who has produced "at least ten" offspring.

JD Vance himself only has three thus far, but he is only 39 - plenty of time to expand his legacy further, perhaps via surrogate, as Mr Musk has done.

The point is that we are witnessing the beginnings of a seminal social sea change, where, after decades of anti-natalist propaganda and policies, we are going to see the opposite: a turnaround deliberately scheduled to begin at a time when more ordinary people than ever physically cannot have children.

It is simply not a coincidence that the whole world has been given a sterilant injection, and thereafter - and only thereafter - the establishment suddenly starts incentivising having children again, and bestowing extra privileges upon those who do.

It's to create a tiered society (much like the idea of 'essential' and 'non-essential' workers was), where some people are seen to matter a lot more than others, and, as such, have much more political, social, and economic power.

By sheer coincidence, those people will happen to be, largely, the ones who are already incredibly rich and influential.

By scrapping the two-child benefit cap, establishment players can be seen to be promoting the idea of large families for everyone, rich or poor. Yet the reality is, inordinately large numbers of ordinary people are now either sub- or infertile, so will not be able to expand (or even start) their families, even if they want to.

Prominent predictive programme vehicles Children of Men (set in 2027) and The Handmaid's Tale have already shown us a future where the vast majority of people are infertile. What they haven't shown us, however, is that this infertility has been intentionally engineered by elites, who - with the extraordinary advances in AI - no longer need the number of human workers around they once did.

In his 2024 book, 'The Singularity is Nearer', AI 'oracle', Ray Kurzwell, predicts that, within two decades, not only will AI be able to do the large majority of jobs better than humans can, but that we as a society will be at the point where man will fully merge with machine to create an AI-enhanced 'superhuman', capable of extraordinary achievements that currently we can barely imagine.

Kurzwell's book has been favourably reviewed by both Bill Gates and Yuval Noah Harari.

Although Kurzwell doesn't explicitly say this, it's obvious that the AI revolution that will enable one human to undertake tasks that in previous eras required vast workforces to complete, means far less people will be needed, which is why steps over decades have been taken to dramatically stem the birth rate.

Obviously, these measures have only been directed at ordinary people, the super-rich have continued having large families as they always did.

And said super-rich are now simply taking full advantage of the situation they have created by bestowing extra rights and privileges on those who continue to be able to have a lot of children, e.g., themselves, whilst penalising - and reducing the political power of - those who don't.

So, to avoid the kind of future in which Andrew Tate, Elon Musk, and that couple from "22 Kids and Counting" have infinitely more political power and social sway than the rest of us, it's time to get active and reclaim an alternative future - because, as always, the overlords only get what they want if we consent to it.

The more we understand about what they're planning, the more robustly resourced we are to resist it.

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

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

Find Miri AF on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter (posting as Informed Consent Matters)