Why Big Families Are An Advantage

It’s supposed to be good sense among the better classes that large families are something only for religious zealots who hold backwards views about women still have. In the eyes of the new class, having many children is a sign of backwards beliefs. It is also a crimp on the lifestyle that the better sort of person is supposed to enjoy. How can both spouses ‘lean in’ at the office when there are six or more children to take care of? Sending just one child to Harvard costs a lot of money out of pocket. How can anyone afford to send seven of them in that direction?

Not to mention that exciting sex life that you are supposed to be having through your 40s, 50s, and 60s. Surely, it gets really complicated to manage your polyamorous thirds and fourths when you have so much parenting to take care of. Let’s not even get into how you can convince your wife to get to know her horse a little better when she has all those kids to take care of, like the cool liberals do when they’re on vacation.

The trouble with this point of view is that it’s really becoming outmoded. Too many people have been sent to American universities, the value of the degrees has become debased, and the educations that it provides are providing diminishing returns. The ultra-high-investment lifestyle family is not providing the same windfall that it did in the 1970s and 1980s, when the drop in overall fertility became both stylish and popular.

In a country with declining social trust, creating larger families which are tight-knit confers some strong advantages.

When the press is full of lies, you need an extended family with trusted networks of their own to provide you with accurate information about changing conditions in politics and markets. When the public information clearing-houses provide only lies and disinformation, the people who believe that material will suffer major disadvantages. When the published statistics are false, being able to call up someone in the family to get the accurate information confers some real advantages.

When all the phone lines are tapped, and your ‘smart’ television is listening to your living room banter, being able to walk over to a friend’s house, turn on the water faucet, and talk business can be of incalculable value. When technological surveillance becomes endemic and widely abused, blood-bonds become much more reliable relative to the alternative.

The micro-family model only makes some sense when public institutions are trustworthy and not liable to brutally predate on everyone who trusts them. If the public institutions are predatory, then the connective framework that micro-families rely upon is now actively dangerous to their health rather than supporting their potential.

Additionally, the micro-family household tends to be beset by terror about the health and conformity of all the children. When there is only little Jayden in the house, along with the minipoodle named ‘Kucinich,’ any eccentricity or physical problem with the vulnerable members of the family becomes cause for obsession and fear. A quirk in the child can be magnified, with the aid of an army of psychiatrists, to be Austism Type V, plus Minor Depression, plus ADHD Nervosa, gluten intolerance, and a side of Gender Dysmorphia, to be treated with a handful of daily pills plus hormone injections.

When there are several kids, it becomes less tempting for the parents to turn any minor problem into a full-blown disaster. Further, when there are real medical problems with one child, the healthy ones make up for it, making it less of  devastating family tragedy.

Large families will confer out-sized advantages as modern states find it impossible to meet their obligations. The people who have whole-heartedly adopted the micro-family / big nation-state model will suffer severe adaptive pressures as the state must cannibalize some of those people in order to feed its larger mass of dependents. The people who find themselves more capable of withdrawing from that predatory system will enjoy certain survival advantages.

While it may in some ways be a greater expense, requiring a larger initial investment, if the integrity of the family can be maintained, there is no better place to put money to work.

The large networks of trade, communication, and military alliance are breaking down in the Western world. What replaces them is not nothing, but smaller, tighter, less easily monitored networks based on trust and blood. Where that starts is the family network, which has the advantage of being self-renewing.

The fear that people feel about the increasing tyranny and unpredictability of the modern state structures can only be properly assuaged by building competing networks. The fear can’t be assuaged by marching around with silly signs and begging for reform. Hungry beasts need to eat, and you make yourself less appealing as a meal by becoming harder to catch and meaner to kill. You don’t become that way by trying to convince hungry wolves that sheep are not delicious, or that it is wrong for wolves to eat sheep.

Let them eat someone else instead.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All


  1. I’ve often thought about this as I’ve noticed the general trend of SWPL types having 1, 2 or 0 children. They think that they are doing the world a favor by reducing the population. The propaganda about having few or no children is really everywhere. All we ever hear about is how expensive it is to have children and what a burden it is on everyone and the environment. What we don’t hear about is that big families tend to be happier and have more security.

    I’ve spoken to some of the no-or-few-children believers and they truly believe that they are merely ahead of the curve and the immigrant Muslims and others of that ilk will follow in their suit. They never think of the possibility that their own children will have to grow up as minorities in their own countries and what type of effect that will have on them.

    1. They believe in the moral goodness of the small family. An appeal to danger is not as effective as promoting an alternative view of the moral life.

      Also, most of these people believe that their becoming a minority is a good thing, because racial minorities are holy. Since minorities are holy, making whites into a smaller minority (they’re already a minority in the leading liberal cities) will make them even holier. Making it so that the demographics of the rest of the country look closer to the demographics of Los Angeles and New York City is seen as a positive moral development.

      So really it is less possible to change their moral framework, and easier to just displace them from their positions of influence and authority. Because part of their moral belief is that they should be removed from authority, this becomes a lot easier if you don’t pretend like it needs to be changed, and instead take an openly adversarial tone.

      1. I don’t disagree with what you say here, but take a step back and read deeply and…it’s insane. That is, anyone who actually believes “Since minorities are holy, making whites into a smaller minority (they’re already a minority in the leading liberal cities) will make them even holier” is not sane in terms of sanity as survival tool.

        Unless masochism is sane. And come to think of it, maybe that’s the bedrock of Progness.

        1. If they’re insane, then it should be easy to displace them, which is a nice way of saying “crush.” If they are not insane, then it becomes very difficult.

          This is, in my opinion, why there are so many rationalizations for the fertility pattern, starting with the notion that labor has become obsolete and that robots will handle everything. It began as a fictional proposition, but it’s now considered a serious point of faith by economists and trendy opinion-makers in key cities.

          1. But this is also what transhumanists, propose, Henry.

            The way I see it, the problems posed by the advancements in technology, will be solved by unavoidable conflicts created by that technology. Any technology that actually ends up being so advanced that it causes a breakdown in the essential way human societies function (i.e – people having jobs) is not going to last.

            Icarus flew a little too close to the sun… and crashed to earth as a fireball.

  2. This is a good list of the positives of large families, and whilst I’m a supporter of large families, it appears to fall in to the same trap conservative Christians and White Nationalists fall for (albeit for different reasons). Essentially we need to have large families because that will save us all.

    Here in Australia, according to the fathers’ rights activist group #21fathers, 21 fathers commit suicide every week. For more detail on the research visit the #21fathers at http://theabf.com.au/21fathers/

    I don’t endorse this group, I’m not a member and not even sure how they arrived at this figure, so take with a grain of salt. They are MRAs, equality enthusiasts and appear fairly left-wing.

    But the core message is clear and obvious, the Cathedral has made large families a liability, particularly for fathers, by engineering laws that not only make it easy for women to loot their families, but encourage it by providing generous state-funded counselling, legal services, law enforcement favoritism, as well as generous state-funded cash bonuses now and ongoing in the future – to plunder their family and continue to bleed the father indefinitely in to the future.

    Having a large family can easily result in a man being legally held financially responsible for a family he rarely or never has contact with, and if he doesn’t maintain that responsibility faces differing levels of punishment varying by jurisdiction from imprisonment in the United States to bankruptcy partition in the UK. Not to mention the social isolation, deadbeat dads are a common enemy of the right and left alike.

    So while it might be fashionable to have small families or adopt an Ethiopian to complement the poodle, many men legitimately and wisely opt out of families all together for the reasons above. It’s not just fashion or narcissism, the decision many men make to avoid family could have easily been a decision between life and death.

    This sounds dramatic, and if it does sound that way to any reader then they really haven’t grasped the severity of situation men face now. And being ignorant of this makes them a prime candidate to fall in to the traps set by feminist and others.

    Personally I think before we can talk about big families again we should be addressing comprehensively how to wind back feminism, and wind it back to pre-1900 levels. As far as I can see, every other option only provides the fuel the Cathedral needs to keep its ovens burning.

    1. Who are are true allies in fighting the cathedral though? How can we bring the change to grant paternal kin selection again? The MRAs can’t even get shared parenting laws passed, much less assumed father paternity. I used to think that perhaps by adopting the language of the cathedral I could draw some of their advocates, and they are most of everyone, into enlightenment. I can not. Not really. Their entire world view is corrupt and they can not see past it.

      Myself I am allying with a patriarchal religion. While I do not believe much of their nonsense they are the strongest allies I can identify. They also appear to be my only hope of creating a family and not being robbed for it by the state.

      1. >The MRAs can’t even get shared parenting laws passed

        MRAs in Australia succeeded in introducing shared-parenting, but conservative chivalry granted a concession to Feminist law-makers by making shared-parenting rebuttable. This means any allegation of violence, using the leftist definition (where disagreeing with your wife = violence), and the mother can overturn shared-care (and then get the profitable windfall).

        But this is beside the point.

        > I used to think that perhaps by adopting the language of the cathedral I could draw some of their advocates, and they are most of everyone, into enlightenment.

        I wouldn’t bother, these folks are religious in their zeal for equalism and not likely to be converted. Let real life teach its valuable lessons in the school of hard knocks.

        > Myself I am allying with a patriarchal religion.

        I’m not going to kid you and say there is a sure-fire (and permanent) way to defeat the Cathedral. Do the religious thing and I hope you scratch the itch and meet a great women who honors you and sticks to the doctrine. But the problem is many decades ago the Cathedral did one very smart trick, instead of getting everyone who marries to “opt in” to their feminist redefinition of marriage, they retroactively redefined the marriage act – to be the feminist definition.

        So even if you married in 1850, and had vows to match the status quo, since the 70’s your wife has foregone much cash and prizes to stay with you.

        And this is the critical bit: The Cathedral never misses an opportunity to remind her of her loss, in every TV show, women’s magazine and even when she goes out with her friends – they remind her too. So for a women to stay, she’d have to defy all known heuristics we know about women (namely, they are followers, not leaders, who follow social trends, not an innate sense of loyalty). The odds are against you.

    2. Your point is valid but misplaced. If a man had one child or eight children, he is still at risk of divorce theft, losing his parental rights, etc. However, by having a large family you will likely gravitate to others where that is accepted. These cultural minorities–conservative Catholics, Mormons, fundamentalists, etc.–also look down on divorce much more so than the common culture. So the advantage is twofold: building up resistance to the Cathedral and giving yourself a better chance of a life long marriage.

      I understand the reasons for MGTOW, but just realize that you become a genetic dead end and are refusing to raise children that can fight the Cathedral in the future.

      1. > by having a large family you will likely gravitate to others where that is accepted

        I disagree. I’d say people would already be that way inclined to have large families to begin with. As demonstrated here and elsewhere, there is no point to large families nowadays (perhaps other than fulfilling some religious duty). I cant recall any liberals who’ve suddenly become conservative Catholics, because they accidentally had 8 children.

        My point is that large families are actually a massive liability for men. Under the current Marxist-inspired “stick-it-to-the-man” rules, the post-divorce financial burden on men (or the reward for women) increases, generally linearly, the more children you have. The costs on the women don’t increase linearly, but the penalties do for men.

        Regardless, let’s assume you’re right, that having more children makes you more conservative, the current progressive rules alone provide an irresistible incentive for your wife to leave, and the more kids you have, the bigger the incentive is.

        > I understand the reasons for MGTOW

        I’m not a MGTOW advocate, I agree MGTOW is certainly a dead end. MGTOW has no answers. But one thing is certain, the current legal climate men now face, with its perverse incentives that reward all who become ghetto single-mothers, by off-loading the costs of this progressive project to the fathers, has produced a situation where the most rational thing a man can do – is opt out.

  3. I have only one child but not because of some Liberal ideology. One child is easy to deal with and I like money. Also, kids are really annoying sapping every last bit of energy out of you. I was at Disney this summer and I glanced over at this guy my age who had 3 kids, the look on his face said it all: exhausted, bitter and beaten down. The wife as big as a house. He looked over at me with a longing for my sunny, breezy, carefree lifestyle. I think if there is ever an ’emergency situation’ it is easier to relocate, exit, hide quickly as apposed to being completely encumbered with offspring and a fat wife. Better for the three of us to slip away through the escape hatch without being noticed and to feed far fewer mouths when supplies are on the wane.

  4. The benefits of extra children increase faster than the costs do. It’s not much harder to have three children than two, or four children than three, and so on.

  5. Having said everything I have about the disincentives of large families in modern progressive societies, I still think large families are worthwhile, both for personal benefits for the individuals involved and also for the future of Western civilisation.

    In a nutshell, if we don’t procreate, even under the most oppression regimes imagined by those who have consciously or unconsciously a genocidal motivation, we really do face the end.

    The purpose of highlighting the issues men face is because I believe these are the real reasons why men are opting out. Sure, it is certainly fashionable to desire a narcissistic lifestyle, as shown above, without or without an underpinning of liberal ideology, but the question I ask is why?

    The answer, I believe, is because of easy sex and the oppressive penalties on fatherhood, and both were the creation of Feminism.

  6. Neoreactive, I agree with you that many men are responding to the poisonous disincentives feminism has attached to fatherhood by MGTOW. For many men, it really is the only rational choice, albeit devoid of hope.

    My fundamental point is that I want to encourage men to fight the Cathedral and destroy it. The best way to do this is by having a life long marriage and lots of kids. Thus, I suggest the following:
    1. Be a man
    2. Find a conservative community (yeah, I know these are a needle in a haystack but I found one)
    3. Marry a woman willing to follow your lead, use game to help
    4. Have lots of kids and bring them up traditionally
    5. Win

    The Cathedral at its core is anti-human and built upon manifold lies. It will collapse. I and my progeny will be there to help make it happen and to rebuild afterward.

    1. BC, your attitude is exactly the kind that must inform the broad swath of anti-Modernist thought. I would also advise you to be very well acquainted with your 2nd Amendment, if you’re American that is. Bringing kids up in a Traditional manner is fine, but at a certain age you have to make sure they know that the way of life you have taught them is under threat, and that your boys are to React as you have, loyal to the World of Tradition in the face of great adversity.

      If you bring your sons up as true men, they will fear no pain that Modernity can impress upon them.

  7. I am not sure if you have seen this Mr. Dampier, I posted it to the reddit comment section as well. Bruce Charlton claims that we are living in an era in which natural selection is pure fertility, meaning that reactionaries ought to have as many children as physically possible.


  8. Andrew Pearson July 8, 2015 at 11:07 pm

    Fantastic! I have been running from what is most important. My family. Loved it!

Comments are closed.