PDA

View Full Version : Why Don't You Want/Have Children?



Pages : [1] 2

Nachtengel
Friday, July 24th, 2009, 12:50 PM
For those who don't want children, please tell us why. What made you come to a decision like that?

Matrix
Friday, July 24th, 2009, 02:44 PM
Many children, little ones and teenagers, annoy me. I don't see myself as a parent either. It's too much responsibility. I couldn't even hold a pet, because I don't have time and patience to look after it daily.

Bärin
Friday, July 24th, 2009, 02:53 PM
Many children, little ones and teenagers, annoy me. I don't see myself as a parent either. It's too much responsibility. I couldn't even hold a pet, because I don't have time and patience to look after it daily.
:thumbdown

Too much responsibility, huh? I'm 19, and if I can do it at this age, anyone else can too.

Thusnelda
Friday, July 24th, 2009, 04:16 PM
I want a child but I had a mournful miscarriage earlier this year and so I want to wait a few more years before I "try it again". :| My doctor says I´ve no physical or biological defects but I want to take one step at a time.

uppvaknad
Friday, July 24th, 2009, 04:20 PM
Because my girlfriend and I want to get through university and get a stabil economic situation first. Then we want many children.

þeudiskaz
Friday, July 24th, 2009, 05:09 PM
Because my girlfriend and I want to get through university and get a stabil economic situation first. Then we want many children.

This is pretty much my situation. Except that she's my wife. ;)

Although, by "many" we're thinking three.

Liemannen
Saturday, July 25th, 2009, 11:53 AM
Family traditions are important to me.
And as my parents and grandparents never had any children, I have decided not to have any either.

prodeutsch
Sunday, July 26th, 2009, 02:51 AM
I can't think of any reason not to have children. In fact I want more , because it is my duty to ensire the survival of our Race/Volk! Besides many europeans won't have any children but complain when muslims and the like move into their neighbohood. The fact that we have to talk about having children is sad! As the NIKE advertisement says, "JUST DO IT!"

Family traditions are important to me.
And as my parents and grandparents never had any children, I have decided not to have any either.

That must be some neat Nordic trick.... ;)

ReinekeFuchs
Sunday, July 26th, 2009, 05:46 AM
Family traditions are important to me.
And as my parents and grandparents never had any children, I have decided not to have any either.

So your Mom and Dad is who? The Holy Ghost?:D
You've got to be more original than that!:D

AngloTeutonic
Sunday, July 26th, 2009, 10:34 PM
You can't be awakened to racialism if you are not going to have children. Our race is not having enough babies...sucks to be them. It means that we get to pass on our genes more by having more babies, whereas their obviously defective genes will be weeded out of the gene pool forever. Thank God I know the truth.

Adalheid Friunt
Monday, July 27th, 2009, 02:23 AM
I for one cannot afford children, and generally cannot stand being around them anyway (Most kids these days are just so undisciplined and disrespectful, since modern society encourages such behavior.).

Having kids would require the sacrifice of most of my education, career, hobbies, and relationship, and I would rather pass on culture and history through information to a larger number of mature, free-thinking people (as opposed to only one or two children).

But if having lots of babies is more your thing, go all out, I say! :thumbup

Gardisten
Monday, July 27th, 2009, 03:25 AM
There's way too many women who think like this, which means that there is a corresponding male population that's basically cast adrift. This just causes the social problems that you complain about because a destabilized society that isn't focused on creating stable nuclear-families rather the pursuit of individual goals.

Kogen
Tuesday, July 28th, 2009, 09:47 AM
I am surprised to see anyone agreeing with any of these replies besides 'other'.

I personally view not wanting children as absolute treason to our race. Even if I remain single, I will adopt children and put all the effort I can into reproducing our people, or spend significant time and resources on helping others have children themselves. I expect no less from anyone else and will look down on anyone who does not do the same, as they are lower form of humanity not worthy of the same respect or treatment.

Matrix
Tuesday, July 28th, 2009, 11:30 AM
If someone is so simple minded to think nationalism means having children and nothing else, then they are the 'lower life forms'.

I'd like to see how you justify forcing people who don't want children and can't be good parents to reproduce and create more broken homes. Hell of a contribution to the white race.

You contradict yourselves. If people who don't want children are inferior and unworthy, there is little sense in giving birth to a flood of more inferior children.

Bittereinder
Tuesday, July 28th, 2009, 11:53 AM
Here is a post (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=118994) by Anhanerbe that relates how I feel.


No wonder, indeed, that man lives in constant fear of what the next day has in store for him! Unfortunately, this fear and hopelessness is most widespread in the Aryan part of the world, where decadence and moral decay are most advanced. Here people have been totally alienated from all sound and natural values and made into mindless zombies, whose anxieties are soothed by material affluence - in a constant race against economic chaos. In spite of all the material goodies of the modern world, these people are neither happy nor satisfied. They completely lack ideals and enthusiasm and they have lost all faith in the future. The Aryan is simply afraid to bring children into this world. As he sees no future, he prefers the luxuries of the moment to the preservation of his race and culture. He tries to secure as comfortable a life for himself as he can in this cesspool, and his only hope is that the inevitable catastrophe will not occur in his lifetime. Thus, he passively watches the land of his forefathers being slowly but steadily taken over by aliens, who do not yet realize that the end of the white man means the end of all civilization.

Quo vadis
Tuesday, July 28th, 2009, 02:03 PM
I'd like to see how you justify forcing people who don't want children and can't be good parents to reproduce and create more broken homes.

In the vast majority of all cases saying that one can't be good parents is just a convenient excuse for a selfish choice. If we leave it to everybody to judge for himself how many children, if any, he wants, then people will choose what feels good to them as individuals, not what is good for our people as a whole.

A Germanic community dedicated to survival must demand of every of its members to reproduce according to the community's best interest, and in our situation this means for every fit individual to have as many children as possible. Under the conditions of a liberal society we can't force anyone to have more children than he wants to, but we can ostracize these people and exclude the traitors from our community. Our reproducing below replacement level will continue until we stop tolerating it.


You contradict yourselves. If people who don't want children are inferior and unworthy, there is little sense in giving birth to a flood of more inferior children.

It is not up to the individual to decide if he is inferior or unworthy.

Bittereinder
Tuesday, July 28th, 2009, 03:39 PM
It is not up to the individual to decide if he is inferior or unworthy.

The problem is however, in the current inherently sick society that is ruling so many aspects of our daily life. The probability of successfully fostering a child to be a fulfilled functioning Germanic is (compared to the past) relatively low. The Financial constraints that we face especially in a country like South Africa makes that to breed like rabbits would meen that one would not be able to provide a sufficient development to the child so as to be of any true worth for Germanic culture.

It might be different for a country like Germany that has a demographic superiority of Germans and a first world economy, but in South Africa the child will almost surely become either a slave to the multi-culti system or a washed out confused white drug addict with no job, history or future because it is essentially considered wrong to be Germanic.

I am rather sure that in a Germanic only society more people would have children by choice simply because there would be a much improved chance of fostering healthy individuals. It is just as big a sin IMO to bring forth insufficiently moral, adjusted and intellectual offspring that will mean little or nothing for their race.

This I feel can be considered as another reason why our numbers are dwindling compared to other cultures such as the Chinese and Indian’s.

velvet
Tuesday, July 28th, 2009, 04:13 PM
but we can ostracize these people and exclude the traitors from our community. Our reproducing below replacement level will continue until we stop tolerating it.

This blabbering about 'reproduction below replacement level' is complete hypocritical BS, although it might serve a purpose, that of instilling fear into people. But this reproduction behavior is really just a 'problem' in the face of the hyper-reproductive immigrants in our countries.
Because, there still is the relation between population and resources, the white race was so far the only one that reacted sound to a lack of resources, look at Africa, they produce ~20 children to be able to survive, that is, doing the work. If they'd only had five children, they wouldnt need / waste to much resources etc. But they are obviously not able to connect both things and react accordingly.
It will not help us to turn our countries into just another third-world area, but this is exactly the result of over-population.

And btw, you're stating you're 32 and single. What is your excuse not to have 'as many children as possible'? Not the right women? BS. You must lower your demands. ;)


It is not up to the individual to decide if he is inferior or unworthy.

Kogen labelled them as inferior.
But still, it makes no sense to force people to have children when these people either dont like children (what a bad childhood for these possible children, with even more social defects than today) or feel they shouldnt reproduce because they probably have genetic defects or suffer from mental defects left on them by the current/recent societal structures.

This is part of the plan that is run against us, but it will take a while to reverse the process.
And since you live in Germany, you know that it is for the common worker impossible to run a family with the mother at home. Beside that you place yourself outside society when you decide to have more than two children.

But if the common nationalists decides to do so, do it, dont care about your social rank or even apply for HartzIV for that you can care for your children all day long and get 10 if you want. After all, the welfare is better given to German big families than to another 20headed muslim pack :thumbup

Nachtengel
Tuesday, July 28th, 2009, 04:32 PM
I am surprised to see anyone agreeing with any of these replies besides 'other'.
That depends on the reason. I think some people should have the duty not to reproduce, those with genetic deficiencies being some. We need a race of healthy children, not physically and mentally ill ones. A race is as superior as its members are, thus we should avoid giving birth to inferior children.

ladybright
Tuesday, July 28th, 2009, 04:42 PM
There are some people that are not capable of being decent parents. I feel it is better if they re not parents.(If it is because of personal trauma then they could give a child to another healthier family.) I think most people here could be decent parents.

If someone has a serious genetic defect I will not blame them for being childless. If they chose to adopt more power to them. I have poor eyesight, CFS and fibromyalgia and do not consider these to be serious enough to avoid children, just a limit t how many I can properly care for.

I do not understand the fear of pain in childbirth and 'ruined body' as reasons to not have children. I am not talking about people with family history of serious childbirth complications. I have never had a 'perfect' body so I have not had it to lose. I like my body but it is part of me and my life. It is not the most important thing in my life.

Childrearing is hard work and takes dedication and love. It should be an act of love and joy not a dark duty.

Huginn ok Muninn
Tuesday, July 28th, 2009, 06:12 PM
I want to focus on my career.
Then your priorities are completely screwed up.
I'm afraid pregnancy would destroy my body.
Ridiculous.
I don't think I can afford it financially.
If cave men could afford it, so can you. PlayStations and Plasma TVs are not necessities.
I don't like children/I don't see myself as a parental figure.
Then you're a useless human being.
My partner doesn't want children so I want to respect his/her wish.
Pussy.
I'm tokophobic (afraid of the pain during childbirth).
Do perineal massage.
I have a genetic defect which I don't want to pass on.
Is it really that bad? What about the 1000 GOOD points about you? One of the sweetest, prettiest, smartest girls I've known had a mother with a harelip. I'm glad her mother wasn't that negative.
I don't have a partner/I prefer being single.
Try harder/Reconsider your priorities
I am concerned about overpopulation.
Oh, so you would deny the world Germanic children so the third worlders can take our place? This is the most moronic reason here. We are below replacement rate. We NEED more Germanic children.
I consider the modern world too screwed up to bring children into it.
It's only screwed up because people are too negative to create a new generation and teach them well. People like you.
Another reason. (please state)
There really is no good reason. The purpose of every living thing is procreation. Nothing else is even remotely as important.

Kogen
Tuesday, July 28th, 2009, 06:53 PM
The problem is however, in the current inherently sick society that is ruling so many aspects of our daily life. The probability of successfully fostering a child to be a fulfilled functioning Germanic is (compared to the past) relatively low.

That is rather defeatist, is not it? You see a problem, then you run in panic. Instead, look to solve the problem, I am sure most of us could if we focused.


The Financial constraints that we face especially in a country like South Africa makes that to breed like rabbits would meen that one would not be able to provide a sufficient development to the child so as to be of any true worth for Germanic culture.

And when your people migrated to South Africa, they were rich and in good social condition? Leaving Europe likely due to poverty and living in a barren wilderness filled with unfriendly people?


It might be different for a country like Germany that has a demographic superiority of Germans and a first world economy, but in South Africa the child will almost surely become either a slave to the multi-culti system or a washed out confused white drug addict with no job, history or future because it is essentially considered wrong to be Germanic.

Money is not required for a family. The Negros with excessive children do not have money. I am sure your grandparents or prior did not have much money. Nature does not require things of pretend value.

All of those other faults can be overcome by simply teaching children. It is not difficult to do such a thing.


I am rather sure that in a Germanic only society more people would have children by choice simply because there would be a much improved chance of fostering healthy individuals. It is just as big a sin IMO to bring forth insufficiently moral, adjusted and intellectual offspring that will mean little or nothing for their race.

Being of the race alone is something. Are not you glad that your parents never had this attitude? They gave you a chance.

And like I said, your home was not Germanic when it was first created. Yet you and million(s) of others are still there.


This I feel can be considered as another reason why our numbers are dwindling compared to other cultures such as the Chinese and Indian’s.

Chinese population is below replacement on purpose by the government. India is the most populated and growing country in the world. If you look at immigration levels, you will notice it is not the Chinese that are spreading the most overall.


This blabbering about 'reproduction below replacement level' is complete hypocritical BS, although it might serve a purpose, that of instilling fear into people. But this reproduction behavior is really just a 'problem' in the face of the hyper-reproductive immigrants in our countries.

Simply put, no. Germanic reproduction rates are not high enough to sustain any community. Remove all other races and we still have a problem with this. At the very least, people need to have more children than people that currently exist to even maintain the same population (deaths, et cetera).


Because, there still is the relation between population and resources, the white race was so far the only one that reacted sound to a lack of resources, look at Africa, they produce ~20 children to be able to survive, that is, doing the work. If they'd only had five children, they wouldnt need / waste to much resources etc. But they are obviously not able to connect both things and react accordingly.

They are not doing it themselves, we are making them do it. It is Europe that feeds, medicates, accepts, and promotes this.


It will not help us to turn our countries into just another third-world area, but this is exactly the result of over-population.

No one is asking for 20 million population cities or endless sheet-metal shacks. We are asking for normal familes with at least three children. It is a rather simple and fair request.


And since you live in Germany, you know that it is for the common worker impossible to run a family with the mother at home. Beside that you place yourself outside society when you decide to have more than two children.

This is why Germany is dying. Forget the money and the degenerate, worthless society that was created by Americans and Jews. Just raise a family and keep it healthy. If you cannot afford it, tap into that welfare that the immigrants use. Surely you are not suggesting a Muslim in unwashed rags is better than you and your folk? They are doing the 'impossible'. Live with your parents if you have to, they can maintain the home with wage/pension.


But if the common nationalists decides to do so, do it, dont care about your social rank or even apply for HartzIV for that you can care for your children all day long and get 10 if you want. After all, the welfare is better given to German big families than to another 20headed muslim pack :thumbup

Well yes, that. 'Welfare' is the product of our people, it is ours to use. There should be no shame in using as much of it as possible for the benefit of your country.


That depends on the reason. I think some people should have the duty not to reproduce, those with genetic deficiencies being some. We need a race of healthy children, not physically and mentally ill ones. A race is as superior as its members are, thus we should avoid giving birth to inferior children.

Adoption.

Sigurd
Tuesday, July 28th, 2009, 08:58 PM
Adoption.

Indeed - for those unable to reproduce, or genetically defective without the wish to pass on these genetic defects - adoption of children of that same folk group can still be an option in certain circumstances:

Assume that you have one couple - both at large genetically valuable: The man used to be an Olympic gold medallist in cycling, and the woman has two PhD's and is the author of several best-selling books. This means, they have superior mental and physical abilities to pass on --- however both suffer from a neurological illness.

This neurological illness, so we assume, is absolutely harmless if afflicted by it alone, and have no negative bearing upon the quality of child-rearing. We shall also assume however, that if both combine in one person, then that person is likely to suffer pretty harshly. Assume also, that both syndromes have high levels of inheritance. The couple opt not to have children of their own, out of the fear that one of their children could inherit both at once, and either become a "vegetable" or a "monster".

Assume then that you have another, not too different couple - both genetically valuable: The man used to be an Olympic gold medallist in cycling, and the woman has two PhD's and is the author of several best-selling books. The difference is that they also suffer from no neurological disorder. They then go on to give birth to a child with both superior mental and physical capacities.

But then tragedy strikes. Whilst the woman is still pregnant, the man competes in the Tour de France. He is leading the general classification, but on the descent of the last mountain etappe he has a lapse in good jugment and overshoots a corner, crashing fatally. To make it worse, the woman dies in childbirth.

Would it be contemptible in this case if the former couple adopted the later couple's child, assuming that nature of their genetic neurological defects has no bearing upon the quality of the child's rearing, and assuming that the background they could provide is not at all different from that of the other couple?

Nachtengel
Tuesday, July 28th, 2009, 09:06 PM
The mentally ill cannot raise healthy children, adopted or not.

Sigurd
Tuesday, July 28th, 2009, 09:25 PM
The mentally ill cannot raise healthy children, adopted or not.

Did you actually read my post, or just reply anyway without looking at the details posed. I talked about a neurological defect, not a mental defect, too --- using examples of highly intelligent and successful people. But that shall not be a major issue with your post - the major issue is that I talked about a defect which did not influence their child-rearing abilities.

Either way, I have three further qualifications to your opinion:

1. There are different degrees of mental/neurological illness, some of which interfere with their mental/physical ability to raise children and some which do not: A person with schizophrenia might have more troubles raising a child healthily than a person with Tourette's syndrom. This is true, even within the same spectrum: For example, an Asperger's patient will not generally have problems raising his child, whilst a patient with High-Functioning Autism often will, not to speak of full-fledged Autists.

2. There are some mental/neurological illnesses which are generally outgrown by adulthood and have no further bearing, but may cause stigma for a child inheriting it because of the troubles it encounters during childhood from it. The child could lead a normal life as an adult, but it could face troubles as a child. Again consider the case of Tourette's syndrome: Many people have been known to succesfully hide that affliction from their spouses and children (!) because they have devised ways in which to control their tics, but children are often stigmatised for their strange routines and tics.

3. There is a possibility, that a person is not actually mentally/neurologically ill, but is a recessive carrier of the gene which causes such an illness. If he happens to have a partner, who is also a recessive carrier of the gene, however - chances are heightened, that this gene will become dominant in a child. In this case, since they are not actually afflicted themselves, there can be no bearing upon their child-rearing ability - but there is a high chance, that a potentially dangerous mental/neurological illness is passed on to the child, if they chose to reproduce.

Anything else is both an oversimplification of genetics, and an oversimplifications of neurological and mental illnesses.

Then again, since I seem to recall that you would gladly euthanise people who are wheelchair-bound due to service in war, I expected no less damning and generalising view of the whole matter.

Bittereinder
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 07:00 AM
That is rather defeatist, is not it? You see a problem, then you run in panic. Instead, look to solve the problem, I am sure most of us could if we focused.

What you call defeatist I call realist, who said anything about running in panic? The salvation of Germanics lies in the current generation, to leave it for the next afflicted generation is defeatist.


And when your people migrated to South Africa, they were rich and in good social condition? Leaving Europe likely due to poverty and living in a barren wilderness filled with unfriendly people?

Do you think money had any bearing in a country with no monetary system at that time? Here ingenuity and the will to work and flourish were the only commodities. The Afrikaner managed to keep good social condition up until 1994.


Money is not required for a family. The Negros with excessive children do not have money . I am sure your grandparents or prior did not have much money. Nature does not require things of pretend value.

As is the case with blacks they don’t bear children in order to love and cherish them, they merely breed so that when their old age comes the children will look after them. Thus children are a sign of wealth to the black.


All of those other faults can be overcome by simply teaching children. It is not difficult to do such a thing.

If it was still the case that the parent was responsible for the education of the child and the public school system wasn’t in the state it’s in, One could say that it isn’t too difficult, unfortunately the influences in today’s modern society has almost as much bearing on the Childs development if not more than the parent.


Being of the race alone is something. Are not you glad that your parents never had this attitude? They gave you a chance.

Yes I am glad and Im almost as grateful that I was born under Apartheid that protected our society for as long as it did.


And like I said, your home was not Germanic when it was first created. Yet you and million(s) of others are still there.

Our society was predominantly Germanic up until 1994. We are still here, where should we go? I don’t have a few million in the bank or multiple PhD’s that would allow me to be accepted into another Germanic country.


Chinese population is below replacement on purpose by the government. India is the most populated and growing country in the world. If you look at immigration levels, you will notice it is not the Chinese that are spreading the most overall.

Yet the Chinese and Indians represent 2,550 Billion of the total 6.774 billion on the face of the earth.

One decent Germanic is worth more than three half witted miss fits.

Reich des Waldes
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 09:17 AM
I want to focus on my career.
Then your priorities are completely screwed up.
I don't think I can afford it financially.
If cave men could afford it, so can you. PlayStations and Plasma TVs are not necessities.


Terrible arguments. If you have a child before going to school you are condemning yourself and your child to a dead-ended life. If you have children before setting up a career it can financially condemn you as well. It has been my observation that when parents suffer then the children suffer as well. "Cave men" were able to "raise" children because their society existed chiefly on a day to day basis. Their only concern was finding enough food consistently for their family/tribe. Our societies do not operate well with people living day to day/paycheck to paycheck. We advance when we stop existing in hunter-gatherer mode, when we don't have to worry about today and can plan for the future.

I wish to pursue my education first and foremost. Once I am finished with a PhD (or a Masters at the very least) I want to become financial secure with my career. Then I will find a partner and have children. This is not because I am greedy and wish to have a bunch of nice "toys" but because I know that children are unbelievably expensive to raise and I wish to provide as much as I can so that they can succeed at the highest level.



Then again, since I seem to recall that you would gladly euthanise people who are wheelchair-bound due to service in war[...]

I really hope you're not serious. :|

Nachtengel
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 10:36 AM
Did you actually read my post, or just reply anyway without looking at the details posed.
I wasn't replying to your post. Did you see any quotes anywhere? And no, I didn't read it.


A person with schizophrenia might have more troubles raising a child healthily than a person with Tourette's syndrom.
A person with Tourette's syndrome cannot raise a child properly either. Children should not be subjected to that kind of behavior. Children like to mimic what they see around them.


This is true, even within the same spectrum: For example, an Asperger's patient will not generally have problems raising his child, whilst a patient with High-Functioning Autism often will, not to speak of full-fledged Autists.
We've been through this before, I think. I don't believe everything categorized as a mental disorder today is actually one. Wasn't it according to a test that almost all Skadi members who took it scored as "Asperger's"? I don't think being asocial or introverted is a "mental disorder" either.


Again consider the case of Tourette's syndrome: Many people have been known to succesfully hide that affliction from their spouses and children (!) because they have devised ways in which to control their tics, but children are often stigmatised for their strange routines and tics.
I would prefer not to take a chance.


There is a possibility, that a person is not actually mentally/neurologically ill, but is a recessive carrier of the gene which causes such an illness. If he happens to have a partner, who is also a recessive carrier of the gene, however - chances are heightened, that this gene will become dominant in a child. In this case, since they are not actually afflicted themselves, there can be no bearing upon their child-rearing ability - but there is a high chance, that a potentially dangerous mental/neurological illness is passed on to the child, if they chose to reproduce.
Which is why people with serious mental deficiencies in their family tree should not reproduce.


Then again, since I seem to recall that you would gladly euthanise people who are wheelchair-bound due to service in war, I expected no less damning and generalising view of the whole matter.
You are lying. Please quote me where I said something like that. I said the disabled should not get special reparations and treatment from the state, because they are a burden who can't contribute, and that euthanasia should be legal. Those who remained disabled as a service to their country are a different category, because they once contributed to the cause.

Sigurd
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 01:05 PM
A person with Tourette's syndrome cannot raise a child properly either. Children should not be subjected to that kind of behavior. Children like to mimic what they see around them.

Most adults with Tourette's can control their tics to the extent that even their closest associates might find it difficult to point it out.

Tourette's is most prevalent between ages 7 and 14, when tics can be an annoyance to their environment. Some experience a worsening of symptoms in puberty, but in either instance 70% are only mildly afflicted by its symptoms in adultshood, and a good further percentage sees them disappear altogether.

If some symptoms mildly persist, the patient can develop ways in which it it overcomes the immediately noticable tics: If he suffers from coprolalia, then he could add extra syllables, or modified syllables to his swear word so as to not teach it to the child. If he suffers from a motoric tic, this can be covered up also by adding extra, deliberate tics to it: For example, if he beats his hand against his leg as a tic, he can add extra beats rhythmically to mimick a drumkit - something which is oft looked upon oddly when it randomly happens, but something a non-Tourette's musician will be pushed to engage in at some point, too. ;)

Actually, "musical therapy" by encouraging patients suffering from motoric tics is quite common, the palipraxic nature of playing the drums or the organ helps to battle some of the symptomatic.


We've been through this before, I think. I don't believe everything categorized as a mental disorder today is actually one. Wasn't it according to a test that almost all Skadi members who took it scored as "Asperger's"? I don't think being asocial or introverted is a "mental disorder" either.

Well, I don't consider Asperger's to be much of a negative disorder, and I certainly don't see it as severe a disability as is oft claimed - however, categorisation thinks different. It is judged as more severe than other neurological syndromes, authorities however categorise you up to 60-65% disabled.

There have been attempts to have it re-branded as a "developmental diverengence", but usually the way it is seen depends on the situation involved. It is not unheard of that an Asperger's patient is entitled to disability benefits, increased child benefit, and disabled students' loans --- but that they are considered mentally apt for military service, with merely a two-point deduction applied to the corresponding aptitude test, usually balanced up by the connected superior cognitive/intellectual abilities.


Which is why people with serious mental deficiencies in their family tree should not reproduce.

Yes, but this goes to show that there is a chance that two apparently mentally healthy people may raise a seriously mentally ill child.

If they chose to not have children, but instead adopt a less fortunate, perhaps orphaned child also of their folk - would you look upon them damningly, given the non-selfish circumstances? Would anyone?

That's actually an open question to all. ;)


Those who remained disabled as a service to their country are a different category, because they once contributed to the cause.

What about those left paralysed by an accident? What about those who only develop their disability due to old age?

Finally, on a different note, what is your take on people procreating that suffer from inheritable genetic diseases that have virtually no bearing, such as Gilbert's Disease/Morbus Meulengracht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilberts_syndrome) - often termed as the "least important and least inhibiting hereditary disease" and found in near-enough 10% of the population? ;)

White Africa
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 03:53 PM
I don't think I want children right now. Modern day South Africa has become too filled with crime, and I am afraid to raise them in such an environment. I won't be suggested to leave my own country either. My thoughts might change if South Africa stops being a third world country as it is now.

velvet
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 05:01 PM
Simply put, no. Germanic reproduction rates are not high enough to sustain any community. Remove all other races and we still have a problem with this. At the very least, people need to have more children than people that currently exist to even maintain the same population (deaths, et cetera).

This is more BS. Today, post WWII, live more people at the same time than in the entire history of the modern human alltogether (time frame of several ten thousand years).

The world is dramatically overpopulated, and intelligent creatures react to this with limiting their offspring. Rats do this. The white race does this.

The alternative, endless breeding above replacement level, means you push the world population into a lifestyle that we can see today already in the Chinese people. Their country is not big enough to supply their inhabitants with the required food. When China started the one-child policy scientists had made a figure how China would look like I think in 2020, if the Chinese people breed on like they did before, with around four-five children and the problem that people grow older due to better health care. Without that policy however, China would consists today of more than 4 billion people. And actually they have problems to feed and place their current 1.3billion.

6.8billion people simply are too much for this planet. The planet will not grow, the planet will not produce more resources, it will not produce more food and there will not be more landmass only because we breed like hell. The entire world population must reduce, at least to a half, better less to make surviving over the next generation possible at all.

When the population of this earth grows on like now, taking into account that it doubled within the last 20 years alone (when I went to school the world population was something about 3 billion), we will have about 14 billion human beings demaning food and living space in 2030 or so.

The problem is, that the world population is over the point where the numbers still are predictible. Taking the Asians (including the areas up to Turkey) into account, it probably will even triple, making 20 billions a possibility.


They are not doing it themselves, we are making them do it. It is Europe that feeds, medicates, accepts, and promotes this.

No, the only problem is that we make 17 of 20 children survive, instead of the five or so that it were in the past. They always did it like this.


No one is asking for 20 million population cities or endless sheet-metal shacks. We are asking for normal families with at least three children. It is a rather simple and fair request.

I would agree with you if the world didn't have already 6.8 billion human beings. The 20mio cities are reality already, and often around them is for miles to come not a single green place, let alone fields, or animals, or even a playing ground that is not encased in concrete.

We are talking here about the preservation of not only our race, but also our culture. Our culture dies in cities, whether these cities have 130.000 like mine or 10 million doesnt really matter. Cities take the people out of their context of being.

The argument that we must reproduce above replacement level is one that assumes that we, even when we have kicked out the Jews and all the third-world scum, still would run the very same 'society', and more important, the very same economy. And it is that economy, the Jewish creation of destructive capitalism, that creates the demands, from cheap labor forces to an almost unlimited reserve of it, to produce ever more and more capital and enslave the people ever more and more in the process.

But it is not exactly what we oppose? Don't we want freedom from that slavery, and freedom from the threat this capitalism poses to our folk? Yes, it is exactly this, what we oppose.

Freedom from this enslaving capitalism though can only be realized when we change our entire society and economy and their underlying working mechanisms. With a growing population that heads for more overpopulation we will not manage a significant change in this even when we kicked all alien elements out, but adapt their systems unquestioned.

To become free of this enslavement we must (re)create a society that is more or less autarcic from anything outside of our society. This is not to manage with lets say the about 60million Germans in Germany f.e.. Simply because the area of Germany would not be able to supply 60 million people with food, if we wouldn't buy from the outside today. People need living space, not 10 square meters like the Chinese, but more to be able to live out their creativeness. People living in multi-storey building are exactly that: stored away. They are not thinking, they are not creative. And people living on the 8th floor in two rooms plus a kitchen and a bath on 45sm dont have any interest to reproduce.

Put these people into a house with a large garden or even a farm, and of course they will reproduce, maybe even more than three children. In a two room prison cell they wont.

Siebenbürgerin
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 05:31 PM
Money is not required for a family. The Negros with excessive children do not have money.
Indeed, but how do these excessive children grow up and end up? In street crimes and conflicts, with a below average life, maybe in prisons or killed by their brothers for money and food.
Is that a kind of life we should look up to for our future offspring? Not me, I've to say. I want to have children, but I will only start working towards that goal when I and my partner are financially stable.


I am sure your grandparents or prior did not have much money. Nature does not require things of pretend value.
Our grandparents lived in a different kind of society, more ruralistic than today. Today mass urbanisation and inflation prevent us from living the same kind of lifestyle. Buying land or a house is extremely expensive, at least here, it's not for the normal person. Some peoples work hard until they are 30 or 40 and only then they can afford buying property. The only peoples here who have 10-12 children and jam them in a small apartment are the Gypsies. The conditions become insalubre and the children bad behaving. Personally, I'm refraining from such a life for me and my children.

Gardisten
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 05:26 AM
The only peoples here who have 10-12 children and jam them in a small apartment are the Gypsies. The conditions become insalubre and the children bad behaving. Personally, I'm refraining from such a life for me and my children.

The thing is, though, they perpetuate themselves, while more delicate Europeans do not because they've become so sensitive about the "emotional well-being" etc. of their children.

Siebenbürgerin
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 09:12 AM
The thing is, though, they perpetuate themselves, while more delicate Europeans do not because they've become so sensitive about the "emotional well-being" etc. of their children.
Europeans do too, but not in the same numbers. Many peoples in this thread said they want children, but not a big number like 10, and when the time is right.

It's not just the emotional well-being of the child. It's the physical well-being too. The Gypsy children who grow up in insalubre conditions are often sickly, not to mention thin and malnourished because of financial troubles. The numerous Gypsy neighbourhoods are heavens for tuberculosis, hepatitis and other contagious diseases. Here the welfare is practically a joke, so few it doesn't suffice to live properly from it. Why should European peoples want to copy that lifestyle? If the mother continues to have pregnancies, she can't work, so the burden to provide financially will be solely on the father. The minimum wage here is almost 150 Euro, while the prices are rising. It's very easy to judge and hold peoples in bad regards for not having children. But if that was so simple, many of us here wouldn't talk about it theoretically and argue, but we would already have our own children.

Besides, the matter of overpopulation remains. In the city, the density is growing. The crowds become bigger, the green spaces are fewer, replaced by supermarkets, hotels, auto services and other things that are an answer to the demand of a numerous consumerist society. The plans to "outbreed" the non-Germanics are a fantasy, because they're much more numerous and the Earth isn't endless. Anyhow, if someone wants to adopt the breed like a rabbit lifestyle it's not for me to interfere, but it's not my kid. I want quality more than quantity, sorry.

Matrix
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 09:44 AM
You can't be awakened to racialism if you are not going to have children. Our race is not having enough babies...sucks to be them. It means that we get to pass on our genes more by having more babies, whereas their obviously defective genes will be weeded out of the gene pool forever. Thank God I know the truth.
How many babies do you have? You are 21, so I assume you're past puberty and able to procreate. I assume you are out there trying to impregnate as many Aryan women as possible. Remember god's words, be fruitful and multiply.


I am surprised to see anyone agreeing with any of these replies besides 'other'.

I personally view not wanting children as absolute treason to our race. Even if I remain single, I will adopt children and put all the effort I can into reproducing our people, or spend significant time and resources on helping others have children themselves. I expect no less from anyone else and will look down on anyone who does not do the same, as they are lower form of humanity not worthy of the same respect or treatment.
You too are 21. Old enough to have sex and get married legally. So where are your children? Don't waste precious time with trivia on Internet boards, get out there and do your duty towards your race.


In the vast majority of all cases saying that one can't be good parents is just a convenient excuse for a selfish choice. If we leave it to everybody to judge for himself how many children, if any, he wants, then people will choose what feels good to them as individuals, not what is good for our people as a whole.

A Germanic community dedicated to survival must demand of every of its members to reproduce according to the community's best interest, and in our situation this means for every fit individual to have as many children as possible. Under the conditions of a liberal society we can't force anyone to have more children than he wants to, but we can ostracize these people and exclude the traitors from our community. Our reproducing below replacement level will continue until we stop tolerating it.

It is not up to the individual to decide if he is inferior or unworthy.
31 and a single adult? What a catastrophe to the Aryan race! As a member of the worldwide Germanic community, I demand that you reproduce now, before it's too late. What are you, going to wait until you're 40 or 50 and wear diapers when your children graduate and marry? Time is precious.


The thing is, though, they perpetuate themselves, while more delicate Europeans do not because they've become so sensitive about the "emotional well-being" etc. of their children.
Wow, another single adult. It's disappointing to see such entries in profiles on a preservation forum. Where is your procreation spirit? How many times have you perpetuated yourself? Not enough. The Aryan race is dying in numbers, no child is extra.

Siebenbürgerin
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 10:11 AM
I'm curious to establish the most common reasons peoples don't have children nowadays, including (and especially) those who are ethnocentric. Is it because peoples really don't want children and prefer the childfree lifestyle, or is it because the conditions of the modern society prevent us from reaching our goals so early, even if we'd like a child or more?

Quo vadis
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 10:29 AM
Europeans do too, but not in the same numbers. Many peoples in this thread said they want children, but not a big number like 10, and when the time is right.

There was a time, several centuries ago, when the indigenous peoples of Europe - yes, the Germans, the English, the French - had more than 10 children per woman on average. And the nobility had even slightly more children than the peasants. That's how our people became strong. And the attitude expressed above is how it came about that we are now facing extinction.


It's very easy to judge and hold peoples in bad regards for not having children. But if that was so simple, many of us here wouldn't talk about it theoretically and argue, but we would already have our own children.

Nobody here held people in bad regards for not having children in spite of wanting them. We are talking about people not wanting children in the first place or only a few or only "when the time is right" and making excuses for it. As long as we are still stuck debating if we should have lots of children in the first place, we cannot proceed to discuss what it takes in each individual case to achieve that goal.

But some people here do already have more than a few children and them I advise to disown the traitorous or self-indulgent people of their own kind and protect themselves from their toxic influences. This thread makes it glaringly obvious that the Skadi crowd is neither willing nor capable to achieve the survival of our people, we are only capable of inconsequential talk. It takes more than that, a group truly dedicated to its own survival, who does not tolerate failure and defeatism among its members. If any community of Germanics will survive, it won't be Skadi.


The plans to "outbreed" the non-Germanics are a fantasy, because they're much more numerous and the Earth isn't endless.

No, the fantasy or self-serving illusion is that we can ever get our countries back without being numerous. Strength - political, military or demographic strength - comes from numbers. What a silly idea it is that some power will magically remove all non-Germanics from our countries and serve them to us on a silver platter so that we can continue to indulge in our our sick and self-indulgent lifestyle. No, we have to fight for it to happen and for that fight we need to be numerous.

And it is a lie that non-Germanics breed so much that we can't possibly keep up with them. The Amish have been averaging 10 children per woman for the last 100 years, thus exceeding even the populations of Africa. I looked up the fertility rate for Romania, it has been below 1.4 for the last 6 years. The majority population of Romania is dying out fast, thus handing over the country for people who breed more. We mourn the fact that the century-old German culture of Siebenbürgen faces extinction, but there is the opportunity for the Germans to take Siebenbürgen back and it is only their failure to miss it.


Anyhow, if someone wants to adopt the breed like a rabbit lifestyle it's not for me to interfere, but it's not my kid. I want quality more than quantity, sorry.

There are those who can't be stopped from dying out, but the healthier ones must prevent those from dragging them down the same path, too.

Siebenbürgerin
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 10:49 AM
There was a time, several centuries ago, when the indigenous peoples of Europe - yes, the Germans, the English, the French - had more than 10 children per woman on average. And the nobility had even slightly more children than the peasants. That's how our people became strong. And the attitude expressed above is how it came about that we are now facing extinction.
I've explained the difference between several centuries ago and now in the other post. The key words are massive urbanisation.


Nobody here held people in bad regards for not having children in spite of wanting them. We are talking about people not wanting children in the first place or only a few or only "when the time is right" and making excuses for it.
Waiting for when the time is right doesn't equal not wanting children. But you already put those of us who want to offer the best to our future children, in the same category with those who want to remain childless. What more should I say? :thumbdown


As long as we are still stuck debating if we should have lots of children in the first place, we cannot proceed to discuss what it takes in each individual case to achieve that goal.

But some people here do already have more than a few children and them I advise to disown the traitorous or self-indulgent people of their own kind and protect themselves from their toxic influences. This thread makes it glaringly obvious that the Skadi crowd is neither willing nor capable to achieve the survival of our people, we are only capable of inconsequential talk. It takes more than that, a group truly dedicated to its own survival, who does not tolerate failure and defeatism among its members. If any community of Germanics will survive, it won't be Skadi.
Just out of curiosity, how many children do you have, Quo vadis?


No, the fantasy or self-serving illusion is that we can ever get our countries back without being numerous. Strength - political, military or demographic strength - comes from numbers. What a silly idea it is that some power will magically remove all non-Germanics from our countries and serve them to us on a silver platter so that we can continue to indulge in our our sick and self-indulgent lifestyle. No, we have to fight for it to happen and for that fight we need to be numerous.
No, it's not so simple in my view. I could give many historical examples where a less numerous, but well trained army, defeated a more numerous, but poorly trained one. We've seen how a big number of white Americans voted for Obama. Numbers don't solve your problems like that.


And it is a lie that non-Germanics breed so much that we can't possibly keep up with them. The Amish have been averaging 10 children per woman for the last 100 years, thus exceeding even the populations of Africa.
But are they exceeding the non-European population in the US? That's the key question.


I looked up the fertility rate for Romania, it has been below 1.4 for the last 6 years. The majority population of Romania is dying out fast, thus handing over the country for people who breed more.
Romania hasn't a massive immigration problem like the Western countries. Immigration, besides the presence of ethnic groups like Hungarians, Germans and Gypsies, is recent and it will take a very long time until the Chinese population will become even half as much as the European one, let alone a threat. So the country isn't handed over to those who breed more.

Romania has a low fertility rate and a high abortion rate because of its financial situation. I've just laid out the minimum wage in this country. Could you elaborate a plan how a family with numerous children would be able to survive on 150 euros a month? Sometimes that isn't enough to pay a rent for a spacious apartment, let alone pay the other monthly expenses of having little children. I'm eager to hear your suggestions.


We mourn the fact that the century-old German culture of Siebenbürgen faces extinction, but there is the opportunity for the Germans to take Siebenbürgen back and it is only their failure to miss it.
Hmm, no, it looks like you aren't very familiar with the situation in the German communities here. It's not because of that the community is facing extinction, it's because most peoples, especially the younger generations, have left the country and immigrated to Germany. As Volksdeutche, they can do that. Romania is in a precarious situation, so they prefer to move to a first world country. Romania is one only in theory, because in truth, we've some third world conditions here still. Even those Transylvanian Saxons who have children immigrate.

Resist
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 11:33 AM
Maybe you should add an extra poll option: I am focused on politics, or something like that. Men like Adolf Hitler who changed history didn't have time for children of their own.

For me it's not applicable, since I have children.

þeudiskaz
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 11:34 AM
How many babies do you have? You are 21, so I assume you're past puberty and able to procreate. I assume you are out there trying to impregnate as many Aryan women as possible. Remember god's words, be fruitful and multiply.

Those words of from Jewish scripture, not the most popular source to cite on these boards, I think. Also they were used a long time ago in an entirely different setting, and context.


You too are 21. Old enough to have sex and get married legally. So where are your children? Don't waste precious time with trivia on Internet boards, get out there and do your duty towards your race.

Maybe they have some good reason for waiting? Yes, procreation is important, but it is not the only facor.


31 and a single adult? What a catastrophe to the Aryan race! As a member of the worldwide Germanic community, I demand that you reproduce now, before it's too late. What are you, going to wait until you're 40 or 50 and wear diapers when your children graduate and marry? Time is precious.

Agreed that time is precious, but we need more than babies. If we all start just throwing babies out like a baby-machine gun all we will do is create an undereducated, impoverished community of a once-strong people. We need to keep our community strong, not merely our ethnic genetics.


Wow, another single adult. It's disappointing to see such entries in profiles on a preservation forum. Where is your procreation spirit? How many times have you perpetuated yourself? Not enough. The Aryan race is dying in numbers, no child is extra.

No child is extra? How many children around the world die from starvation every day? Probably not enough, you're right, we should have more Germanic children in the streets dying of starvation or perpetuating generational cycles of poverty. :thumbdown

I agree that we need to make the Germanic ethnicity stronger, and more numerous, but if we rush ourselves, we can only bring ruination to ourselves. Poppin out tons of babies instead of having enough children to support well will only lead to breaking our culture by leaving them to be uneducated, and impoverished, or starving. Not just now, this generation, but for generations to come. Look at the culture in America's inner-cities. Many black people have many more kids than they can afford, or raise, and gang culture has been persistant since the trend started. This same trend is prevalent among lower-class white people in the inner-cities too, where white people are adopting this "black culture". So, sure, if you want the utter ruin of the Germanic people, rush into procreation with no thought other than to have the most children possible. But if you want to the strong German culture to stay, have kids, procreate, as many as you can reasonably support, and pass your traditions, your culture to them. In time, our Volk will become more numerous, without the disastrous effect of rushing.

Matrix
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 11:40 AM
Those words of from Jewish scripture, not the most popular source to cite on these boards, I think. Also they were used a long time ago in an entirely different setting, and context.
I used words from the scripture because I recall seeing a post of his where he glorified Christianity while insulting Heathenism.

The rest of my post was sarcastic, in case you haven't noticed. Please read this thread again. These people criticized me and others for not wanting children or wanting to wait for the right time. I want to see their reactions to their own morale and their justifications for not endorsing it in their lives.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 11:54 AM
It's possible to have quantity AND quality. These people are DOING it:

http://www.duggarfamily.com/index.html

Look through those pictures and tell me they don't have a good quality life. The world will be incrementally better because they DID something about it.. they brought 18 White Germanic children into the world. I think their quality if life is actually better because they have a big family, and can depend upon each other for sustenance. The older kids help raise the younger ones. It's all very organized and thought-out, in a way only WE can manage to do. We need those kids, and yes, we need to breed like rabbits, because too many of our people are NOT breeding at all. Sitting on your ass and whining that things are not perfect so no, you wont have children unless "things get better," is frankly a pathetic, loser mentality. Things don't just "get" better. Things have become better because we have organized them to become better. Now they are getting worse simply because there are fewer of us!

Siebenbürgerin
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 12:08 PM
Of course it's possible, for rich peoples and property owners. I've read a little bit about this family. The father, is a very influential person, a former state legislator, and they make money from their commercial property. Their children live in a 7000+ square foot house, with many convenient facilities which gives them a quality life. Look at their house and compare it to a two room apartment or garconiere.

http://experimentiv.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/duggars.png

The average 21 year old student doesn't afford something like this! Do you realistically think a student couple could pay for all the things to sustain such a house? If so, I'm sorry, but you're dreaming.
It's not a pathetic excuse but a fact of life, that's how the picture is, grim, whether we like it or not.

Ossi
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 12:12 PM
Maybe Huginn ok Muninn is willing to donate such a house to the breeders here? :D Ship it to Germany though, we wouldn't want to go fill the US with German kids. :D

Blod og Jord
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 12:27 PM
I don't have a boyfriend right now, but after reading things like said by Quo vadis or Huginn ok Muninn, makes me reconsider altogether whether I should have children at all, to bring them into a world dominated by mentally deranged mentalities.

It's full of religious nuts, which the Duggar family are themselves, by the way. Not an ideal environment for a healthy child to grow up in, where we are reduced to the status of animals or breeding machines.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 12:29 PM
Well, if you look at that house it is a simple structure, though it is large. Such things are much cheaper to build here in the US than elsewhere. The Duggars are not really rich, but they have their priorities in the right place. How many people with his income would be spending that money on a more expensive house and 2 Mercedes instead of child #4,5,6..

Did you notice another thing about them? I didn't see one TV in that house. They have games and activities and play musical instruments to entertain themselves. They have managed to mostly shut out the evil in this world so those kids can have a proper upbringing.

Ossi, if you want a large house for a large family, it can be done. A few months ago I was browsing the internet and found a 500 square meter villa in Greifswald which cost about 90.000 euro. Yes, it was built in 1911 and needed a lot of work, but it could be done.

It is easy to get depressed about how awful things are, but things will never get any better unless we work hard and in intelligent ways to help them become so. Yes, we need to kick the third world out of our lands, but we need our people to survive more than anything.

Ossi
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 12:36 PM
Ossi, if you want a large house for a large family, it can be done. A few months ago I was browsing the internet and found a 500 square meter villa in Greifswald which cost about 90.000 euro. Yes, it was built in 1911 and needed a lot of work, but it could be done.
Great. Let me know when you have bought it so I can move in with my wife and son and get down to business. I can take care of the renovation, no problem. :D

þeudiskaz
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 12:40 PM
I used words from the scripture because I recall seeing a post of his where he glorified Christianity while insulting Heathenism.

The rest of my post was sarcastic, in case you haven't noticed. Please read this thread again. These people criticized me and others for not wanting children or wanting to wait for the right time. I want to see their reactions to their own morale and their justifications for not endorsing it in their lives.

Well then, I'm sorry. I read your post, and maybe one or two above it, so I really did not know you were being sarcastic, I just thought you were some procreation nut.

As far as glorifying Christianity above Heathenism, I, as a Christian, am not a big fan of it. Sure, I lvoe Jesus, but I also have a deep respect for the traditions, and beliefs of my forbearers.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 12:43 PM
I don't have a boyfriend right now, but after reading things like said by Quo vadis or Huginn ok Muninn, makes me reconsider altogether whether I should have children at all, to bring them into a world dominated by mentally deranged mentalities.

It's full of religious nuts, which the Duggar family are themselves, by the way. Not an ideal environment for a healthy child to grow up in, where we are reduced to the status of animals or breeding machines.

Can you tell us more about why you feel this way? Why do you think having a lot of children would be like being "reduced to the status of animals or breeding machines?" This is feminist propaganda, which is an invention of the jews, who would be happy to see Germanic people die out completely.. an idea they seem to have convinced you to believe. Once we were happy to have children and share our lives with them. Now we are all sad and uninterested in life.. almost suicidal. We need children to bring the joy back. And yes, we need to kick the third worlders out so they can be safe. But teach your kids however you like.. it doesn't have to be Christian, but those people seem quite happy, not deranged.

Siebenbürgerin
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 12:50 PM
Well, if you look at that house it is a simple structure, though it is large. Such things are much cheaper to build here in the US than elsewhere. The Duggars are not really rich, but they have their priorities in the right place. How many people with his income would be spending that money on a more expensive house and 2 Mercedes instead of child #4,5,6..

Did you notice another thing about them? I didn't see one TV in that house. They have games and activities and play musical instruments to entertain themselves. They have managed to mostly shut out the evil in this world so those kids can have a proper upbringing.

Ossi, if you want a large house for a large family, it can be done. A few months ago I was browsing the internet and found a 500 square meter villa in Greifswald which cost about 90.000 euro. Yes, it was built in 1911 and needed a lot of work, but it could be done.

It is easy to get depressed about how awful things are, but things will never get any better unless we work hard and in intelligent ways to help them become so. Yes, we need to kick the third world out of our lands, but we need our people to survive more than anything.
In this country, to afford such a house you'd have to be rich. My savings don't even make up a small percentage of that. Both my partner and I work, and although we aren't cheap and stingy, we don't throw money out the window either. We've no Mercedes (we couldn't afford one anyhow), least of all two of them or other overt expensive luxuries. I've started working only recently, and part time, because I had to complete university to be hired. If I want a better wage, I've to work harder. I can't do this and be a mother at the same time. Peoples criticise women who work while being mothers. So I want to raise some money first. This is the right way for me, and I'm not going to settle with something else. If you find it pathetic, then the only thing I can say it, don't emulate this behaviour for yourself, and have 18 children. Noone stops you. But don't expect other peoples from the other side of the world, living in other conditions, to do the same thing.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 01:04 PM
Great. Let me know when you have bought it so I can move in with my wife and son and get down to business. I can take care of the renovation, no problem. :D

I was seriously considering buying it when I saw it.. but then I would be living there already. :P

Honestly, if I had the kind of money some of these evil rich bastards do, I would build a whole villiage for Skadi members. I would love to see you and your wife and Siebenbürgerin and her boyfriend have decently big houses so you could raise families.

Bärin
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 01:09 PM
I was seriously considering buying it when I saw it.. but then I would be living there already. :P

Honestly, if I had the kind of money some of these evil rich bastards do, I would build a whole villiage for Skadi members. I would love to see you and your wife and Siebenbürgerin and her boyfriend have decently big houses so you could raise families.
I think he was just pulling your leg. ;)

My husband and I don't need a huge house for children. My mother had seven children, and we weren't a rich family, just normal working class people.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 01:18 PM
In this country, to afford such a house you'd have to be rich. My savings don't even make up a small percentage of that. Both my partner and I work, and although we aren't cheap and stingy, we don't throw money out the window either. We've no Mercedes (we couldn't afford one anyhow), least of all two of them or other overt expensive luxuries. I've started working only recently, and part time, because I had to complete university to be hired. If I want a better wage, I've to work harder. I can't do this and be a mother at the same time. Peoples criticise women who work while being mothers. So I want to raise some money first. This is the right way for me, and I'm not going to settle with something else. If you find it pathetic, then the only thing I can say it, don't emulate this behaviour for yourself, and have 18 children. Noone stops you. But don't expect other peoples from the other side of the world, living in other conditions, to do the same thing.

I didn't say I found you pathetic.. I was referring to someone else who posted, but I won't say who. I have every confidence that you will succeed. :) You are still young, so you have a little time to build your future. You seem to be very smart and very sensible and I know if you work hard at it, you will be able to achieve a lot. However many children you do have, I'm sure they will be great people for having such a great mom. ;)


I think he was just pulling your leg. ;)

My husband and I don't need a huge house for children. My mother had seven children, and we weren't a rich family, just normal working class people.

I know he was, but seriously, if I had a lot of money I would not be buying jet airplanes or 100m yachts. A nice community with nice people is worth far more.

And by the way, your mother is my hero! ;)

Blod og Jord
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 02:26 PM
Can you tell us more about why you feel this way? Why do you think having a lot of children would be like being "reduced to the status of animals or breeding machines?" This is feminist propaganda, which is an invention of the jews, who would be happy to see Germanic people die out completely.. an idea they seem to have convinced you to believe. Once we were happy to have children and share our lives with them. Now we are all sad and uninterested in life.. almost suicidal. We need children to bring the joy back. And yes, we need to kick the third worlders out so they can be safe. But teach your kids however you like.. it doesn't have to be Christian, but those people seem quite happy, not deranged.

I don't think having lots of children under all circumstances means being reduced to the status of animals and breeding machines, I think it applies if people are in situations like velvet and Siebenbürgerin described,
which is the situation of the typical European urban adult today. Pressing 18 children together in apartments is like those animals pressed in breeding facilities, who never see sunlight and can barely move.

That a woman shouldn't be allowed to continue a career or studies, and start reproducing as soon as she reaches sexual maturity, is reminiscent of the Muslim mentality. I believe in tackling the low birth rates where it's necessary, but I also believe in the right to choice. If that makes me a "feminist" fine I'm one. I don't want to have daughters without personality, whose only role should be to receive cannon fodder from their husbands.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 02:50 PM
Well maybe we agree more than we think, then. I have no interest in a woman without personality.. I think such a person would be a boring partner. I do fervently believe, though, that all of us, male and female alike, must understand that the primary purpose of all life is to procreate. Some of us may have no children, so others must have more to even things out. If your brother is gay, well you need to have a third child to make up for the ones he won't have. I think women should wait until they feel they are mature enough to handle motherhood, but should see it as a joyful thing, not some burden. It's all a matter of how you look at it.

Blod og Jord
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 03:08 PM
It would be a joyful thing in the right and affordable conditions. The other problem is, familial instability. High divorce rates. The world has changed for the worst. There are many single mothers struggling to raise their children, because the father has abandon them. Society has crumbled, and so have family values. Infidelity and sexual promiscuity is in fashion. Intelligent people nowadays can hardly be happy, because they have an idea what is going on around them, and it doesn't look pretty at all.

Nachtengel
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 03:15 PM
You've hit the nail on the head why I don't want to have any (more) children currently. The father of my son abandoned us, despite having claimed to want the child as much as I did. It is hard enough as it is for me. I am forced to work stuck in an office to sustain my son, and my time with him gets limited by that. I have to be a mother and a father for my child, provide financially, educate him, play with him and other things parents do. It's difficult for me to trust another man to have children with. I can manage with one child, but not more than one. My family is estranged from me because of my politics, so I am alone in this.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 03:25 PM
Would the younger women here consider having an older partner, as was once traditional? Younger men are usually not as financially stable or ready to commit to a relationship as older men are. I'm not talking about a 70 year old, but maybe someone 10-15 years older? How old is the father of your son, Angel?

Nachtengel
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 03:34 PM
39, but I'm not exactly young either, I'm 34.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 03:37 PM
Well I suppose some men never grow up then. :(

Strange, I had thought you were 19 or so.

Bärin
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 03:41 PM
I'm 19, and my husband is 33. I agree about preferring older men. But I already wrote about it in this topic: http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=27959 ;)

Gardisten
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 03:42 PM
It would be a joyful thing in the right and affordable conditions. The other problem is, familial instability. High divorce rates. The world has changed for the worst. There are many single mothers struggling to raise their children, because the father has abandon them. Society has crumbled, and so have family values. Infidelity and sexual promiscuity is in fashion. Intelligent people nowadays can hardly be happy, because they have an idea what is going on around them, and it doesn't look pretty at all.

If you know that these things are problems in this society, then why wouldn't you raise your kids differently so that they don't fall into these same traps?

Moreover, you complain about the lack of "family values"--what family values are these? The Western world's notion of the family is based on Christian teachings, yet in another post you deride a Christian family with strong family values. Aren't you in your own way contributing to the problems that you are so against?

Unlike what you claim, most men do not "abandon" their children, rather many women employ various tactics to bar men from seeing their children. Most divorces are initiated by women, and more than 90% of the time the woman gets custody. When men get custody of children, women are statistically more delinquent when it comes to child support and visitation.


Wow, another single adult. It's disappointing to see such entries in profiles on a preservation forum. Where is your procreation spirit? How many times have you perpetuated yourself? Not enough. The Aryan race is dying in numbers, no child is extra.

The problem is NOT on my side of the equation.

velvet
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 04:47 PM
Would the younger women here consider having an older partner, as was once traditional? Younger men are usually not as financially stable or ready to commit to a relationship as older men are.

This may be true for 20 year old, but 'older' in general doesnt guarantee such a stance on family. And it doesnt mean financially stable, except from officials/civil servants noone can trust to have his job forever, or even for the next five years.

An example: my father. Married four times (of which I know that is), my mother was wife number three. Except from the first there were children in each marriage. Each wife he left when the children were six years old, that is, when the problems with school start, want this, want that etc and stop to be neat only. Then my father ran, with his last wife of which I know he was 56 when he married (the wife was 30 or so), he got another two children and of course left them when the younger became six.

The problem is, that people dont learn to be responsible. In every part of life you are told to be flexible and start something completely new if necessary or feel like it. A family is, basically, nothing else than a job, and when you dont feel like it anymore, you go on to the next. Specially for men this is much easier, if a women would do this she would be frowned upon and most people would despise her. If a man does this it is not condemned on the same level, if at all, people tend more to laugh about that, but real criticism is not brought against him or this behavior in general. Some might even say, well, that's how men are.

Since this is still or even more so today reality, why should women risk to become dependend on the working men, who will with a 60 percent or so probability leave her before she even got her child, and then stand alone. Without job, without flat, but with a crying baby, with no chance for a kindergarten place, later sent to schools with 80+ percent foreigners who partly even dont speak German (or the language whereever you live) and most likely the father wont even pay for his child. And when you dont have a retired grandma in your back, the spiral downwards simply will not end.

Sad, but true, children mean a social risk, and once the spiral down is entered, you have, at least in the most European countries, no chance to get out of it again. Men dont marry women who already have children from another partner, another fact. So risking a baby doesnt only mean you stand most likely alone after just a few years, but also limits your possibilites to find a new partner. Women today think four or five or endless times before deciding for a baby. And they do so for good reasons I think.

Thusnelda
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 08:38 PM
The reason why I don´t have any children is "bad luck" or "fate", call it as you like...:| Normally I´d be at the end of the 7th month of pregnancy now.

Well, I´ve voted for "I don't consider myself yet ready to be a parent" because I don´t want a new pregnancy now. I´ve no doubts that I want children in the future, but I´ll try it again ("try it again", it sounds so stupid!) in a few years. Maybe earlier, maybe later, but not now or in the next few months.

Quo vadis
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 08:46 PM
I've explained the difference between several centuries ago and now in the other post. The key words are massive urbanisation.

In the same paragraph you mentioned how the gypsies succeed to have lots of children even in our time under the same circumstances, didn't you?


Waiting for when the time is right doesn't equal not wanting children. But you already put those of us who want to offer the best to our future children, in the same category with those who want to remain childless. What more should I say? :thumbdownSorry for being rude, but I heard this excuse too often in many discussions in the past years. Nobody should lose any time to have children, there may never be a "right time", or you could die before. As for "offering the best" to your future children, why shouldn't they be challenged in life just like our ancestors were? Our purpose in life is to create, not to consume.


Just out of curiosity, how many children do you have, Quo vadis?None. I am well aware that I am a complete failure in this regard. I may elaborate on the causes in the other thread, but first we must agree about our need to have plenty of children. I would rejoice if there was a Germanic community with healthy reproductive behaviour excluding me or keeping me around in a subservient position as long as I am useful to them, because no sooner than such a community exists will I regain confidence in our survival as a people.


No, it's not so simple in my view. I could give many historical examples where a less numerous, but well trained army, defeated a more numerous, but poorly trained one. We've seen how a big number of white Americans voted for Obama. Numbers don't solve your problems like that.You can trade quantity for quality to some degree, if you have superior quality in the first place. In the struggle for political power, I don't see us having a significant edge over our adversaries, therefore we have no alternative other than to rely on numbers. We don't have control over the mass media and the educational system, but parents can influence their childrens' worldview and immunize them against destructive external influence. I regard massive breeding as our only chance for a more numerous population of Germanic nationalists in the future.


But are they exceeding the non-European population in the US? That's the key question.No, they started out with too low numbers. But in a couple of centuries they may.


Romania hasn't a massive immigration problem like the Western countries. Immigration, besides the presence of ethnic groups like Hungarians, Germans and Gypsies, is recent and it will take a very long time until the Chinese population will become even half as much as the European one, let alone a threat. So the country isn't handed over to those who breed more.But groups in Romania who breed more, like the gypsies, make up an ever increasing percentage of Romania's population. If we wait long enough, gypsies will become a majority in Romania. That's what I meant.


Romania has a low fertility rate and a high abortion rate because of its financial situation. I've just laid out the minimum wage in this country. Could you elaborate a plan how a family with numerous children would be able to survive on 150 euros a month? Sometimes that isn't enough to pay a rent for a spacious apartment, let alone pay the other monthly expenses of having little children. I'm eager to hear your suggestions.For us Germanics, we must change our view on breeding from it being an individual affair to an obligation of the whole community. If a Germanic family lacks the financial means to provide for their children, it is the obligation of the international Germanic community to support them financially. There should be plenty of donations as we have so many childless people, even the elderly should have available ressource, with their children already grown-up and providing for themselves. This is an area where Germanic nationalists without children can finally prove that they are not entirely useless.


Hmm, no, it looks like you aren't very familiar with the situation in the German communities here. It's not because of that the community is facing extinction, it's because most peoples, especially the younger generations, have left the country and immigrated to Germany. As Volksdeutche, they can do that. Romania is in a precarious situation, so they prefer to move to a first world country. Romania is one only in theory, because in truth, we've some third world conditions here still. Even those Transylvanian Saxons who have children immigrate.The Transylvanian Saxons are missing their opportunity to take Transylvania back because of both mass emigration and lack of children. Instead of creating a livelihood on their own like their ancestors did, they flee from the problems to another country and thus give up Transylvania.


I don't think having lots of children under all circumstances means being reduced to the status of animals and breeding machines,
I think it applies if people are in situations like velvet and Siebenbürgerin described,
which is the situation of the typical European urban adult today.
Pressing 18 children together in apartments is like those animals pressed in breeding facilities,
who never see sunlight and can barely move.

This is ridiculous. In all Western Europeans countries parents can apply for welfare, then they get adequate housing for their family, no matter how large it is. The parents are protected by labor regulations and the whole family gets health care, too. Living on welfare guarantees them a higher standard of living than many of our ancestors from only 80 years ago enjoyed.


That a woman shouldn't be allowed to continue a career or studies,
and start reproducing as soon as she reaches sexual maturity,
is reminiscent of the Muslim mentality.You may scorn the Middle Eeastern lifestyle all you like but fact is that it's a winning strategy and they are displacing us. In that respect, their reproductive behaviour is clearly superior to ours. Orthodox Jews breed like rabbits and keep their women under curfew, too. Unlike muslims they even practice eugenics on top of it. It's planful breeding at its best.

velvet
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 08:59 PM
You may scorn the Middle Eeastern lifestyle all you like but fact is that it's a winning strategy and they are displacing us. In that respect, their reproductive behaviour is clearly superior to ours. Orthodox Jews breed like rabbits and keep their women under curfew, too.

I cant believe what I read :-O
You suggest to lock the women away and turn them into a breeding machine. With no rights, not even friends (how would they get some when they are not allowed to leave the house). Put them into burkas, how about a chastity belt? Maybe an electronic tag for 24/7 monitoring? And that you call superior?

This is another problem, you either find a guy who is okay, but most likely will leave you alone with your child, or you get maniacs like yourself.

And btw, this is NOT a Germanic trait to subdue women. This is a Roman trait, imported along with the invasion of christianity. When you want Germanic women to breed, you better get a new approach to this topic. If you were my boyfriend and would argue like this while trying to persuade me to have children, my answer would be FOAD. :nope

Thusnelda
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 09:03 PM
Giving up having children because the current world is so evil and negative is the complete wrong solution from my point of view! It´s the direct and fastest way to ethnical and cultural extinction.

Children are vital to achieve our goals (Germanic cultural and ethnical preservation) and, at least for me, the main meaning of life. :) Not hedonism is my meaning of life, not working all day long is my meaning of life. My meaning of life is to have a wonderful and happy family and own children. Own descendants with whom I can share my culture and continue my family history -> The passing of our values, traditions and our blood to the future.

I´m aware of the fact that many of our people live in miserable or at least unfavorable circumstances but then we must change that as a collective. The urbanic Zeitgeist is the demon of our time. Urbanism destroys everything and makes us to proud- and culturless zombies. It´s not a coincidence that people living in large cities have the lowest birth-rate and the most divorces.

We must find a way back to our tribal forms of living, and that can only work if we follow a more rural approach.

Blod og Jord
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 09:03 PM
The Western world's notion of the family is based on Christian teachings, yet in another post you deride a Christian family with strong family values. Aren't you in your own way contributing to the problems that you are so against?
No, Christianity is just like Islam, reducing women to the status of servants.
Heathen households are more traditional.


Unlike what you claim, most men do not "abandon" their children, rather many women employ various tactics to bar men from seeing their children. Most divorces are initiated by women, and more than 90% of the time the woman gets custody. When men get custody of children, women are statistically more delinquent when it comes to child support and visitation.
Women initiate divorce because men cheat on them and treat them terribly.
Infidelity and treason is not an ideal value for children to grow up with.


None. I am well aware that I am a complete failure in this regard. I may elaborate on the causes in the other thread, but first we must agree about our need to have plenty of children. I would rejoice if there was a Germanic community with healthy reproductive behaviour excluding me or keeping me around in a subservient position as long as I am useful to them, because no sooner than such a community exists will I regain confidence in our survival as a people.
It sounds like you are trying to make other people compensate for your own shortcomings. It must feel pretty degrading.

Ossi
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 09:10 PM
You may scorn the Middle Eeastern lifestyle all you like but fact is that it's a winning strategy and they are displacing us. In that respect, their reproductive behaviour is clearly superior to ours. Orthodox Jews breed like rabbits and keep their women under curfew, too. Unlike muslims they even practice eugenics on top of it. It's planful breeding at its best.
Ya, how about we place them on a muzzle too, to avoid all the whining and crying? ;) Feed them three times a day, take them for a walk, and reward them with a bone for good behavior under the sheets. :D

LOL, it's no wonder all men in these thread who make such passionate speeches are "single adults".

:D

Sigurd
Thursday, July 30th, 2009, 09:18 PM
Let's see - I'm 20, student and single. Not exactly the best environment to bring children into, right? ;)

Basically, it is a variety of reasons:

For one, I am still in the process of studying, and do not exactly make much of a living. I am of the firm belief that the man should be the family's prime bread-winner, with the woman preferably being a stay-at-home mother - at the moment I could simply not provide for a family. If I had even near-enough to modestly provide for a child, this would not be a problem, but it's barely enough for myself - let alone for supporting a woman and child, even if I discounted all unnecessary spendings.

On the other hand, and most importantly, I have not found the right woman to have children with. If there is anything that I could do wrong, then it would be repeating my parents' mistake - I wish to give my children a healthy and stable home, not a broken one. I once had a girlfriend with whom I could have eventually taken this "step", at least I would not have minded for her to be the mother of my children --- but I blew it in that relationship probably by being a bit too much of the proverbial "a-hole" towards the end, so I eventually found myself dumped by perhaps the best girlfriend (relationship-wise, worldview-wise, religion-wise and generally best-matched) I ever had.

There are enough women who would be dying to get a piece of me, but at this stage I am not interested in having a girlfriend "just for fun", I believe I am past that stage in my life, and at the moment, I am not sure whether I know one which would be the right one to have children with, even if by some random happenstance I should fall in love with her. Most of those female friends that are not yet taken would make terrible matches, even if I forced it.

So, at the moment, it is a matter of impossibility, rather than choice. If I had the right woman to have children with and the right income and stable background in which to support a family, then I would perhaps be ready and thrilled to have a child tomorrow. I'm good with children, and having three siblings which are significantly younger (nearly 10, nearly 11 and 1 year of age) has been a bonus, as I was able to watch child-rearing practiced by my family when already old enough to observe it with a rational mind and take my useful conclusions therefrom.

As for being too young - that is a minor issue. It is correct that perhaps I should gather a few years more of life experience - it is always a bonus if you can give more wisdom to your children. However, this is really a minor point --- if you say, you're "not ready" because you're "too young", then you're never going to be ready, always going to be too young. Even if you're fifty, then having your first child is unknown land, a fresh challenge which you cannot completely prepare yourself for.

Realistically, it's going to be another 3-6 years at least till I will have children. But who knows, perhaps I shall meet the woman for life tomorrow, win the lottery on Sunday, manage to impregnate (for the lack of a less cold-and-factual sounding word, sorry :D) the girl at first attempt, and be a father next time around Easter. Life is full of surprises, so who knows? ;)

Siebenbürgerin
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 12:14 AM
I'm sorry, Quo vadis, but I'm not going to have other peoples tell me how I should live my life, and when and how many children I should have. From that respect, our conversation ends here.

Indeed I've said the Gypsies succeed to have lots of children even in our time, but you seem to have overlooked the rest of my explanation: the numerous Gypsy children live miserable lives. They are juvenile delinquents, used by their parents to provide "income", which comes from begging, robbery, cheats or threats. They live crammed in small apartments where disease roams. It's what happens when a third world population, with few finances "breeds like rabbits". I've been told the conditions of the Muslim families are similar to the Gypsy ones. It's not an ideal model for me. My advice is, if nationalists want to work in unison, they shouldn't treat Germanic women who want the best conditions for their children this way. Because then the result will be rejection and further alienation and pushing them to the feminist side where they find the illusion of betterment (see Jael post).

þeudiskaz
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 12:27 AM
No, Christianity is just like Islam, reducing women to the status of servants.
Heathen households are more traditional.

Actually, if you read Christian scripture, you will notice that it is actually pretty egalitarian.

Though, of course it is common knowledge that the Germanic tribes were extremely far advanced in sexual equality.

I think that the quality of children is more important than quantity, though both certainly have their places. If we had a Skadi-village, I would likely expect more children in the community, but as it stands now, people have brought up very reasonable objections to having 12+ kids.

Sigurd
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 01:07 AM
This may be true for 20 year old, but 'older' in general doesnt guarantee such a stance on family. And it doesnt mean financially stable, except from officials/civil servants noone can trust to have his job forever, or even for the next five years.

Indeed - this is what happened to my stepfather's former workmate some six years ago. At the time he was made redundant, he was a proud 44 years of age with a history of 22 years working for the company. It could have easily enough been my stepfather who at the time was 42 years of age with a history of 14 years at the firm.

Nor does it mean that your pay rises so astronomically that it makes that much of a difference, anyhow. My father may have received his civil servant status only a few years ago, but as a Primary Teacher he doesn't exactly earn that much, still - actually, for the heightened security that comes with civil servant status, he receives a slightly smaller wage.

And he certainly earns only marginally more (in terms of buying-value of money) at his 45 years of age, despite his civil servant status, than my grandfather did when working at a chemist's whilst still at university, at the age of 25.


As for "offering the best" to your future children, why shouldn't they be challenged in life just like our ancestors were? Our purpose in life is to create, not to consume.

It is correct that usually, if you really want children, you can survive on a minimal income without any luxuries.

However, usually as a student, you are unable to work a full-time job, as a result you're surviving on a lower-range half-time job - this is impossible to perform even if you're just living on oats.

Not spoiling your kids is important, and so not having enough money to actively spoil them excessively is not always something negative. However, having them grow up in such extreme poverty that they wouldn't even be able to do any of the socially useful extra-curricular activities (very painful if you have to tell your child: "No you can't go to football like all of your friends, we don't have that money") , cannot be a solution, either.


You may scorn the Middle Eeastern lifestyle all you like but fact is that it's a winning strategy and they are displacing us. In that respect, their reproductive behaviour is clearly superior to ours. Orthodox Jews breed like rabbits and keep their women under curfew, too. Unlike muslims they even practice eugenics on top of it. It's planful breeding at its best.

I'm actually out of speech at what you are suggesting! :-O Traditional family model, with roles set aside for each partner? My idea of a working family as well. But reducing women to breeding machines? I'd rather die than see our culture's historically appreciative opinion of women succumb to such - literally - outlandish practices! :thumbdown



We must find a way back to our tribal forms of living, and that can only work if we follow a more rural approach.

Exactly, this is what I have been saying for a long time as well. Society has become so anonymous, that there is absolutely no community spirit.Much of the character of whole stretches have disappeared, because many urban areas have fallen victim to what we call Zersiedlung (urban sprawl), which essentially takes the character out of them and their respective parts.

Only the villages often retain some spark of that, on that we must build. Besides, there is a much healthier attitude to life generally on the countryside, and traditions die last in the countryside. Perhaps, once we have managed to rebuild a sort of "village mentality" in the actual villages, this can happen for our natural centres of commerce, the towns, as well. :thumbup




Though, of course it is common knowledge that the Germanic tribes were extremely far advanced in sexual equality.

Please do me the favour and call them "the Germanic tribes in pre-Christian times". The way you're putting it is like the Germanic tribes were dead and a near-forgotten detail of history --- but I'd like to think that we're very much alive and kicking. ;)

þeudiskaz
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 03:05 AM
Please do me the favour and call them "the Germanic tribes in pre-Christian times". The way you're putting it is like the Germanic tribes were dead and a near-forgotten detail of history --- but I'd like to think that we're very much alive and kicking. ;)

My apologies, I hope to see (figuratively) us alive and kicking for quite some time (preferably forever!). :thumbup

Gardisten
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 05:51 AM
No, Christianity is just like Islam, reducing women to the status of servants.
Heathen households are more traditional.
No, the status of women in Christian society is much better than in Islam. Some of the Germanic groups I believe were converted through the initiative of high-ranking women, who saw the advantage of being liberated through Christianity.



Women initiate divorce because men cheat on them and treat them terribly.
Infidelity and treason is not an ideal value for children to grow up with.

Well, no, the vast majority of the the time it all has to do with money. The accusations of mistreatment, etc. only really come out when the divorce proceedings are taking place. As for cheating, well, women are certain just as likely--if not more so--to cheat. I guess they're just a little better at maintaining the deception.

You really come across a full-blown feminist. You're using all of the typical rhetoric.

D. H. Yeager
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 07:09 AM
For starters I'm not married therefore the last thing I need is a child. Secondly, I'm too young to get tied down. Also I am financialy unfit for such an undertaking. Finally, due to famiy history (adiction, abandoment, and slews of mid-life crisises) I'm afraid I'll won't be the father I need to be, much like my father.

Quo vadis
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 10:06 AM
I'm sorry, Quo vadis, but I'm not going to have other peoples tell me how I should live my life, and when and how many children I should have.

That makes you a liberal then, someone who puts his own selfish desires over the interests of her community.


My advice is, if nationalists want to work in unison, they shouldn't treat Germanic women who want the best conditions for their children this way. Because then the result will be rejection and further alienation and pushing them to the feminist side where they find the illusion of betterment (see Jael post).

We tried that for the last 150 years and boy, what have we been screwed over! Meanwhile, muslim men continue to be in strong demand among many German women.


If we had a Skadi-village, I would likely expect more children in the community,...

I wouldn't. I see no evidence of Skadi members being any more fertile than the mainstream population. I have been debating in mainstream forums for years, the looming demographic disaster is a hotly debated topic there as well. The arguments are the same, so are the excuses. The only difference is that the mainstream doesn't pay lip service to Germanic preservation.


...but as it stands now, people have brought up very reasonable objections to having 12+ kids.

What were these "reasonable objections" again? Was it the comparison with the living conditions of gypsy and muslim families? This only proves that many people here don't really believe in the superiority of our race, who would surely make more out of the situation that gypsies or muslims, nor in its preservation being the ultimate goal trumping everything else, even if they pay lip service to it.


It is correct that usually, if you really want children, you can survive on a minimal income without any luxuries.

However, usually as a student, you are unable to work a full-time job, as a result you're surviving on a lower-range half-time job - this is impossible to perform even if you're just living on oats.

In Austria, everybody can have as many children as he wants and apply for welfare afterwards, thus letting the state clean up after himself. Furthermore Germanic preservationists can draw on the support of the Germanic community. If studying conflicts with having children then one shouldn't study in the first place!


Not spoiling your kids is important, and so not having enough money to actively spoil them excessively is not always something negative. However, having them grow up in such extreme poverty that they wouldn't even be able to do any of the socially useful extra-curricular activities (very painful if you have to tell your child: "No you can't go to football like all of your friends, we don't have that money") , cannot be a solution, either.

You got your priorities totally wrong. The preservation of our people ranks infinitely higher than children being able to play football.


I'm actually out of speech at what you are suggesting! :-O Traditional family model, with roles set aside for each partner? My idea of a working family as well. But reducing women to breeding machines? I'd rather die than see our culture's historically appreciative opinion of women succumb to such - literally - outlandish practices! :thumbdown

I appreciate women who live up their role of birth-giving mothers, you, however, come across as not so appreciative, talking as if that state of being were a "reduced" one. Such talk is exactly the feminist poison that is destroying our people. Historically, women have been in a state of constant pregnancy during their fertile years over the course of centuries, because due to the absence of contraception for them having sex implied getting pregnant. These were the times when our people became strong.

Bärin
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 11:26 AM
I appreciate women who live up their role of birth-giving mothers, you, however, come across as not so appreciative, talking as if that state of being were a "reduced" one. Such talk is exactly the feminist poison that is destroying our people. Historically, women have been in a state of constant pregnancy during their fertile years over the course of centuries, because due to the absence of contraception for them having sex implied getting pregnant. These were the times when our people became strong.
Do you really? Then where is your wife? Where are your children? Nowhere. With what have you contributed to the perpetuation of the German nation besides casting shadow to the ground? Finding a partner isn't difficult. Raising children isn't impossible. And even if you can't have your own children biologically, then adopt or raise someone else's. There are plenty of single mothers in Germany. Practice what you preach, or you are just as worthless as the people you criticize.

Sissi
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 11:42 AM
You got your priorities totally wrong. The preservation of our people ranks infinitely higher than children being able to play football.
The preservation of high culture, however, should go hand-in-hand with the preservation of race. Even if you let an animal grow in a constricted environment, it will start to behave differently. Species bred in captivity differ from those in the wild. It's a known fact that childhood affects the psychological development of adults and their world view. Germanics who grow up in precarious conditions like immigrants will start to behave exactly like them. Oftentimes, the children from the lowest social strata behave poorly and have no regards for their nation. I don't consider the preservation of whiggers, juvenile criminals, rapists and Islamic converts "Germanic preservation", even if they are genetically Germanic.

þeudiskaz
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 11:57 AM
That makes you a liberal then, someone who puts his own selfish desires over the interests of her community.

Incorrect, it means she cares a lot about the quality of life for her children.


I wouldn't. I see no evidence of Skadi members being any more fertile than the mainstream population. I have been debating in mainstream forums for years, the looming demographic disaster is a hotly debated topic there as well. The arguments are the same, so are the excuses. The only difference is that the mainstream doesn't pay lip service to Germanic preservation.

I mentioned nothing about fertility, so such an argument is void. As someone previously said, if there was an RL small community of Skadi members that existed, we could feel more free to have many children, and know that they are being raised in a good, strong, Germanic community. The problem with popping out kids is that we are going to threaten our existence more. I understand that we need numbers, and I agree with you on that, but your proposal is only a solution to deal with our population, and not at all a solution to dealing with the problems our Volk face.


What were these "reasonable objections" again? Was it the comparison with the living conditions of gypsy and muslim families? This only proves that many people here don't really believe in the superiority of our race, who would surely make more out of the situation that gypsies or muslims, nor in its preservation being the ultimate goal trumping everything else, even if they pay lip service to it.

There are a few, poor living conditions is one, there are more below.


I appreciate women who live up their role of birth-giving mothers,

And yet, you don't seem to appreciate the Germanic role of women. Yes, motherhood is an important, and sacred aspect of the feminine. But us Germanic Volk have had a tradition of equality, and respect than American, or European equality. It predates Jesus preaching greater equality, it predates (or, is more advanced than) even the ancient Greek traditions.

You suggest that women should bow, and accept their maternal (and only maternal) position in society? I can't speak for others on this forum, but that does not sound Germanic to me, in fact, it sounds quite a bit like the Islamic, and Jewish cultures you pretend to hate with one breathe, and then advocate with the next. "Breeding machines" is not a Germanic idea, and to excercise such an idea would be to betray our culture, our friends, our forbearers, not only now, but also in the future. You say that the Muslims have a better strategy for propogating their culture, and you suggest we should follow it. Quo Vadis, you have given me no reason to suspect that you are not a Muslim yourself except that you are apparently against Islam (but then advocate us Germanic Volk adopting their cultural practices, tell me you see the problem here?)


I don't consider the preservation of whiggers, juvenile criminals, rapists and Islamic converts "Germanic preservation", even if they are genetically Germanic.

:thumbsup I don't think anyone here except Quo vadis does.

Quo vadis
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 12:11 PM
Do you really? Then where is your wife? Where are your children? Nowhere. With what have you contributed to the perpetuation of the German nation besides casting shadow to the ground? Finding a partner isn't difficult. Raising children isn't impossible. And even if you can't have your own children biologically, then adopt or raise someone else's. There are plenty of single mothers in Germany. Practice what you preach, or you are just as worthless as the people you criticize.

That's right, my failure to reproduce makes me as worthless as the lots of other people who fail as well, and we cannot survive as a people unless the few worthy people left make up for our failure. I can't have my own children biologically, but I can raise someone else's. But where and how can I find a Germanic woman who wanted me around as a father for their children? In my experience it is very difficult to find a partner, I tried for several years without success and I know other, perfectly fine, German men who failed to find a partner as well. Instead of trying to excuse our failure let us find out what the problem is and what we can do about it. And if there is a Germanic woman here in need of a partner, then please tell me.

velvet
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 01:07 PM
That makes you a liberal then, someone who puts his own selfish desires over the interests of her community.

BS, it makes her a proud woman with self-esteem, not a liberal. And worthy children can only come from people with such a look at life, because a locked away woman with no self-esteem and even no esteem by the man beyond her beeing the breeding machine of his genes will not give life to worthy children.

And I strongly suggest that you read a bit up about the pre-christian societies. Our Germanic women were proud and free with the right to choose their way in life.


We tried that for the last 150 years and boy, what have we been screwed over! Meanwhile, muslim men continue to be in strong demand among many German women.

And to set something against that you suggest to adopt their lifestyle :thumbdown


What were these "reasonable objections" again? Was it the comparison with the living conditions of gypsy and muslim families? This only proves that many people here don't really believe in the superiority of our race, who would surely make more out of the situation

So, then explain how you will 'make more' out of the situation when you live with your ten children on two rooms, because you cant effort more for a flat, with a budget of 50E/week for 12 people eating. This is simply impossible. These children would be screwed up from the day of their birth, no privacy, no chance to develop and be properly educated. This is a third-world environment, and you will end up with having third-world children, Germanic genes or not.


In Austria, everybody can have as many children as he wants and apply for welfare afterwards, thus letting the state clean up after himself. Furthermore Germanic preservationists can draw on the support of the Germanic community. If studying conflicts with having children then one shouldn't study in the first place!

What a BS. So you suggest we should all break up school at 17, remain stupid and uneducated but pop out each year a child, that needs care, food, clothes, education etc. with NO prospect to ever leave the cycle down.
And btw, welfare is far below the poverty level, this only guarantees that you dont starve to death. And if you havent noticed, to get HartzIV as a German meanwhile is almost impossible. Last time I was there I met a young women of 19 with a child, whom's boyfriend still was in school and simply couldnt work (beside that you dont get work without school and a job training, so your suggestion is really utter BS), and she got no welfare for her child, because she still lived at her parent's home and they were supposed to pay for her.

To put out a number, when you are alone you get 341€ plus the cold rent for the flat. Electricity, heating and other costs you pay from that 341€. The children are leveled, for the first you get something around 200, for the next you only get 130 or so, so the more children (and the more costs) you have, the less money you get.


You got your priorities totally wrong. The preservation of our people ranks infinitely higher than children being able to play football.

Why dont we put children into incubators, like Konrad from the bin and they hatch out when being able to reproduce themselves?
Children need social contacts, whether that is football or whatever else doesnt matter. Social contact is rare these days anyway, but when your child is dressed with ten year old jeans from Aldi and your outsourced T-Shirts from your own childhood with a collection of moth holes, NO other child will even talk to them. And if, it is not nice. Children who look poor are subject to daily violence and dissing from their class mates.


I appreciate women who live up their role of birth-giving mothers, you, however, come across as not so appreciative, talking as if that state of being were a "reduced" one. Such talk is exactly the feminist poison that is destroying our people. Historically, women have been in a state of constant pregnancy during their fertile years over the course of centuries, because due to the absence of contraception for them having sex implied getting pregnant. These were the times when our people became strong.

Contraception was honestly really common among pre-christian Germanic people. Uh, and shockingly, also abortion, although that was much more rare, due to a working contraception.
Germanic women went with their men to war if they decided to do so, and they surely werent constantly pregnant. Germanic women are proud women, no slaves. But it is exactly what you suggest the women to be, slaves. Locked away and reduced to breeding machines. :thumbdown


But where and how can I find a Germanic woman who wanted me around as a father for their children?

You want a honest tip? Change your character, with your attitude towards women I understand every women who opt for being a single mother rather than letting YOU near her child and her.

Bärin
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 03:48 PM
That's right, my failure to reproduce makes me as worthless as the lots of other people who fail as well, and we cannot survive as a people unless the few worthy people left make up for our failure. I can't have my own children biologically, but I can raise someone else's. But where and how can I find a Germanic woman who wanted me around as a father for their children? In my experience it is very difficult to find a partner, I tried for several years without success and I know other, perfectly fine, German men who failed to find a partner as well. Instead of trying to excuse our failure let us find out what the problem is and what we can do about it. And if there is a Germanic woman here in need of a partner, then please tell me.
Bullshit, a German woman with children who needs a provider for her family isn't difficult to find. There are plenty of single mothers who would love to stay at home while someone brings the money home. But if you're so incapable of finding one, you could still donate your money to poor German families. There are plenty in East Germany and nobody will say no. Place an ad in a newspaper, on the Internet (Thiazi has a singles section and there are many mothers out there), on the radio, turn Germany upside down to find one, what do I care how you do it? What's important is that you haven't accomplished it.

Siebenbürgerin
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 04:52 PM
That makes you a liberal then, someone who puts his own selfish desires over the interests of her community.
No, I'm one who puts the well-being of my children before anything. Your thinking is a little bit too socialistic for my taste.


I wouldn't. I see no evidence of Skadi members being any more fertile than the mainstream population. I have been debating in mainstream forums for years, the looming demographic disaster is a hotly debated topic there as well. The arguments are the same, so are the excuses. The only difference is that the mainstream doesn't pay lip service to Germanic preservation.
The difference is we want children, while the mainstream doesn't at all. It's not the same thing.


What were these "reasonable objections" again? Was it the comparison with the living conditions of gypsy and muslim families? This only proves that many people here don't really believe in the superiority of our race, who would surely make more out of the situation that gypsies or muslims, nor in its preservation being the ultimate goal trumping everything else, even if they pay lip service to it.

In Austria, everybody can have as many children as he wants and apply for welfare afterwards, thus letting the state clean up after himself. Furthermore Germanic preservationists can draw on the support of the Germanic community. If studying conflicts with having children then one shouldn't study in the first place!
The welfare in Romania is among the smallest in the whole EU (75 % from the minimum wage, which is about 150 euros as I've said), and impossible to raise a numerous family from it. I've seen families with 5 children who were thrown directly into the street, because they couldn't pay the rent and expenses anymore, and fathers feeling so impotent to help their children than neighbours had to hold them to prevent them to jump out the window into suicide. Some families went to live in garages, basements or even improvised cartboard "houses", which turned into insalubrity sources, without some running water and disinfection. Only those who struggled to make their stories known, were at the mercy of politicians and donators. The same happened to elderly people for whom the pension didn't suffice to live a sustainable life. Please, the way the state takes care of citisens is a big joke, a morbid one (literally, because some peoples died of starvation). Those are the realities of poverty in this country, one you've obviously not seen, or you wouldn't speak in theory as if things were so rosy, the state pays and you sit comfortably with your children at home. :thumbdown

The result is obvious: a rate of 70 % abortions in Romania, because everyone is scared to have children at all, because it means more mouths to feed and less money. The fact that someone like me wants to have children once my finances become better is something unusual in this society. It's certainly no mainstream thinking.

And studying is needed if you want a decent job from which to raise your children, especially if you're a male as Sigurd is, and are supposed to provide for a family. Manual and unqualified labour is paid less than jobs requiring intellect. The jobs requiring intellect demand a diploma, some certification that you know what you're doing.


You got your priorities totally wrong. The preservation of our people ranks infinitely higher than children being able to play football.
As Sissi and velvet said, the preservation of culture and the social contacts should be a priority too, not just of race. School is very expensive nowadays for example, before each child got a free manual to use for the time of his schooling and then return it, but now children have to ask their parents for money to buy manuals, since we've the "alternative" manuals, each teacher chooses his own instead of teaching from an universal one as before. But I assume you'll say education isn't important, and the priority is to add an extra number to the demographic statistics. School here is obligatory for nine grades anyway.

We had in school a poor colleague whose parents were on welfare and he couldn't afford. Since his family was poor, they lived in the poor neighbourhoods, which here equals a sort of Gypsy "ghetto". The lifestyle there had its bearing on his behaviour. What we become is not only the result of nature, but of nurture too. He had bad grades, was fighting with other children, had disgusting habits and when we had the regular medical checkup, the school nurses found lice in his hair. Hence, nobody wanted to sit with him or play with him. He was treated as another colleague of ours, she was a Gypsy however, while he was Europid.

I tell you a thing, Romania has a bad reputation in abroad countries and Romanians condemn the Gypsies for it. But in reality it's not just the Gypsies who have the full guilt, because they're many ethnic Romanian thieves and criminals abroad, and they come exactly from those poor families with uneducated peoples. They're Europids genetically, but culturally they're aliens and a shame to the entire country.

It's as velvet says, if you dress in second hand jeans and wear used clothes with holes, no one will associate with you. From the middle classes that is. The immigrant and the Gypsy will associate with you however, since you've some things in common like sheer poverty and insalubrity, and live in poor neighbourhoods which are frequented by those. While if you've accumulated some money and raise your child in not luxurious, but decent conditions, it will turn a different path.


I appreciate women who live up their role of birth-giving mothers, you, however, come across as not so appreciative, talking as if that state of being were a "reduced" one. Such talk is exactly the feminist poison that is destroying our people. Historically, women have been in a state of constant pregnancy during their fertile years over the course of centuries, because due to the absence of contraception for them having sex implied getting pregnant. These were the times when our people became strong.
Sigurd is not a feminist, Quo vadis. His position is a realistic one, and in fact it's shared by most nationalistic peoples here. Here you've my poll, and see most peoples voted for the same things we are talking about. So far 0 % peoples voted they have no children because they don't want them.

And I've to say something, I wouldn't mind being "reduced" to a traditional role of a stay at home mother, I don't find it inferior, nor to be an obedient servant to a husband. But for that to happen I've to save some money first, instead of placing the burden entirely on my boyfriend, which he can't cope with anyhow because he's rather young as me and needs to finish his studies. I don't like working, but I've few satisfactory options at this moment.

By the way contraception existed long before, but it didn't come as pills but herbal teas and mixes.

Sigurd
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 05:02 PM
That makes you a liberal then, someone who puts his own selfish desires over the interests of her community.

Planning to finish ones studies and then perhaps have children aged 25-30 is hardly putting one's selfish desires over the interest of the community.

One could even be a stay-at-home mother, but if she has a degree before that, then after the children have left the house, she has qualifications. When your youngest child is 12, then chances are you're only approx. 40-45 yourself, this leaves you with another 15-20 years to pursue a career thereafter.

But without qualifications, this is not possible. Furthermore, having academic schooling is never a downside, your children will be curious and if you're the stay-at-home mother then you will be the one answering them on their questions about matters mundane and philosophical. Having a basic knowledge of most pertinent topics is needed for that. ;)

Either way, whether a woman has her children aged 16, 17, 18 and 19 or whether she has them aged 26, 27, 28 and 29 makes little difference, as long as she has them. Earning qualifications before having them is however useful, obtaining a degree after your children have left the house, i.e. approx. age 35-40 for the younger mother, is invariably tougher.

This forum once had a member (she changed over to Thiazi after split) who had 10 children even though she first pursued her studies. She had her first child at 29, yet still managed to have a number of children! The timing does not always conflict with the wish, you know. ;)


In Austria, everybody can have as many children as he wants and apply for welfare afterwards, thus letting the state clean up after himself.

It is not my goal to be a burden to my fellow folk. Welfare should be for unfortunate cases, not for genuine laziness. If I find myself to be unemployed at some later stage with a family to feed, then I am of course grateful for momentary help by other members of society, but the goal should always be to lead a self-sustaning, orderly life, not to be a scrounging reaper of benefits.


If studying conflicts with having children then one shouldn't study in the first place!

My personal intention is to have 4-8 children, so studying certainly does not conflict with having children. In fact, being highly qualified will be a necessity for this, especially with my belief in the traditional family model with the father as the breadwinner. You can perhaps come by unqualified with one or two children, but it is impossible to support a large family on a bricklayer's income.

Whether I shall have eight children between age 25-40, or whether I should have them between age 20-35 doesn't make much of a difference in terms of life scale, does it? But it certainly makes a huge difference on the income quarters whether you have a PhD or whether you're working as a builder...


You got your priorities totally wrong. The preservation of our people ranks infinitely higher than children being able to play football.

You don't get the point behind extracurricular activities for children, do you? One of the things which our society is devoid of is a community spirit. By making friends and participating in extracurricular activities together, this aids building the community spirit. I still have some friends whom I met through Football, Tennis, Skiing or Taekwondo practice, too.

What is the point of having children just for the sake of having children? You should be able to give your children a good childhood ... broken homes and tough childhoods are the leading causes for people repeating the same mistakes later on. I'd certainly prefer to have my children spend their time playing football with their mates than going around the block, vandalising and harassing people.

Not to mention that children learn important skills through community-orientated extracurricular activities such as team sports, boyscouts, or fire brigade juniors.


I appreciate women who live up their role of birth-giving mothers, you, however, come across as not so appreciative, talking as if that state of being were a "reduced" one. Such talk is exactly the feminist poison that is destroying our people.

BS - what is "feminist" about the belief that man and woman are partners, each with their roles. For the woman that is the household, the child-rearing, the little bits, the community building ... for the man that is bread-winning and representing the family to outsiders.

In that, however this does not make them breeding machines, and inferior to the male role which is what you are suggesting. Our ancestors believed that men and women were equals, albeit having their different roles: just that one was the man's realm and the other was the woman's realm.

Your idea of a woman is obviously that she is merely a breeding machine to suit the man's wish for an heir, and that she has absolutely no say, and is exchangeable if she is out of her child-bearing years. Or at least, theat's what you're subscribing to if you're praising the Islamic model.

I would rather have a traditional family model that is built upon the values and traditions of our folk, not some desert people's idea of it.


Historically, women have been in a state of constant pregnancy during their fertile years over the course of centuries, because due to the absence of contraception for them having sex implied getting pregnant.

Historically, women still worked the fields, as did those children old enough to give a helping hand. Historically, the woman was also the mistress of the household. Historically, unmarried women were also free to bid as they did. Historically, if people felt that their farm could not support another child, practiced coitus interruptus as a measure to prevent a further pregnancy, with mixed but at least some success.

Having children is important, having many children is preferable. But having more children than you can support is idiocy. Those with more resources should be the ones that have more children --- what we don't want is every bricklayer have ten children that are as a consequence under-nourished and under-privileged. I'd much rather if that bricklayer only had 2-3 children but raised them as good and valuable members of our society ... and leave having 9-10 children to those with the ability to support them.

Nachtengel
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 05:39 PM
And if there is a Germanic woman here in need of a partner, then please tell me.
I would like a hardworking father for my son, so that I could stay home and spend more time with him instead of working in an office and being called from home in the evenings, to have to leave my child with strangers. The problem is, every single one I've met had poor character and was more talk than action. Precisely why the German nation is in the situation it is today. The father of my son kept talking about the importance to reproduce and make the Aryan race grow, we agreed to have children, and where is he now? Left and ran like a coward, and rarely ever even asks about his son. He doesn't do his duty as a father. The prospect of reproduction sounds good in theory, but once it becomes reality, many don't like it, because it turns out to be far more demanding to raise a child than you imagine. I'm afraid it takes more than to pop out a child and get ready for the next.

Siebenbürgerin
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 05:48 PM
Further, as in this theme, some men aren't eager to raise another man's children:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=123019
The idea to remain a single mother, unattractive to the men, isn't sounding as a nice future. That's why a longterm, quality relationship is needed before having a child. I'm in my relation for some months only, and we're still getting to know each other. In my previous relation I wanted to wait for marriage and a better financial situation before we had children, and my intuition didn't ruin me. When the relationship crumbled and the person I was with turned out to be disloyal, I wasn't left with a future fatherless child in the womb.

Bärin
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 05:57 PM
There are no guarantees in life. If you keep being afraid you'll never have the guts to do something meaningful. Nothing comes without risk.

Sissi
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 06:08 PM
By the way, I somehow missed this:


In Austria, everybody can have as many children as he wants and apply for welfare afterwards, thus letting the state clean up after himself. Furthermore Germanic preservationists can draw on the support of the Germanic community. If studying conflicts with having children then one shouldn't study in the first place!
I don't know which world you live in, but this "Austria" you write about must be in a parallel one, because it doesn't correspond with the situation in my country.

This is how poor Austrian children live like. Those living on welfare have a similar status and lifestyle to immigrants, as in the picture:


http://www.austriantimes.at/picture/8y17msxi.jpg/Poverty_is_a_growing_threat_to_many_chil dren_in_Austria,_a_new_study_has_warned.

Poverty is a growing threat to many children in Austria, a new study has warned.

A new study by the Institute for Sociology claims some 250,000 children in Austria are either living in poverty or close to doing so with children of unemployed and migrants most at risk.

Study co-author Irina Vana said today (Thurs) 100,000 children aged seven to 14 lived in homes without PCs and 90,000 lived in excessively small apartments.

Co-author Ursula Till-Tentschert added that in such apartments, noise and a lack of space often meant children unable to do their homework.

Martin Schenk from the Poverty Conference called for more child-care, an integrative school system and a society in which children received the respect due to them.

Social Democrat (SPÖ) Social Minister Rudolf Hundstorfer said child poverty was something that needed to be acted upon.

The minister said: "The proper combination of tax, labour-market, social and educational measures will enable us to deal with the problem and give new chances to our children."

Hundstorfer added jobs were the most important means of preventing poverty and that free kindergartens were an important first step. He said the chance that children would live in poverty decreased by two thirds when mothers were employed and stressed that free child-care was very important since it would enable more mothers to work.

The minister also called for minimum social insurance based on need for all Austrians.

[Austria Times (http://www.austriantimes.at/index.php?id=12423)]

Matrix
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 06:22 PM
http://www.austriantimes.at/picture/8y17msxi.jpg/Poverty_is_a_growing_threat_to_many_chil dren_in_Austria,_a_new_study_has_warned.
They look like what the Americans would call 'white trash'. Is the girl's hair dyed orange? I foresee her selling her body to immigrants for drugs when she grows up.

velvet
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 08:57 PM
@QuoVadis:

Some more facts:

About 17 percent of all children live in poverty.
Nach Angaben des Instituts leben inzwischen 1,929 Millionen Kinder in Hartz-IV-Familien (study shows that meanwhile 1,9mio children live on welfare), these families dont sent their children to all-day schools because they cant effort the food costs anymore.
Our oh so social Germany doesnt pay that, as well as it doesnt pay school books, day trips, museum visits organised by schools, etc.

Fünf Jahre HartvIV - Kinderarmut in Deutschland auf dem Höchststand (http://www.welt.de/politik/article1109778/Kinderarmut_in_Deutschland_auf_Hoechstst and.html)
(five years of 'social welfare' reform - child's poverty on highest level)

Kinderarmut in Deutschland (http://www.armutszeugnisse.de/themen/themen_15.htm)
(child's poverty in Germany)

Studien und Berichte zur (statistischen) Erfassung von Kinderarmut (http://www.bildungsserver.de/zeigen.html?seite=5175)
(studies and reports for statistical capture of child's poverty)

Up to 20.000 children and youths live on the street, the most of them permanently. They are nowhere registered, get no welfare, no health care, dont go to schools.

Tausende Kinder ohne Heim und Hoffnung (http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/strassenkinder4.html)
(thousands of children without home and hope)

Maybe you want adopt one of this problem childs? Take it out of its poverty cycle and make it a valuable member of the Germanic society. Give it education and love, sent it to school and have it make a job training, for that it will find a way in its life.

Do not just talk the talk :thumbup

Nachtengel
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 09:05 PM
Bärin posted once a thread about poverty in Germany. Read it:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=98114

Among those living below poverty line besides immigrants, unemployed and un(der)educated are single mothers.

Kogen
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 10:02 PM
I do not think anyone is suggesting for women to have children on their own with no family.

Nor do I think anyone who wants increased birth rates has a moral objection towards adoption.

Looking at those children in 'poverty' (apparently no expensive electronics is poverty now), the real issue does not seem to be the amount of children, but rather the land families are given by the government, as well as the immigrants accepted into the country. Proper urban planning, and domestic planning, for families by the government or local communties would entirely solve the problem. Plus the entire removal of immigration that puts strain on the system.

Some people just seem to hate results and want to live in their self-given guilt, pretending the world is at fault instead of their own mentality.

Nachtengel
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 10:06 PM
I do not think anyone is suggesting for women to have children on their own with no family.
It's not like we have much of a choice if the man turns out to be a loser and we walk around with big bellies, do we? And my family resents me because I'm nationalsocialist.

Siebenbürgerin
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 10:12 PM
I do not think anyone is suggesting for women to have children on their own with no family.

Nor do I think anyone who wants increased birth rates has a moral objection towards adoption.

Looking at those children in 'poverty' (apparently no expensive electronics is poverty now), the real issue does not seem to be the amount of children, but rather the land families are given by the government, as well as the immigrants accepted into the country. Proper urban planning, and domestic planning, for families by the government or local communties would entirely solve the problem. Plus the entire removal of immigration that puts strain on the system.

Some people just seem to hate results and want to live in their self-given guilt, pretending the world is at fault instead of their own mentality.
Peoples have blamed me and the others who share my views for waiting for more stability to have children. Dating is about finding out if peoples click together, and children come after that. Becoming pregnant with a fresh boyfriend increases women's risking chance to remain single mothers in case the relationship doesn't work out. Stability is needed, both in relationship and financial. It's why we want to wait some time until we consider us ready to become parents. If a woman has no finances when her boyfriend leaves her with a child behind, her life will become a tragedy. No matter how you put it, jumping into the unknown without some precautions is not a best idea.

Quo vadis
Friday, July 31st, 2009, 10:39 PM
I have written on a reply to many of the posts here for more than an hour now, but I am not satisfied with it yet. There are some good points raised, but with others I feel like I am just wasting my time addressing them because nothing could ever persuade you. I take it that the general conditions for bringing up children will continue to get worse during our lifetime. Also the general Germanic population will continue to shrink during our lifetime, and there is nothing we can do to prevent it. But if we want to preserve our people then a subgroup must, at least, have enough Germanic children to replace themselves, which is more than any Germanic population achieves today. This seems self-evident to me and I see no other solution being proposed. For a meaningful discussion, we can discuss what options are preferrable to others, but we must agree that failure to achieve fertility below replacement level is not an option. Or should we just give up?

@Todesengel: The link you posted in post #89 is broken. Can you repair it, please?

Kogen
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 01:44 AM
It's not like we have much of a choice if the man turns out to be a loser and we walk around with big bellies, do we? And my family resents me because I'm nationalsocialist.


Peoples have blamed me and the others who share my views for waiting for more stability to have children. Dating is about finding out if peoples click together, and children come after that. Becoming pregnant with a fresh boyfriend increases women's risking chance to remain single mothers in case the relationship doesn't work out. Stability is needed, both in relationship and financial. It's why we want to wait some time until we consider us ready to become parents. If a woman has no finances when her boyfriend leaves her with a child behind, her life will become a tragedy. No matter how you put it, jumping into the unknown without some precautions is not a best idea.

Who said you cannot wait a few years to prepare? I know new mothers in their 40s.

Patrioten
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 02:24 AM
Among those living below poverty line besides immigrants, unemployed and un(der)educated are single mothers.Exactly, their poverty is a consequence of the father having left the mother and children to fend for themselves, caused by the colapse of the traditional family and family values. This development is a very serious problem as it makes child bearing and starting a family into a risky project without much security or certainty, the opposite of what family life should be like. There's no easy solution to this problem either since it is a question of values, values which are no longer passed on from generation to generation, or absorbed by the younger generations, as they should. The parental generation has failed their children, they were the ones who started the slaughter of the family by getting divorced, living in unstable cohabitation relationships and not getting married.

How do you solve a problem of this nature? You can't teach adult individuals new values or force these values upon them, it's something which must come from within, and currently, most see no reason to reevaluate their modernistic and anti-family value system.

Gardisten
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 02:26 AM
It's not like we have much of a choice if the man turns out to be a loser and we walk around with big bellies, do we? And my family resents me because I'm nationalsocialist.

That's really too bad, but from my experience women tend to play a more significant role in the breakdown of a relationship than they're either aware of or will admit to. Yet when a relationship does breakdown, it still somehow ends up being the man who is fault.

þeudiskaz
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 02:50 AM
That's really too bad, but from my experience women tend to play a more significant role in the breakdown of a relationship than they're either aware of or will admit to. Yet when a relationship does breakdown, it still somehow ends up being the man who is fault.

Agreed, though the bigger picture here isn't the relationship itself, but this jerks unwillingness to stick around in a parental role.

I cna understand that babies happen, and that sometimes people grow apart, but it still comes down to the father of Engel's child not being willing to be a parent, whoever's fault it is that they aren't together.

Ward
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 02:56 AM
That's really too bad, but from my experience women tend to play a more significant role in the breakdown of a relationship than they're either aware of or will admit to. Yet when a relationship does breakdown, it still somehow ends up being the man who is fault.


Agreed. I'd say men and women are equally to blame for the dismal state of familial relationships these days.


Yet you'd never know that if you listen to all the "femi-nazis" on this thread, with all this bitching and moaning about being treated like "milk wagons and incubators." And in true feminist fashion, the male is getting blamed for all of our social ills. What a load of horsesh*t. I know just as many lowdown, selfish, cheating females as I do males.


You know, a lot of people here lament the "metrosexualization" of men, but the equivalent is happening to females. It used to be a matter of honor and pride for women to rear children and be a good homemaker, which was a perfect compliment to traditional male chivalry that even today's women seek in men.


I'm all for treating men and women as equals in a moral sense, but we have to remember that the sexes were designed to carry out different biological and social functions.


Indeed, the feminist rot runs deep... even here on Skadi. :thumbdown

þeudiskaz
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 03:37 AM
I'm all for treating men and women as equals in a moral sense, but we have to remember that the sexes were designed to carry out different biological and social functions.

Indeed, the feminist rot runs deep... even here on Skadi. :thumbdown

Society has changed. This is not necessarily a good thing, but at the same time, I don't think that Todesengel (she's the only one I can think you're specifically referring to) made the choice to have her childs father abandon them. I'm not saying that it's his fault the relationship ending, heck, for what we know, it could be entirely her fault, and yet, he is still to blame for walking out on fatherhood. That's the important issue, his lack of responsibility is the key issue.

I really don't see it as a feminist issue so much as a societal issue, but that is why we're here, right? To recapture our Germanic culture, and society?

Ward
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 04:52 AM
Society has changed. This is not necessarily a good thing, but at the same time, I don't think that Todesengel (she's the only one I can think you're specifically referring to) made the choice to have her childs father abandon them. I'm not saying that it's his fault the relationship ending, heck, for what we know, it could be entirely her fault, and yet, he is still to blame for walking out on fatherhood. That's the important issue, his lack of responsibility is the key issue.

Well, if what Todesengel says is true, then I sympathize with her. The father of her child is a deadbeat with no sense of honor or duty. Regardless of who is at fault, her son will pay the greatest price for their failed relationship. I couldn't even imagine what it would be like to grow up without a dad.

However, in general, today's women are equally to blame for familial dysfunction. They have been ingrained with a false sense of entitlement, not unlike that of non-whites in our societies. Feminists want us to think of pregnancy and motherhood as a form of slavery.

Nowadays, when one speaks of the value of traditional gender roles (which stemmed naturally from our biological differences), one is typically confronted with such feminist-inspired male-bashing strawmen as this:


Ya, how about we place them on a muzzle too, to avoid all the whining and crying? ;) Feed them three times a day, take them for a walk, and reward them with a bone for good behavior under the sheets. :D:D


I hate misogynists and I'm disgusted by the way Muslims treat women. I fully support monogamous marriage as an equal partnership between man and woman, but we have to remember that men and woman were naturally designed to fulfill different family roles, both of which are vital to a sustainable culture.

þeudiskaz
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 03:50 PM
Well, if what Todesengel says is true, then I sympathize with her. The father of her child is a deadbeat with no sense of honor or duty. Regardless of who is at fault, her son will pay the greatest price for their failed relationship. I couldn't even imagine what it would be like to grow up without a dad.

However, in general, today's women are equally to blame for familial dysfunction. They have been ingrained with a false sense of entitlement, not unlike that of non-whites in our societies. Feminists want us to think of pregnancy and motherhood as a form of slavery.

Nowadays, when one speaks of the value of traditional gender roles (which stemmed naturally from our biological differences), one is typically confronted with such feminist-inspired male-bashing strawmen as this:

I hate misogynists and I'm disgusted by the way Muslims treat women. I fully support monogamous marriage as an equal partnership between man and woman, but we have to remember that men and woman were naturally designed to fulfill different family roles, both of which are vital to a sustainable culture.

Ah, then we misunderstood each other. It feels like people have been (indirectly) blaming Todesengel for her situation, when in general, the child's father's negligence is not her fault. I understand that few people take relationships seriously anymore, but even outside of the relationship, the father should still step up, and clearly you feel that way too.

Ossi
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 03:52 PM
Nowadays, when one speaks of the value of traditional gender roles (which stemmed naturally from our biological differences), one is typically confronted with such feminist-inspired male-bashing strawmen as this:

I hate misogynists and I'm disgusted by the way Muslims treat women. I fully support monogamous marriage as an equal partnership between man and woman, but we have to remember that men and woman were naturally designed to fulfill different family roles, both of which are vital to a sustainable culture.
:oanieyes

And they say it's Germans that have no sense of humor. You need to grow one, quickly.

Nachtengel
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 07:17 PM
I wasn't "bitching and moaning", but saying a fact: I was left by my partner with a child. That's how it is. It doesn't matter whose fault it was our relationship didn't work (not that I said I'm perfect, but it was actually his and his family's poking their noses in it and persuading him to do other things that were the decisive factors in his abandonment). He dumped his child, not I, and I haven't closed the doors to him coming and seeing him. The reason he barely ever asked about his son, let alone come to see him, is his lack of interest. And let me tell you, "love" and personal pleasure is the last thing I seek in a relationship. What I seek is a suitable father for my child. It's his politics and how he and my child get along that is the decisive factor, because these will have a bearing on his future. I'm too old for this silly love game stuff. Now you can call me a feminist and whatnot, but I would never leave my son, for any reason in the world. I'm doing my duty as a parent, end of story.

Gardisten
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 07:19 PM
Ah, then we misunderstood each other. It feels like people have been (indirectly) blaming Todesengel for her situation, when in general, the child's father's negligence is not her fault. I understand that few people take relationships seriously anymore, but even outside of the relationship, the father should still step up, and clearly you feel that way too.
I think it's more a matter of whether or not we can really know what the truth of the situation is based on one person's opinion. There's no doubt that there are some men out there that there are men out there that are complete deadbeats, but I think in most cases for a man to leave his child(ren) there has to be much more to it. If you've ever been in a relationship you should know what kind of mind games go on--especially when things get a little rough.

Nachtengel
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 07:24 PM
I think it's more a matter of whether or not we can really know what the truth of the situation is based on one person's opinion. There's no doubt that there are some men out there that there are men out there that are complete deadbeats, but I think in most cases for a man to leave his child(ren) there has to be much more to it. If you've ever been in a relationship you should know what kind of mind games go on--especially when things get a little rough.
There is no excuse for a father to dump his child, his own flesh and blood. Even if the mother is the worst of the worst, nothing justifies punishing the child by abandoning him.

þeudiskaz
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 07:25 PM
I think it's more a matter of whether or not we can really know what the truth of the situation is based on one person's opinion. There's no doubt that there are some men out there that there are men out there that are complete deadbeats, but I think in most cases for a man to leave his child(ren) there has to be much more to it. If you've ever been in a relationship you should know what kind of mind games go on--especially when things get a little rough.

I've been there, and I know them... but there should still be no reason to abandon a child.

Engel just said she closed the door on the possibility, but a father worth the title would be doing everything he could to be there for his child regardless of any obstacle. Germanic Volk are warriors, and fighters, especially for their children, and families.

But yes, I agree that the dissolution of the relationship could be anyone's fault, I'm not saying that Engel wasn't unnecessarily mean, we agree that families can split up for any reason it's the fathers actions that I condemn.

Siebenbürgerin
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 07:30 PM
Who said you cannot wait a few years to prepare? I know new mothers in their 40s.
Several peoples did, if you read the latest pages. I wasn't thinking to wait until I'm 40, but a few more years. I've to wait some months at least, to see how my current relationship develops. I've had a bad experience with my former partner, he cheated me, so I don't want to rush. I've not said women are better or superior, but we're the ones who become pregnant, so it's much more difficult for us if a relationship breaks down.

þeudiskaz
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 07:33 PM
Several peoples did, if you read the latest pages. I wasn't thinking to wait until I'm 40, but a few more years. I've to wait some months at least, to see how my current relationship develops. I've had a bad experience with my former partner, he cheated me, so I don't want to rush. I've not said women are better or superior, but we're the ones who become pregnant, so it's much more difficult for us if a relationship breaks down.

I certainly seems easier for the man to run out on the situation. :thumbdown

This is why we need a closer, tighter-knit, and more disciplined (in short: "Germanic") society, along with a much higher expectation for fathers.

Gardisten
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 07:59 PM
There is no excuse for a father to dump his child, his own flesh and blood. Even if the mother is the worst of the worst, nothing justifies punishing the child by abandoning him.

Again, I don't know the full story, and I'm not really trying to make excuses. There are guys who are simply deadbeats, but I don't think that men should be expected to have to endure situations where "the mother is the worst of the worst". Most legal systems in the western world have laws in place much to the advantage of women, so that when they have to deal with a man that is "the worst of the worst" (or even far less) they can end the relationship and be rewarded with financial compensation, etc. Men don't really have these options, and because of this their only real option for leaving a poisonous relationship is to walk away from it. I fully understand that the child is undeservedly punished as a result, and I don't like it as much as anyone else.

Nachtengel
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 08:01 PM
Again, I don't know the full story, and I'm not really trying to make excuses. There are guys who are simply deadbeats, but I don't think that men should be expected to have to endure situations where "the mother is the worst of the worst". Most legal systems in the western world have laws in place much to the advantage of women, so that when they have to deal with a man that is "the worst of the worst" (or even far less) they can end the relationship and be rewarded with financial compensation, etc. Men don't really have these options, and because of this their only real option for leaving a poisonous relationship is to walk away from it. I fully understand that the child is undeservedly punished as a result, and I don't like it as much as anyone else.
A man can end a relationship, but still be a father to the child. Walking away from the child means no consideration for being a father, and lack of love and care for the child. No financial compensation in the world can fill the void left by a father who abandons his son.

Gardisten
Saturday, August 1st, 2009, 08:24 PM
I certainly seems easier for the man to run out on the situation. :thumbdown

This is why we need a closer, tighter-knit, and more disciplined (in short: "Germanic") society, along with a much higher expectation for fathers.

That I can agree with, although I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "high expectations". The notion of fatherhood that I've picked up is to simply be the provider and the rest of the time stoically enduring all of the familial issues, ie. being aloof and indifferent. This is the kind of patriarchal mindset that was fostered on the land in East Prussia and other German areas of the east, and simply does not work in the modern world, especially it seems in Canada. The "expectation" nowadays that somehow a man has to be "emotionally involved" etc. with the wife and kids has really been something of a problem, and I really (and probably unrealistically in my lifetime) wish for a return to a more stable and patriarchal society.


A man can end a relationship, but still be a father to the child. Walking away from the child means no consideration for being a father, and lack of love and care for the child. No financial compensation in the world can fill the void left by a father who abandons his son.

Right, I agree, but in Canada at least the courts tend to view the man's role after a breakdown of a relationship as little more than financial. Rarely get custody, and visitation is every other weekend. The rest is over the phone or through e-mail now, I guess. He doesn't even have a say in how the child support he pays should be spent. It's not really the most dignifying situation to be put in, and I suppose some men who feel that the woman has or will put them into that sort of position simply prefer to walk away.

þeudiskaz
Sunday, August 2nd, 2009, 11:50 AM
It's not really the most dignifying situation to be put in, and I suppose some men who feel that the woman has or will put them into that sort of position simply prefer to walk away.

Agreed, and here in America the situation is not entirely different, although courts are starting to recognize that fathers are parents too, awarding fathers custody much more often (I was raised by my father, though my mother was still part of my life).

Even still, a father should never abandon his child. It goes beyond an issue of pride, or dignity. Raising children is not easy in the most ideal situation, but even when the situation isn't easy, children are still worth the sacrifice.

As I said before, Germanics are warriors, and fighters. To give up, to accede, to surrender their parental rights, merely because it becomes a little harder, is beyond shaming.

Quo vadis
Sunday, August 2nd, 2009, 02:07 PM
No, I'm one who puts the well-being of my children before anything. Your thinking is a little bit too socialistic for my taste.

I am very sorry for having accused you of putting "selfish desires" first. This was wrong and uncalled for. I understand that you want the best for your children. I also believe that you will have children after all and be a good mother to them. But if your children are really better off being part of a dying people, no matter how well you take care of them, I don't know. 100 years ago many German children grew up in poverty, but they could look forward to the future, because their people were expanding and living conditions improving.


The difference is we want children, while the mainstream doesn't at all. It's not the same thing.

Some people here don't believe that we need more children, and among the mainstream most people believe that more children are desirable for the society as a whole because of economic reasons. I can't believe that our desire for Germanic preservation makes any difference before I see clear evidence of it.


The welfare in Romania is among the smallest in the whole EU (75 % from the minimum wage, which is about 150 euros as I've said), and impossible to raise a numerous family from it. I've seen families with 5 children who were thrown directly into the street, because they couldn't pay the rent and expenses anymore, and fathers feeling so impotent to help their children than neighbours had to hold them to prevent them to jump out the window into suicide. Some families went to live in garages, basements or even improvised cartboard "houses", which turned into insalubrity sources, without some running water and disinfection. Only those who struggled to make their stories known, were at the mercy of politicians and donators. The same happened to elderly people for whom the pension didn't suffice to live a sustainable life. Please, the way the state takes care of citisens is a big joke, a morbid one (literally, because some peoples died of starvation). Those are the realities of poverty in this country, one you've obviously not seen, or you wouldn't speak in theory as if things were so rosy, the state pays and you sit comfortably with your children at home. :thumbdown

I never said that welfare in Romania was sufficient, I said that about Western Europe. That's what I observed with the few welfare recipients I know. I don't say that life is rosy for them, but if the recipients can take care of their lives like normal people are able to, then welfare covers adequate food, clothing, housing and health care. The educational system is open for everybody. I have an acquaintance who grew up in a (perfectly fine) welfare household and has his academic degree today, because he had the talent for it.

From my own experiences I cannot relate to the lamentation about the living conditions of those with no financial ressources to be unsuitable for raising children here. I had no social contacts myself for the first 6 years when I was at school and I was targeted by the bullies and beaten up by them, for the first 3 years on a regular basis on my way home. That was terrible, of course, but it didn't endanger my personal development later in life.

In post #86 Sissi posted an article about poverty in Austria with a photo of a German girl and some other children. Some people here seem to think that this girl should have never been born having to grow up under such terrible conditions. Maybe I am blind, but these children look healthy to me, well fed and clothed. I don't quite like the girl's streak of colored hair, but I don't see it as a sign that she will become a drug addict, and her parents could have prevented her from coloring her hair if they wanted to.


And studying is needed if you want a decent job from which to raise your children, especially if you're a male as Sigurd is, and are supposed to provide for a family. Manual and unqualified labour is paid less than jobs requiring intellect. The jobs requiring intellect demand a diploma, some certification that you know what you're doing.

I agree with you that professional qualification is a worthy investment as a means to a higher income. As you said this applies especially for males. If you are not going to use it, then it's just luxury and if it prevents a young woman from having children then it's harmful. My fault, I should have made this distinction when I wrote it.


As Sissi and velvet said, the preservation of culture and the social contacts should be a priority too, not just of race. School is very expensive nowadays for example, before each child got a free manual to use for the time of his schooling and then return it, but now children have to ask their parents for money to buy manuals, since we've the "alternative" manuals, each teacher chooses his own instead of teaching from an universal one as before. But I assume you'll say education isn't important, and the priority is to add an extra number to the demographic statistics. School here is obligatory for nine grades anyway.

We had in school a poor colleague whose parents were on welfare and he couldn't afford. Since his family was poor, they lived in the poor neighbourhoods, which here equals a sort of Gypsy "ghetto". The lifestyle there had its bearing on his behaviour. What we become is not only the result of nature, but of nurture too. He had bad grades, was fighting with other children, had disgusting habits and when we had the regular medical checkup, the school nurses found lice in his hair. Hence, nobody wanted to sit with him or play with him. He was treated as another colleague of ours, she was a Gypsy however, while he was Europid.

I tell you a thing, Romania has a bad reputation in abroad countries and Romanians condemn the Gypsies for it. But in reality it's not just the Gypsies who have the full guilt, because they're many ethnic Romanian thieves and criminals abroad, and they come exactly from those poor families with uneducated peoples. They're Europids genetically, but culturally they're aliens and a shame to the entire country.

It's as velvet says, if you dress in second hand jeans and wear used clothes with holes, no one will associate with you. From the middle classes that is. The immigrant and the Gypsy will associate with you however, since you've some things in common like sheer poverty and insalubrity, and live in poor neighbourhoods which are frequented by those. While if you've accumulated some money and raise your child in not luxurious, but decent conditions, it will turn a different path.

If that is true as a rule, not only for some exceptions, then our people do not possess any inherent qualities making them more creative than other people and enabling them to rise up from poverty later in life. Then the marxists got it right all along and all human beings are really equal and inequality is caused by society only.

What I had in mind, was, for instance, the Polish family I stayed with as a guest in 1992. They were a couple with 3 children living in a tiny crammed flat with only 3 small rooms (+small kitchen and bathroom) for all of them together. I can only imagine their suffering due to the stress and unnecessary conflicts caused by these conditions, but because they were civilized people, they arranged themselves in a way that they could live with it, they did not have any diseases and the children did not become criminals or drug addicts but were even good at school.


Sigurd is not a feminist, Quo vadis. His position is a realistic one, and in fact it's shared by most nationalistic peoples here. Here you've my poll, and see most peoples voted for the same things we are talking about. So far 0 % peoples voted they have no children because they don't want them.

Hm, but in the poll of this thread many people did vote that they don't want children.


And I've to say something, I wouldn't mind being "reduced" to a traditional role of a stay at home mother, I don't find it inferior, nor to be an obedient servant to a husband. But for that to happen I've to save some money first, instead of placing the burden entirely on my boyfriend, which he can't cope with anyhow because he's rather young as me and needs to finish his studies. I don't like working, but I've few satisfactory options at this moment.

Thank you for saying that you don't consider being a traditional mother "inferior" and that you wouldn't mind being it yourself. I can't see any positive, personality-shaping value in a professional career, except for a few lucky extraordinary people. I agree that one should first have a plan for covering financially the basic needs of child-raising, but here in Western Europe we have the situation that the middle class wants to believe that they can't afford (more) children financially, while whole immigrant clans live and prosper from welfare payments.


By the way contraception existed long before, but it didn't come as pills but herbal teas and mixes.

It existed before long in the past, then later this knowledge was systematically eradicated, which made the population explosion in Europe after medieval age possible.


It is not my goal to be a burden to my fellow folk. Welfare should be for unfortunate cases, not for genuine laziness. If I find myself to be unemployed at some later stage with a family to feed, then I am of course grateful for momentary help by other members of society, but the goal should always be to lead a self-sustaning, orderly life, not to be a scrounging reaper of benefits.

This attitude towards welfare is common among the middle class and it is doing us harm. If you raise good children, you are not a burden but in fact you do a great service to your folk, far greater than the welfare payments you receive are worth. Furthermore, as the government of the state you live in does not want to advance the interest of your folk and would squander away the money you saved it by not drawing on welfare anyway for other purposes, you should acquire a parasitic attitude to it, to take advantage of it in order to advance the interest of your folk at the expense of your state.


You don't get the point behind extracurricular activities for children, do you? One of the things which our society is devoid of is a community spirit. By making friends and participating in extracurricular activities together, this aids building the community spirit. I still have some friends whom I met through Football, Tennis, Skiing or Taekwondo practice, too.

I admit that I don't get your point at all. People do a lot of sports already, does it make them care about preserving their people? No, it makes them care about sports.


What is the point of having children just for the sake of having children? You should be able to give your children a good childhood ...

What about giving them a future? No matter how good their childhood was, if the children have no future later on, it was all in vain. I perceive that as our main woes today, that we are part of a dying people with no future. Is it not a worthwhile goal to give the young generation later in their life the confidence that their people are not dying, that there is a future to look forward to? I don't have this confidence today, because all Germanic peoples have been in the process of dying out for decades now.


BS - what is "feminist" about the belief that man and woman are partners, each with their roles. For the woman that is the household, the child-rearing, the little bits, the community building ... for the man that is bread-winning and representing the family to outsiders.

In that, however this does not make them breeding machines, and inferior to the male role which is what you are suggesting.

It was not me who was suggesting it, but you, by finding to be a breeding mother a "reduced" state of being. Calling them "breeding machines" is feminist polemics with the goal of make breeding appear as something unworthy for human and against a woman's interests. Don't use that phrase at all, speak of them as "breeding mothers" and then you will see that there is actually nothing wrong it at all.


Our ancestors believed that men and women were equals, albeit having their different roles: just that one was the man's realm and the other was the woman's realm.

Your idea of a woman is obviously that she is merely a breeding machine to suit the man's wish for an heir, and that she has absolutely no say, and is exchangeable if she is out of her child-bearing years. Or at least, theat's what you're subscribing to if you're praising the Islamic model.

I would rather have a traditional family model that is built upon the values and traditions of our folk, not some desert people's idea of it.

I am not subscribing to anything by just pointing out an inconvenient truth, namely that the muslim strategy is a winning one. And you are employing feminist polemics again, talking about "breeding machines" and fantasize about my supposed ideas about the purpose of women being to suit a man's wish. I never said anything like that, these are your ideas, not mine.

The practice of assigining different roles to each gender in the interest of society is neither un-Germanic nor is it specifically muslim - it is just common sense or the natural order. Our ancestors practiced it, too, and another inconvenient truth is that in doing so they had more in common with the muslim culture than with our sick liberal culture of today. We do ourselves a great disservice to try defending our culture by defending sick liberal ideas such as "equality". Men and women are not equal and our trying to make them equal in spite of their natural differences is destroying us. I know that Islam contains many sick and nasty beliefs and practices, among them misogynist ones, but that does not change the fact that their breeding stategy is a winning one, that they are displacing us and that their example calls on us to relearn the ways our ancestors knew and we lost ever since. I do not promote Islam but neither do I endorse the practice of Islam-bashing by praising liberal values which are actually harmful for us.

þeudiskaz
Sunday, August 2nd, 2009, 02:20 PM
I am not subscribing to anything by just pointing out an inconvenient truth, namely that the muslim strategy is a winning one.

Indeed, so perhaps we should adopt Muslim culture? It certainly seems superior, the way you're painting it. :thumbsdwn


The practice of assigining different roles to each gender in the interest of society is neither un-Germanic nor is it specifically muslim - it is just common sense or the natural order.

I don't think anyone has argued against gender roles, but your idea of making women into baby machines is not Germanic. There absolutely different roles for the genders, but even still, as the genders are equal, both have equal right to take a diverging path. A woman can have a career, only when she neglects her children because of her career, does it become a problem in my eyes.

velvet
Sunday, August 2nd, 2009, 03:14 PM
Quo Vadis:

Maybe you should read up a bit about 'equality' in OUR ancient societies and the difference to the modern, liberal notion of the word.
They are two entire different things.

Still, you're bit disgusting with your Islam-love. They are 'winning' in our societies because some liberal freaks force us to take them in, and they can because they have overtaken our government.

Instead of copying a self-destructive and self-denying lifestyle that will only lead us into more enslavement and finally also poverty (when we managed the goal you're spousing to become an endless breeding third-world population), we should better clean up our homelands and throw out all the slavemasters, politically correct anti-racists and pro-multi culti scum and then or parallel to that process rebuilt our pre-christian society.

The oh so positive explosion of our numbers during christianisation and the middle ages had caused among other plagues also the Black Plague, which wiped off more than a third of entire European people. This is a question of overpopulation, not only hygiene.

We grant a certain living space to every animal, say that they need it to be kept appropriate to the species. Why do you think you can pen together countless humans without having a bad effect? We need living space as well, to be creative and not annoyed by 24/7/365 forced social contact.

þeudiskaz
Sunday, August 2nd, 2009, 06:07 PM
Instead of copying a self-destructive and self-denying lifestyle that will only lead us into more enslavement and finally also poverty (when we managed the goal you're spousing to become an endless breeding third-world population), we should better clean up our homelands

Maybe, instead of being Germanic, and proud of our culture, we should just trade in everything to emulate a very foreign culture, after all, they breed like rabbits, and so are better than Germanics. :thumbdown

(Just to clarify for everyone, I do not actually feel this way at all, and I agree with velvet.)

Gardisten
Sunday, August 2nd, 2009, 09:24 PM
Instead of copying a self-destructive and self-denying lifestyle that will only lead us into more enslavement and finally also poverty (when we managed the goal you're spousing to become an endless breeding third-world population), we should better clean up our homelands and throw out all the slavemasters, politically correct anti-racists and pro-multi culti scum and then or parallel to that process rebuilt our pre-christian society.
It seems to me that if one population has a higher birthrate than another, the one with the higher birthrate eventually becomes dominant. That's pretty much all there is to it. So we've got about 1 billion Muslims spreading throughout the world while population of Germanics decreases steadily due to low birthrates and interbreeding. Increasing the birthrate is emulating noone--it's simply the natural recourse for the survival of a population.



The oh so positive explosion of our numbers during christianisation and the middle ages had caused among other plagues also the Black Plague, which wiped off more than a third of entire European people. This is a question of overpopulation, not only hygiene.
The plague was the result of trade with the East, not overpopulation.

þeudiskaz
Sunday, August 2nd, 2009, 09:45 PM
It seems to me that if one population has a higher birthrate than another, the one with the higher birthrate eventually becomes dominant. That's pretty much all there is to it. So we've got about 1 billion Muslims spreading throughout the world while population of Germanics decreases steadily due to low birthrates and interbreeding. Increasing the birthrate is emulating noone--it's simply the natural recourse for the survival of a population.

So, doing the same thing they do, after they've started doing it, because what they do seems more effective is not emulating? Perhaps you should look up the word 'emulation'.

Additionally, population is not the sole deciding factor for dominance, perhaps you recall what happened when the populous, and 'civilized' Roman Empire went to war with the scattered and *shudder* 'barbarian' Germanic tribes? I recall hearing that the well-trained, well-equipped, disciplined professional soldiers were actually quite severly defeated? Quality before quantity. Wew need greater populations, no one here has argued that with you, the idea, however, of female "breeding-machines" is not Germanis, in fact, it would counter a lot of Germanic culture. To engage in such a system, we would be sacrificing our culture, and for what? The idea of gaining our culture back? By the time our population is "up to your standards" our culture will have been so perverted by this foreign influence that we will no longer be Germanic, regardless of our blood, but something less.

velvet
Sunday, August 2nd, 2009, 10:54 PM
It seems to me that if one population has a higher birthrate than another, the one with the higher birthrate eventually becomes dominant. That's pretty much all there is to it. So we've got about 1 billion Muslims spreading throughout the world while population of Germanics decreases steadily due to low birthrates and interbreeding. Increasing the birthrate is emulating noone--it's simply the natural recourse for the survival of a population.

In 14th centrury Europe was populated by 75mio people, around 1850 it were 266mio. Today living here, despite two worldwars, more than 700mio. I cant see a decreasing population, I'm sorry.

Reread what I wrote now several times in this thread, it will not help us if we turn ourselves into a third-world population. Der_Erlkoenig said it, then there will be nothing left to preserve.

Why was noone bothered when the Chinese and the Indians became more than one billion? Easily answered, because they stay in their countries. The muslim dont, so the problem to solve is to keep them out of our countries, not trying to outbreed them. We must remove them, not adopt their 'breeding strategy' :nope


The plague was the result of trade with the East, not overpopulation.

No, it was a result of too big cities with too many people and too less hygiene. Plaques only come to be in such environments.
If you want have a look at today's Mexico City (the origin of the swine flu) or China's downtowns (the origin of the bird flu), cities in Africa (Ebola, comes every now and then in waves). Such environments are the birth place of plaques, and I really dont see why we should become another third-world center of epidemics.

I dont say we should stop breeding, but it is just no winning strategy, even if we would succeed (which is highly unlikely, because we start off with too few numbers to reach that goal in time), it would backfire on us immediatly. Epidemics, too high density, higher criminality, uncontrollable masses in panic due to epidemics and density, large scale poverty. This is a third-world vision.

Sorry this isnt a solution, this sounds more like the kick off for Ragnarök.

SpearBrave
Sunday, August 2nd, 2009, 11:31 PM
In 14th centrury Europe was populated by 75mio people, around 1850 it were 266mio. Today living here, despite two worldwars, more than 700mio. I cant see a decreasing population, I'm sorry.

Reread what I wrote now several times in this thread, it will not help us if we turn ourselves into a third-world population. Der_Erlkoenig said it, then there will be nothing left to preserve.

Why was noone bothered when the Chinese and the Indians became more than one billion? Easily answered, because they stay in their countries. The muslim dont, so the problem to solve is to keep them out of our countries, not trying to outbreed them. We must remove them, not adopt their 'breeding strategy' :nope

No, it was a result of too big cities with too many people and too less hygiene. Plaques only come to be in such environments.
If you want have a look at today's Mexico City (the origin of the swine flu) or China's downtowns (the origin of the bird flu), cities in Africa (Ebola, comes every now and then in waves). Such environments are the birth place of plaques, and I really dont see why we should become another third-world center of epidemics.

I dont say we should stop breeding, but it is just no winning strategy, even if we would succeed (which is highly unlikely, because we start off with too few numbers to reach that goal in time), it would backfire on us immediatly. Epidemics, too high density, higher criminality, uncontrollable masses in panic due to epidemics and density, large scale poverty. This is a third-world vision.

Sorry this isnt a solution, this sounds more like the kick off for Ragnarök.


I agree, the same can be said for the hispanics here in the U.S. and Canada.

Gardisten
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 12:15 AM
So, doing the same thing they do, after they've started doing it, because what they do seems more effective is not emulating? Perhaps you should look up the word 'emulation'.
High birthrates were quite common in Germany for centuries and this seems to predate anything the Muslims have been doing recently. Simply stating that higher birthrates results in dominance is not advocating the emulation of Muslims is any respect.



Additionally, population is not the sole deciding factor for dominance, perhaps you recall what happened when the populous, and 'civilized' Roman Empire went to war with the scattered and *shudder* 'barbarian' Germanic tribes? I recall hearing that the well-trained, well-equipped, disciplined professional soldiers were actually quite severly defeated? Quality before quantity.
I'd suggest that you actually read some books about the interaction between the Germanic peoples and the Romans, but apparently written documents predate Germanic literacy so I don't want to put you a position where you might be "emulating" some other culture. So you'll just have to take my word for it. The Roman Empire wasn't able to maintain a large enough army without the use of large numbers of Germanic auxiliary troops. The Roman aristocracy was also preoccupied with maintaining its own status and didn't really care if the population increasingly consisted of slaves from all parts of the Mediterranean region. One thing that has made Germany viable is its large endemic labour pool. Yet now Germans are not supposed to be anything less than "middle class"--Heaven forbid some should become "lower class" workers. And from large families, no less.


Wew need greater populations, no one here has argued that with you, the idea, however, of female "breeding-machines" is not Germanis, in fact, it would counter a lot of Germanic culture. To engage in such a system, we would be sacrificing our culture, and for what? The idea of gaining our culture back? By the time our population is "up to your standards" our culture will have been so perverted by this foreign influence that we will no longer be Germanic, regardless of our blood, but something less.
I've never stated that women should become "breeding-machines" but having many children is certainly not unGermanic. Not by a long shot. Any I find that referring to women that have many children as "breeding-machines" denigrates the notion of motherhood.

And how exactly do you "sacrifice" a culture when you increase the number of people that adhere to it?

The Amish average about 7 children per couple, are the largest growing ethnic group in the USA, and have been very successful at maintaining their culture.

EQ Fighter
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 01:25 AM
Gardisten

I'd suggest that you actually read some books about the interaction between the Germanic peoples and the Romans, but apparently written documents predate Germanic literacy so I don't want to put you a position where you might be "emulating" some other culture. So you'll just have to take my word for it. The Roman Empire wasn't able to maintain a large enough army without the use of large numbers of Germanic auxiliary troops. The Roman aristocracy was also preoccupied with maintaining its own status and didn't really care if the population increasingly consisted of slaves from all parts of the Mediterranean region. One thing that has made Germany viable is its large endemic labour pool. Yet now Germans are not supposed to be anything less than "middle class"--Heaven forbid some should become "lower class" workers. And from large families, no less.

Well I can’t say I'm an expert but I, have dedicated some time to reading Churchill’s “History of the English Speaking People” and he does take some time detailing battles between the Germanic Tribalist and the Romans.

I would say the Romans won when there was a battle in which they could employ an organized attack and back it up with ballista and various other weapons. Germanics won only when they were able to ambush them and use their own turf as a weapons against the alien Romans. So in essence the Germanics WERE the Taliban and Al Qaeda of that period.

Here is a case and point on the Roman Empire, Germanics DID NOT defeat Rome. Rome collapsed due to internal corruption as well as high numbers of non Romans screwing up the system. Germanics Tribalist basically out lasted the Romans. Also is is safe to say that I'm pretty sure there was not birth control on early Germanic people and they most likely had far higher fertility rates than modern Europeans do simply because of infant mortality.

The problem is Europeans want an organized system to take care of them. Which is not going to happen. And the Islamist have like it or nat played a clever game in the since that they have built independent what we are calling “Terrorist” Militias. Which has turned out to be a very sustainable force, as opposed to the big military of the west. Here the modern Europeans could take a page out of the uncivilized Germanic pagans of the past that employed the same sort of tactic.

þeudiskaz
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 02:41 AM
High birthrates were quite common in Germany for centuries and this seems to predate anything the Muslims have been doing recently. Simply stating that higher birthrates results in dominance is not advocating the emulation of Muslims is any respect.

There's a nice little word that I like to think about in these situations; context.

Sure, Germanic peoples had a very high (compared to modern Western norms) birth rate. On the other hand, they also had an extremely higher infant death rate, as well as child death rate. When 70% of your children are going to die, you have more than three. So your comparison of ancient Germanic practices versus modern Muslim ones do not actually apply, when you examine the context of the situations.

Are you suggesting that the entire Roman Empire circa 6 AD could not field a larger army than all of the Germanic tribes combined? I'm pretty sure they probably could.

I did not say that you specifically suggested breeding-machines, but Quo vadis (who had a still, very similar argument as you) seemed to suggest exactly that. The point is that though we need an expanded population, we should not populate ourselves right out of who we are.

Ward
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 02:55 AM
:oanieyes

And they say it's Germans that have no sense of humor. You need to grow one, quickly.


Sorry guy, but feminist humor doesn't really do much for me.



I wasn't "bitching and moaning", but saying a fact: I was left by my partner with a child. That's how it is. It doesn't matter whose fault it was our relationship didn't work (not that I said I'm perfect, but it was actually his and his family's poking their noses in it and persuading him to do other things that were the decisive factors in his abandonment). He dumped his child, not I, and I haven't closed the doors to him coming and seeing him. The reason he barely ever asked about his son, let alone come to see him, is his lack of interest. And let me tell you, "love" and personal pleasure is the last thing I seek in a relationship. What I seek is a suitable father for my child. It's his politics and how he and my child get along that is the decisive factor, because these will have a bearing on his future. I'm too old for this silly love game stuff. Now you can call me a feminist and whatnot, but I would never leave my son, for any reason in the world. I'm doing my duty as a parent, end of story.


I wasn't directing my comments at you in particular, but rather at the general attitudes on display in this thread regarding sex/gender roles in our societies, which essentially mirror those of popular cosmopolitan culture. It's really no wonder we're going the way of the dinosaur.

And I think we need to recognize that, in general, women are just as much at fault for our disintegrating families as men, although it's men and masculinity that get the most bad press. I've known many men who were all-around devoted husbands and fathers who've had their lives torn apart and turned upside-down by self-absorbed, gold-digging, cheating, scandalous women who use their own children as pawns.



Quo Vadis:

Maybe you should read up a bit about 'equality' in OUR ancient societies and the difference to the modern, liberal notion of the word.
They are two entire different things.

Still, you're bit disgusting with your Islam-love. They are 'winning' in our societies because some liberal freaks force us to take them in, and they can because they have overtaken our government.

Instead of copying a self-destructive and self-denying lifestyle that will only lead us into more enslavement and finally also poverty ...


Maybe, instead of being Germanic, and proud of our culture, we should just trade in everything to emulate a very foreign culture, after all, they breed like rabbits, and so are better than Germanics. :thumbdown

(Just to clarify for everyone, I do not actually feel this way at all, and I agree with velvet.)

C'mon guys. QV might have been a bit ham-fisted in his initial comments on this thread, but I think he cleared the air with his last post. Did you guys even read it?

Can you guys grasp the bigger picture?? Our populations are going the way of EXTINCTION. Our current reproduction trends are NOT sustainable. At this time we are well below replacement levels. How on earth are we supposed to preserve ourselves without changing our reproductive habits at some point?

If we are to survive, sooner or later we will need to break the cycle of dysfunction and return to traditional family values. This means that women will need to.. *gasp*... embrace the role of motherhood (or "breeding machines" as feminists call it) once again. Oh the horror! :~(

Really, to equate healthy reproduction habits with Islam is outrageous. We need a surge of Germanic births right now, but it need not go on forever. Due to finite resources and living space, eventually we'll probably be forced to limit ourselves to two children per family. But right now Germanic populations are dwindling and becoming geriatric. Non-whites are youthful and growing.

Demographics is destiny!


I'd suggest that you actually read some books about the interaction between the Germanic peoples and the Romans, but apparently written documents predate Germanic literacy so I don't want to put you a position where you might be "emulating" some other culture. So you'll just have to take my word for it.

:D

þeudiskaz
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 03:12 AM
And I think we need to recognize that, in general, women are just as much at fault for our disintegrating families as men, although it's men and masculinity that get the most bad press. I've known many men who were all-around devoted husbands and fathers who've had their lives torn apart and turned upside-down by self-absorbed, gold-digging, cheating, scandalous women who use their own children as pawns.

No one is arguing this. What we are merely saying is that it is a man's job to step up and be a father. I don't know if Todesengel is to blame, or not for the breakup of her relationship, it doesn't really matter in the big picture. What I do know is that she is not the only one responsible for her child, and that she is not responsible for the negligent father. That's what matters to me, not who caused the break-up.


Can you guys grasp the bigger picture?? Our populations are going the way of EXTINCTION. Our current reproduction trends are NOT sustainable. At this time we are well below replacement levels. How on earth are we supposed to preserve ourselves without changing our reproductive habits at some point?

If we are to survive, sooner or later we will need the cycle of dysfunction and return to traditional family values. This means that women will need to.. *gasp*... embrace the role of motherhood (or "breeding machines" as feminists call it) once again. Oh the horror! :~(

Really, to equate healthy reproduction habits with Islam is outrageous. Germanic populations are dwindling and becoming geriatric. Non-whites are youthful and growing. Demographics is destiny!

1: Yes, I do grasp the bigger picture, and I do agree, but having 15 babies/family is not the lone solution. I agree with increased child-raising, but many here are making the assertion that we should reproduce as soon as we are physically able, and for as long as we are physically able, but in today's society that cannot be the solution. More children: yes. Nothing but children: nope.

2::| It means no such thing. "Traditional family roles" ad "breeding-machines" are not synonymous. The two have entirely different meanings. Everyone I've seen who posted on this thread advocates traditional Germanic family roles, and when they use the terms "breeding-machine" they refer to the idea of shoving women into small rooms and using them like... well, machines for the sole purpose of breeding, like I said, the two aren't the same, to argue from that standpoint will leave you behind the actual point of the debate here. Additionally, I doubt anyone here is a feminist, and if they are, then it seems like the Ancient Germans were feminists too, remember that they had sexual equality over 2000 years before the US implemented such freedom.

3: What's healthy reproduction? 15 kids, 12-13 of which you can't afford? That sounds perfect to me :|. Like I said, everyone here seems to advocate having as many children as one can afford, and we all see the problem that we face, but the solution is not to lose our cultural identity (either through adopting foreign practices, or by subjecting our too-numerous offspring to incredible poverty).

I'd rather us Germanic Volk go down fighting... but fighting as Germans, not fighting as other cultures do.

Ward
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 03:49 AM
No one is arguing this. What we are merely saying is that it is a man's job to step up and be a father. I don't know if Todesengel is to blame, or not for the breakup of her relationship, it doesn't really matter in the big picture. What I do know is that she is not the only one responsible for her child, and that she is not responsible for the negligent father. That's what matters to me, not who caused the break-up.

Why do you think that I've been referring Todesengel? I'm not talking about her at all. I'm just talking in general.

And it seemed to me that on this thread men were getting most of the blame for dysfunctional families. I was merely pointing out that women can be just as evil as men; and furthermore, the diminished esteem afforded to motherhood these days is one of the major causes behind our social decline.


1: Yes, I do grasp the bigger picture, and I do agree, but having 15 babies/family is not the lone solution. I agree with increased child-raising, but many here are making the assertion that we should reproduce as soon as we are physically able, and for as long as we are physically able, but in today's society that cannot be the solution. More children: yes. Nothing but children: nope.

This is absurd. Where did I say 15 children per family? Easy on the hyperbole.

Sigurd
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 11:00 AM
And it seemed to me that on this thread men were getting most of the blame for dysfunctional families.

Sometimes, even no one is to blame. Both my mother and my father have aptly attempted all that stood within their power to be good parents, the nature of their divorced state meant that this could not happen at the optimum level.

But sometimes it just doesn't work out, staying together would also be a detriment to the welfare of the children, and you have the choice of putting them through Hel or through Niflhel. I'm almost certain that had my parents stayed together for the sake of it and continued terrorising each other, then all the three of us would probably have long joined the choir invisible, and'd be pushing up the daisies, having succumbed to a major mental breakdown.

Splitting is in some cases the only option without endangering the further welfare of all three. Note that both re-married and went on to have children again, though not as many as either would have wished, but nonetheless I have three lovely siblings. ;)

And when it just doesn't work out, then it is, if anything, a pointer that you should make sure you have the right partner before you have children instead of subjecting your kids to decades of "fierce squabbling" and thus psychologically scarring them for life. Because then you can only hope that everyone puts in their responsibility.

I was lucky enough that a broken family did not mean losing one parent entirely even though they hated each other for years, many others are not so lucky. Even though I had a difficult relationship with my father for years, I was still luckier, because he was still doing his part where he could.


This is absurd. Where did I say 15 children per family? Easy on the hyperbole.

Hyperboles are useful. :)

velvet
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 12:58 PM
C'mon guys. QV might have been a bit ham-fisted in his initial comments on this thread, but I think he cleared the air with his last post. Did you guys even read it?

Yes, I did, and the Islam-love he's spoused is just disgusting :shrug


Can you guys grasp the bigger picture?? Our populations are going the way of EXTINCTION. Our current reproduction trends are NOT sustainable. At this time we are well below replacement levels. How on earth are we supposed to preserve ourselves without changing our reproductive habits at some point?

Okay, let's paint the bigger picture. As I said, in 1850 Europe (entire Europe) was populated by about 266 million people, today, even when you take out the immigrants, we are maybe ~650 million.

This is almost three times more than it was 150 years ago.

Dont know about other countries, but the density in Germany increased from 65 people / square km to 230 people /skm in the same time.

Beside that the term 'replacement level' is one to drive panic, a reproduction on replacement level would keep up the, imho, already too high density of Germany's population. After all, you at least recognised that the living space with its ability to feed all these people has a limit (whereever this might be set).

The problem to solve are the immigrants and our enslaving economy. It is this economy that demands for ever new labor forces (in contrary to humans), this is the source where the panic driver term reproduction level comes from, to keep up the high winning rates for the banks and world companies, to win money out of nothing with credits and so on. It is this economy which demands for the immigrants to keep the gold mills running.

And that is to say with absolutely NO benefit for our population, culture and the humans in society.

And because this has no benefit for us, quite the opposite, there is no reason to try to keep up this structure.

Beside the economic downpoints this structure has, it has also a significant impact on the people. Women, and many men probably too, are afraid to set children into this world, specially when they live in larger cities. These places are full of violent immigrants and criminal freaks. They grow up with the experiences of divorces, family violence, child abuse, poverty and what not all.

The term 'family' means for many people today nothing but a horror vision due to such experiences, and not as it should be a warm place of love and shelter.

This are the problems to solve. A however formed 'breeding strategy' though will not solve these problems, taking into account the world how it is today, I would assume these problems will increase with increased numbers alone.


If we are to survive, sooner or later we will need to break the cycle of dysfunction and return to traditional family values. This means that women will need to.. *gasp*... embrace the role of motherhood (or "breeding machines" as feminists call it) once again. Oh the horror! :~(

The 'role of motherhood' is certainly quite something very different from the 'breeding machine' advocated by QV with the paragon Islam.


We need a surge of Germanic births right now, but it need not go on forever. Due to finite resources and living space, eventually we'll probably be forced to limit ourselves to two children per family. But right now Germanic populations are dwindling and becoming geriatric. Non-whites are youthful and growing.

The sole problem is that they grow ON OUR SOIL.

I agree that we need to maintain our folks, but without a cleaned up environment you will neither manage to persuade women to get 5+ children, nor will this alone solve the question of our preservation.

Another part of the big picture: our prosperity in recent centuries was not due to a higher population, but because we managed to maintain our resources in a manner that allowed us to not only survive on them, but to optimise our living conditions and to distribute a share to everyone (not equally, but in a way that optimally everyone had more than he needed to survive).

Just take the example of inheriting land. You have lets say 5 hectares, and five children. When you die, each of your children gets one hectare. They each have another five children, these children end up having 1/5 hectare. On one hectare you can maybe sustain your family, on one fifth? Just one hint about what all to think when working out a strategy.

Again, a new breeding strategy alone will not solve any problems, it will only increase them as things are now. Back then people died with 40 or 50, today they live almost twice as long. Beside that some centuries ago 7+ of 15 born children didnt reach maturity. Today they would all survive, with the result of a third-world population in just two generations maybe and a likely density of dont know 500-700/skm. This cant be a solution.

Where should a healthy family structure, under those conditions, come from? I always hear about our creativity and thriving spirit and all, but when people cant move anymore without crashing into another human, there simply will be no more room for creativity, inventions, ideas, because people will be busy with solving the problems caused by such a population density (deseases, plaques, food supply,...). It will throw us back into a stone age, and our population will be exactly the same like in Mexico City slums or black Africa slums, without culture, without soul and honestly, without a life that deserves this name.

And when you want to return to this healthy family structure with stay at home mothers (which I would support too), then we have to solve the economy problem. 100 years ago the working man earned enough to sustain his ten headed family, plus that the expenses due to having land with veggies and all wasnt that high as today where everything has to be bought in Supermarkets; today both work and cant keep a flat, let alone keep one child. Many people have two or even three jobs just to 'survive' and havent even something extra for a short vacation. The stay at home mother is, with this economic structure, just not realistic.

The 'big picture' contains much more urgent problems to be solved more or less at the same time, if you want to return to a healthy family structure. Breeding like rabbits alone will not do it.

þeudiskaz
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 01:29 PM
snip

I'm not going to address your post point by point because it would be redundant, and pointless for me to keep saying "Yes!" and "I agree!" :thumbup

I really do agree, though, the biggest problem isn't our numbers alone (though, yes, that is a small factor) the bigger factor is us having only small communities, and those on the internet, we need communities in our Volk's Heimat, communities that, while not entirely cut off from the outside world, nonetheless preserve, and encourage the culture of our forebearers.

prodeutsch
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 02:24 PM
Not having any children is not the answer.....when one worries about their own miserable hide and their 6 weeks vacation a year rather than having offspring I guess I would agree, europe might not be worth the effort! Sad but true!

Indians and Chinese (I'll pit my mechanical engineer daughter against them any day!) do not stay in their own countries, hundreds of thousands emmigrate every year....the problem is we would not need them to come to our countries if we had children and made sure they were fit, smart, hard working, and KNEW their heritage!

I had a quick re-read through the last few pages of posts. It is quite sad that fathers still abandon their children. For those of us who want more it is unconscionable ! Yes, it is hard raising children, I learn something new everyday, but I take my responsibility seriously. My requirement did not end once I made them. I have a good job, I have a home, no debt, I try to stay involved with my children everyday. As I said it is not easy, but I know it is my responsibility and sometimes I do enjoy it! :)

Strong families begin with a Man and A Woman (not to be confused with the liberal/jewish gender confused) If I have said it once I have said it a thousand times, husband and wife need to be committed partners, you work together, first for each other, family, folk, then country. We have gotten so far from that today! I chose a career that my wife did not have to work if she did not want to. However, I made sure that she finished university first, just in case something happened to me, I call it good planning! She chose to stay at home and raise our children, now that she is facing a health crisis we are able to rely on each other's strength when we need it! Something that in the modern world has forgotten!

Sigurd
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 05:54 PM
Beside that the term 'replacement level' is one to drive panic, a reproduction on replacement level would keep up the, imho, already too high density of Germany's population.

This, on the other hand, is "easily" remedied with taking more living space in the East, such as re-populating formerly German areas. More space - more people the soil can support. ;)

It is indeed correct that population density is already too high in much of Germany, even without the immigrants, and that the free soil we have at our disposal is since long hardly enough to feed so many of us.

On the other hand, if we conquered Pomerania, Prussia and Silesia, that's about half of what Germany already has, as an extra. With the current population of Germany, that'd take the population density down to 145/km² - just on the borderline. ;)

If you go further than that, re-conquered all of the former Habsburg Empire and used that as living space for Germans, that'd be approx. 1,200,000km² for 90,000,000 Germans in Germany and Austria --- that's 75/km² - more than excellent, and allowing for a fertility rate slightly above replacement level even. :P

velvet
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 06:13 PM
Indians and Chinese (I'll pit my mechanical engineer daughter against them any day!) do not stay in their own countries, hundreds of thousands emmigrate every year....the problem is we would not need them to come to our countries if we had children and made sure they were fit, smart, hard working, and KNEW their heritage!

Y'know, the most unemployed youths in Germany meanwhile are ethnic Germans. It's not about having enough workers to maintain the economy, it is about getting cheap labor forces why all the cheap immigrants are taken in to do the work 'ethnics supposedly dont want to do'.

The truth is, that this economy was built on America sold to the Federal Reserve Bank, and meanwhile all 'western' governments are sold. And it is the pressure based on depts to make every year more and more expected sales that 'forces' the companies to take cheap immigrants, because ethnics are too expensive.

Nurses and those who drive out in emergencies earn something about 1000€ a month. Old people's nurses about the same, even studied doctors with a diploma, who sometimes work three days through, earn something about 1500€. Call center agents about 700€, waiter work for less than 3€ an hour, gross, security people 1400 a month. Just some examples, and that are the standard wages, almost noone really gets them anymore.
But with 1000€ it is simply impossible to sustain a stay at home mother and children. The monthly fix costs are already higher than what people earn (rent, insurancies, extra insurancies because the forced ones doesnt pay for lots of things anymore, electricity, transportation to/from work, etc and people need a bit food too).

Some months ago I've seen a figure that states that several million people meanwhile attend our "Tafeln" (a help organisation that distributes free foodstuff, bread from the day before, outsorted veggies that cant be sold anymore, donations etc), ALTHOUGH they have a job. And that are only those who dare to take the help, people with such incomes regularly eat the last two weeks of the month only bread, because there is nothing left to cook something.
And honestly, almost all of the attendees I've seen there were ethnic Germans.

And this number will increase with the ongoing 'crisis', higher taxes from next year on (to recollect the bail-outs), more whining by the companies that working forces are too expensive and either leave the country, subsidised by EU and our country or demand more green cards for cheap Turks, Chinese, Afghanies etc and then get subsidies for 'integrating the immigrants', while the last people having a normal job will pay all of these bills, however you turn the coin.


Strong families begin with a Man and A Woman (not to be confused with the liberal/jewish gender confused) If I have said it once I have said it a thousand times, husband and wife need to be committed partners, you work together, first for each other, family, folk, then country. We have gotten so far from that today! I chose a career that my wife did not have to work if she did not want to. However, I made sure that she finished university first, just in case something happened to me, I call it good planning! She chose to stay at home and raise our children, now that she is facing a health crisis we are able to rely on each other's strength when we need it! Something that in the modern world has forgotten!

I agree, this is where we should return to. And I congrat you that you have a job that enables you to sustain your family ;)

And I also have to say, it is good that your wife made her university. Not only for 'in case something happens' but for your children too! An intelligent and educated women just is the better mother. She can help her children with their homework, she know how to learn herself and this ability will help in countless small things to bring the children onto a successful way in their life. She will just love to read stories to her children, explain things etc and keep their little brains running from day one. I'm sure your children are perfectly fine and decent people! ;)

Now imagine a woman who broke off her school with 16 or so (like some people suggested here), with no education, no knowledge, no experience what it means to keep up the university time (or whatever, a job training would have the same effect I guess), all qualities that she would not pass on to her children due to a lack of such experiences.

I still think we need both, intelligent people who, as you said, know their heritage and culture, and children to pass that on to. Stupid people will not maintain the culture, and the loss of our culture will, ultimately, mean the loss of civilisation.

And obviously, both is possible, women having their university, men having jobs to sustain the family and then also the stay at home mother. So, people, if you want to know the tricks how to do that, ask Prodeutsch, he knows how it works! :thumbup



This, on the other hand, is "easily" remedied with taking more living space in the East, such as re-populating formerly German areas. More space - more people the soil can support ;)

Dont you think we should first get back the control of our country and government before we plan to re-occupy formerly German soil? Just a thought ;)

Sigurd
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 06:49 PM
Dont you think we should first get back the control of our country and government before we plan to re-occupy formerly German soil? Just a thought ;)

Yes, I know, and I actually agree. In fact, I had this conversation with a good friend and comrade the other day, and we came to that conclusion: Getting back lost areas is important in the long run, and as Tyrolese we are especially particular about South-Tyrol, but the most important is getting into power. :)

So, don't worry, I don't lack pragmatism - I should have perhaps added the words "In the long run" to it ... because in the long run: A strong and prosperous people will automatically see its fertility rates increase, that is the tendency throughout history - and a strong, prosperous and then numerous people will automatically expand.

And then, at that stage, we can take back soil which rightfully belongs to us (lest the still German-majority areas like South-Tyrol or Elsaß want to join us before that of their own accord of course, so since there is not much needed except strengthening identity and unity, we can pursue that at the same time ;)) - and we have, at the same time, a solution for all the over-population issue, as some of the excess population can be resettled there.

Perhaps then this resettlement effort could be combined with some sort of incentive to go there, like "First 100,000 get a huge farm" or something. That's at least how the Habsburgs got the first Protestant Landler into Siebenbürgen. ;)

Atlas
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 08:14 PM
We had a similar thread on another forum lately. There has been some great posts, so on Skadi... Personaly I am just 25 and I think I don't have to hurry and start wanting to find the perfect woman that doesn't exist and start a family... I am affraid to be in a marriage situation at the moment, but I can change my mind.

Wolgadeutscher
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 08:23 PM
I am affraid to be in a marriage situation at the moment, but I can change my mind.
What is there to be afraid of?

Atlas
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 09:09 PM
What is there to be afraid of?

Perhaps at my age it is a bit worrying, like losing some friends because you don't see them so often as you're madly in love with a girl. I prefer to wait for some more years. I really would love to have children though. Marriage is less important.

Wolgadeutscher
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 09:15 PM
Perhaps at my age it is a bit worrying, like losing some friends because you don't see them so often as you're madly in love with a girl. I prefer to wait for some more years. I really would love to have children though. Marriage is less important.
Wouldn't you say in the longrun, reproduction is more important though? Friends come and go, but you could be friends with your wife too?

Gardisten
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 09:54 PM
Sure, Germanic peoples had a very high (compared to modern Western norms) birth rate. On the other hand, they also had an extremely higher infant death rate, as well as child death rate. When 70% of your children are going to die, you have more than three. So your comparison of ancient Germanic practices versus modern Muslim ones do not actually apply, when you examine the context of the situations.
Yes, there was a higher mortality rate, but 70%? I've got genealogies for both sides of the family going back at least into the mid-1700s, and they mostly had large families but but not many died in infancy. Maybe my family is the exception. We are Prussians after all.



Are you suggesting that the entire Roman Empire circa 6 AD could not field a larger army than all of the Germanic tribes combined? I'm pretty sure they probably could.
I believe that the Roman army was smaller, but better equipped, disciplined, and trained. But apparently the Roman army did have to increasingly rely on foreign troops to man some of their legions or serve as auxiliary troops (including Germanics) which eventually caused them problems. Whatever the case, trying to maintain an Empire always means that a military is spread thin, so the Romans never could have fielded all or most of its army to face the Germanics in open battle.

Sigurd
Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 10:43 PM
We are Prussians after all.

No, rest assured, this happened in Bavaria as well. :)

þeudiskaz
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 01:10 AM
Yes, there was a higher mortality rate, but 70%? I've got genealogies for both sides of the family going back at least into the mid-1700s, and they mostly had large families but but not many died in infancy. Maybe my family is the exception. We are Prussians after all.

Ah, 1700s, I assumed we were going about 2000 years farther back. Even still, life expectancy was lower, and people died at younger ages for any variety of reasons, and the world population was much, much lower. When there is still plenty of land to be had in the world, and the dozen-children system is still popular, having many children is not a big issue, the problem today is that a lot of people live in cities (like me, and my wife, for instance) without much room. Big houses have 5-6 bedrooms, and those are so expensive as to be unaffordable to most people who want so many kids.

If anyone wants a lot of children, and can afford them adequately, I fully support that, I actually have been talking to my wife about the potential to increase the number of children we want... but I predicated that first on how our financial stability is doing.


I believe that the Roman army was smaller, but better equipped, disciplined, and trained. But apparently the Roman army did have to increasingly rely on foreign troops to man some of their legions or serve as auxiliary troops (including Germanics) which eventually caused them problems. Whatever the case, trying to maintain an Empire always means that a military is spread thin, so the Romans never could have fielded all or most of its army to face the Germanics in open battle.

Indeed that the Roman army was spread fairly thin, bit considering the size of population to draw from, and the size of the armies they already had, they could have easily have outnumbered the Germans by many soldiers (though in the Teutobergerwald, that might have made little difference except for the amount of slaughter). I was just saying that numbers alone are not always what matters, but also the quality of a people. No group of people stopped Roman advance until it came to battle with the Germanic tribes, who themselves rarely united, a testament to the greatness of our Volk.

EQ Fighter
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 05:17 AM
velvet

Okay, let's paint the bigger picture. As I said, in 1850 Europe (entire Europe) was populated by about 266 million people, today, even when you take out the immigrants, we are maybe ~650 million.

Europe in the 1850's was a pre modern agrarian society. I personally DO NOT want to live in an pre modern agrarian society. The population density has very much to do with the level of technology and the efficiency of your farming practice. In a modern mechanized society very few people are actually engaged in farming, you go back to the 1850's and you will have a lot more framers, and way less scientist churning out what is really going to be important for the future of the children that you do have.

velvet
Tuesday, August 4th, 2009, 11:37 AM
Europe in the 1850's was a pre modern agrarian society. I personally DO NOT want to live in an pre modern agrarian society. The population density has very much to do with the level of technology and the efficiency of your farming practice. In a modern mechanized society very few people are actually engaged in farming, you go back to the 1850's and you will have a lot more framers, and way less scientist churning out what is really going to be important for the future of the children that you do have.

So, then explain please how you will survive on science alone. That's BS, people need ALWAYS food, they needed it 10000 years ago and they will still need it in 5000 years :shrug

No science will ever wipe off the bad effects of mass animal farming, and there would be nothing wrong if we would remove some of the concrete that is present today. Otherwise we will be a mass farmed animal in some years ourselves, when our children know animals at best from the zoo, at worst from books only, let alone plants and natural food.

And I honestly always wonder why people think that if we would return to a more species-appropiate lifestyle, that this would automatically and inevitably wipe off all the knowledge and inventions we have made in the last 100 years or so. It would not.
Still, some or even many inventions are either ill for us or simply superfluous, and to be a creative species also means to drop inventions that turn out to be useless.
After all, culture is about preserving the fire, not to adore the ashes ;)

In parts, this stance to keep the status quo instead of developing, is one of the many reasons why we are outdone by many other folks these days. People are afraid to sacrifice a little accommodativeness for a risk, the result is that noone takes a risk, but all the accommodativeness, that meanwhile often come from other folks. And since many things are not ours but alien things, they step by step wipe off the last traces of our own culture. Where are the values and virtues that were the basics of our folks and communities? Industriousness, courage, truth? The accommodative lie is our god, industriousness is only found in piecework, and courage you need only when you go for the extreme-sport of choice?

I dont think that a more rural life would wipe off science, but it would benefit our folks, our community, our culture as a whole, and it would also benefit science. Sure, many things would fall off the table, but do we really need synthetic vitamines? Only to replace the lack of them in all the partly toxic processed food? I think life should shape the science, and not science the life, and most of all science should not become an end in itself. Science for science sake? This is why we now have the problem of permanent disposal sites for nuclear waste, because people did something for the sole reason they could do it. A bit of responsibility in future science would benefit our future generations. After all, they will have to live with all the toxic waste we leave them.

As I said somewhere else, when we destroy our living space, the thought of preserving our race and culture becomes a bad joke.

This accommodativeness lie and the ill thought to keep the status quo is one of the biggest threats to our folks, we arent inventive anymore, we dont take risks anymore, we dont care about the truth anymore, as long as someone tells us a lie that sounds so nice we believe it, and even when we know it is not true we find thousands of excuses why we dont leave our cosy couches and fight. We are meanwhile an unmoving mass that only gets pushed around by others. But as long as all the nice and colorful lies come via TV free into our livingrooms the world is beautiful?

This is not why we have this reputation of being inventive and creative and courageous.

prodeutsch
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 12:19 AM
Yes, I know, and I actually agree. In fact, I had this conversation with a good friend and comrade the other day, and we came to that conclusion: Getting back lost areas is important in the long run, and as Tyrolese we are especially particular about South-Tyrol, but the most important is getting into power. :)

So, don't worry, I don't lack pragmatism - I should have perhaps added the words "In the long run" to it ... because in the long run: A strong and prosperous people will automatically see its fertility rates increase, that is the tendency throughout history - and a strong, prosperous and then numerous people will automatically expand.

And then, at that stage, we can take back soil which rightfully belongs to us (lest the still German-majority areas like South-Tyrol or Elsaß want to join us before that of their own accord of course, so since there is not much needed except strengthening identity and unity, we can pursue that at the same time ;)) - and we have, at the same time, a solution for all the over-population issue, as some of the excess population can be resettled there.

Perhaps then this resettlement effort could be combined with some sort of incentive to go there, like "First 100,000 get a huge farm" or something. That's at least how the Habsburgs got the first Protestant Landler into Siebenbürgen. ;)

I would personally like to see Silesia and East Prussia back in German hands, with the russians demographics in a death spiral I think it could very well happen. It will take another 50 yrs to clean up the garbage they leave behind but it has been done before!

EQ Fighter
Wednesday, August 5th, 2009, 05:48 AM
Well for one Farming in the 21st century takes way less land than it did 5000 years ago or even 100 years ago. It is called high yield farming.

velvet

if we would return to a more species-appropiate lifestyle,

species appropriate ???
Sorry Im not sure what that is.
Humans today are basically doing what they have always done before, only with better tools. We are still that same species.

velvet

I don’t think that a more rural life would wipe off science, but it would benefit our folks, our community, our culture as a whole, and it would also benefit science.

Humm!
Well this is what I basically see happening in the next 50 to 100 years. Assumption on my part, but I think it is an educated guess or maybe hope.

I see a lot of what, I would call small scale manufacturing. Which means that basically it is possible for individuals to make a lot of the things that once took a large factory to make in the past and pay hundreds of people. Now you have small low volume shops that can build many specialized items. And Individuals can even market it and sell it to others on things like Ebay. So at some point it might be possible to do away with the large scale factories we have currently have, and only have specific producers in local communities.

So at some point we might see a mass decentralization occur. I think the internet was the first shot in this direction, because it decentralized the media to the point that it is now more or less impossible for only one government official to have the last say on a subject.

That would be a death nail for big government/ big corporations and put power back in the hands of those in local communities. At that point, you might see a return to more traditional life styles and less pollution and less, political corruption in the political systems around the world.

The fact is humanity does not need big government or big corporations, all we need is the products that they produce.
We sure don’t need the overhead in corruption lies, and destruction that comes with them.

velvet

would be nothing wrong if we would remove some of the concrete that is present today.

Put the concrete underground, by building buildings underground that the upper surface can be used as a park or crop to grow food, that way you gain natural habitat as well as a building that needs less heating and cooling energy, is safer for human inhabitants, and does not clutter up the land scape.

velvet

Only to replace the lack of them in all the partly toxic processed food? I think life should shape the science, and not science the life, and most of all science should not become an end in itself.

I'm not a big proponent of over processed food ether. That is why many people have health problems and are massively over weight. I personally try not to eat the junk at the supermarket but that is hard to do today.

velvet

But as long as all the nice and colorful lies come via TV free into our livingrooms the world is beautiful?

I am the last person you need to convince of this. They were basically designed to pacify the population and keep people from seeing what crap is going on under their nose.

velvet

And since many things are not ours but alien things, they step by step wipe off the last traces of our own culture.

I will grant you that, but most of that is coming NOT form the general white populace but form the sellout leftist moralizers. Importing Immigrants for political purposes is nothing new.
The Oligarchs have employed it everywhere in the world today, to get the election results they want.

Also
I have NO a problem with, managed child baring. Children are the most precious resource that any society has, and without them there is NO future.

But I do have a problem with the suicidal aspect of taking and turning eugenics on your own people as the EU has done to its own citizens, especially when you have various warlords in the middle east that see this as an exploitable vulnerability of Western Culture.


In parts, this stance to keep the status quo instead of developing, is one of the many reasons why we are outdone by many other folks these days.

I will grant you that the Euro Western civilization is locked in a anti-advancement stage, but I can tell you for a fact that the reason the US is not anywhere close the Japanese in things like electronics is because we chose to educate their sons as electrical engineers as opposed to our own.

The western world is Anti-Male, and a pro homosexual, suicidal society. Societies like that go extinct. It is simply a historical fact.


Where are the values and virtues that were the basics of our folks and communities? Industriousness, courage, truth?

None of those things are important to Globalist, truth exposes their actions, Industriousness, courage, breeds people that know when they are being screwed, and know how to fight back. That all adds up to limiting their creating a compliant worker force, on their Global slave plantation.

Actually Clones are probably what they really want because then they can just switch them off when they don’t need them anymore.

Eoppoyz
Saturday, August 15th, 2009, 07:35 PM
I have no partner. :~(

Stimme
Saturday, August 15th, 2009, 07:59 PM
Too young, no income, no job, still at school, no appropiate partner - I'm far away from being ready. :P

After finishing school, I plan to go to university. But it's unclear when that will be. Maybe I don't get a Studienplatz or the Bundeswehr messes around with my 5-years-plan and thinks of turning me into a soldier. If I do get permission to study at university I'll see whether I can keep up with the others or not. After all, everything under a doctor title is a waste of time. ;)
After those long, long years of studying I'll need to find well-paid work: My kids shall have a great childhood. So I need a lot of money.

I think I will start having children in around 12 years. Too much time to think about them now!

Atlas
Saturday, August 15th, 2009, 08:12 PM
I have no partner either, and on top of that, those I had were not serious enough to consider having children.

Matamoros
Sunday, August 16th, 2009, 08:29 AM
For me, there are two reasons.

1 - I haven't yet found the right woman. I have yet to meet a woman my age who is interested in having children in the near future. So now I date women for the companionship and fun rather than as a future mother for my children.

2 - I earn a decent salary for my age, but I don't think it is sufficient to support a family. I know people often have children when they don't earn a lot - but I would prefer to avoid struggling to make ends meet all the time.

In a couple of years I imagine I will start to think about settling down and finding the right woman. :)

NorthWestEuropean
Sunday, August 16th, 2009, 06:28 PM
I will have children one day, but I think that I am too young yet. I will probably move away from where I live now, and when I have fixed things up (work etc) I will of course have children. At least two, but rather three.

BrynhildsFate
Saturday, September 19th, 2009, 05:52 PM
To early to tell if this relationship will be "the one". But we already discussed wanting lots of children as thats a must for anyone if they want a relationship with me. Talk about pressure haha.

Sól
Friday, November 6th, 2009, 10:33 PM
I don't have children because I have a fertility problem. Despite that I'm a lesbian, I wanted to have a child together with my best male friend, because I thought my racial genes should be transmitted to a next generation, but after many tries, nothing happened. I saw a doctor and he told me my chances to have children are slimmed by a problem with my reproductive system.

Siebenbürgerin
Friday, November 6th, 2009, 10:45 PM
I don't have children because I have a fertility problem. Despite that I'm a lesbian, I wanted to have a child together with my best male friend, because I thought my racial genes should be transmitted to a next generation, but after many tries, nothing happened. I saw a doctor and he told me my chances to have children are slimmed by a problem with my reproductive system.
I've a question for you Guðrún. As lesbian, if you were able to have children, who would have raised your child? Would you have been involved in motherhood or just give it away to your male friend?

D. H. Yeager
Friday, November 6th, 2009, 11:08 PM
For me, there is a slew of reasons why I don't have kids. Mainly being I'm 16, a student, no income, haven't met "that person", and my mother would kill me if I did. However, at the moment I just don't want kids. Even if I was in the ideal situation for children, I wouldn't want any. The responsibility that comes with kids is just to much for me. I may change my mind some day but it will not be any time soon.

Sól
Friday, November 6th, 2009, 11:13 PM
I've a question for you Guðrún. As lesbian, if you were able to have children, who would have raised your child? Would you have been involved in motherhood or just give it away to your male friend?
I would have raised it together with my friend. My mother accepted me as a lesbian, but my father never. He is a sort of chauvinist, who thinks a woman's place is limited to the kitchen and inside the house, raising children. If I wanted children, I'd have had to raise them. He wouldn't care what I did in private, as long as I did my duty as a mother.

celticruine
Friday, November 6th, 2009, 11:58 PM
I would have raised it together with my friend. My mother accepted me as a lesbian, but my father never. He is a sort of chauvinist, who thinks a woman's place is limited to the kitchen and inside the house, raising children. If I wanted children, I'd have had to raise them. He wouldn't care what I did in private, as long as I did my duty as a mother.

But i do not understand homosexual life.
Do you got to many complications with Men ?

Sól
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 12:15 AM
But i do not understand homosexual life.
Do you got to many complications with Men ?
I don't understand your question. What do you mean by complications? I don't dislike men and I can have friendships or platonic relationships with them, I just don't feel any sexual attraction to them.

celticruine
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 12:24 AM
I don't understand your question. What do you mean by complications? I don't dislike men and I can have friendships or platonic relationships with them, I just don't feel any sexual attraction to them.
I specify.
Do you got trouble with Men ?
Some women choose to be lesbian in cause of the pain they had with men.

Huginn ok Muninn
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 12:29 AM
I would have raised it together with my friend. My mother accepted me as a lesbian, but my father never. He is a sort of chauvinist, who thinks a woman's place is limited to the kitchen and inside the house, raising children. If I wanted children, I'd have had to raise them. He wouldn't care what I did in private, as long as I did my duty as a mother.

You know, I think when our societies were more conservative there were a lot more bisexuals/homosexuals who entered marriages of convenience because they wanted kids, and of course to fit in. It's not such a bad solution if you can have friendship and affection without real erotic love with your other-sex partner, and raise your kids properly.

I had heard there were a lot of out-of-wedlock births in Iceland anyhow. Is this true? If you decide to try again, I hope you will have good luck this time. I too think the more Nordic children in this world the better. If there would be a surplus in Iceland maybe those adoption crazed weirdos in the Faroes would adopt them instead of those Pakistani kids.

Sól
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 01:00 AM
I specify.
Do you got trouble with Men ?
Some women choose to be lesbian in cause of the pain they had with men.
No, no. I'm not a feminist or something like that. I didn't choose to be a lesbian. I dated men, but I never felt any sexual attraction towards them. I could fall in love with a man only mentally (emotionally). I am attracted to the female body. It's hard to explain to someone who doesn't feel the same thing. But just think about being attracted to women, as a man. Did you decide to be like that? Unlikely. Neither did I.


You know, I think when our societies were more conservative there were a lot more bisexuals/homosexuals who entered marriages of convenience because they wanted kids, and of course to fit in. It's not such a bad solution if you can have friendship and affection without real erotic love with your other-sex partner, and raise your kids properly.

I had heard there were a lot of out-of-wedlock births in Iceland anyhow. Is this true? If you decide to try again, I hope you will have good luck this time. I too think the more Nordic children in this world the better. If there would be a surplus in Iceland maybe those adoption crazed weirdos in the Faroes would adopt them instead of those Pakistani kids.
Yes, it's true. Children out of wedlock weren't taboo in pre-Christian Iceland, and nowadays the world is becoming secular anyway. I think there was a census and 66% of children are born out of wedlock. Not necessarily single parent children. Sweden comes second with 55%.

Stimme
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 11:06 AM
You know, I think when our societies were more conservative there were a lot more bisexuals/homosexuals who entered marriages of convenience because they wanted kids, and of course to fit in. It's not such a bad solution if you can have friendship and affection without real erotic love with your other-sex partner, and raise your kids properly.

The question is how you could raise your kids properly in such a relationship. Children are dependent on their parents in their very first years. They learn everything from them until they have found other idols in their environment. Certainly they would get a completely different image of love since their parents do not love each other. This could have a strong influence on the kid's development.

And I doubt the parents' relationship would last very long, either.

Sól
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 01:03 PM
The question is how you could raise your kids properly in such a relationship. Children are dependent on their parents in their very first years. They learn everything from them until they have found other idols in their environment. Certainly they would get a completely different image of love since their parents do not love each other. This could have a strong influence on the kid's development.

And I doubt the parents' relationship would last very long, either.
It has worked for a long time. Marriages in Iceland used to be arranged, even before Christianity conversions. The father picked a husband for his daughter. Dating is relatively new.

Sigurd
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 01:10 PM
I'm very much against open homosexuality, but since it is a biological given, I usually consider two choices: That people either stay partnerless, or would enter a heterosexual relationship nonetheless, potentially even raising children in the traditional setting.

This is why I wouldn't have a problem with having a bisexual girlfriend, frankly for the reason that whilst she's with me she's obviously with me and favours me as a man, for whatever reason that may be; so the additional attraction to the female body as well as the male body would become a non-issue in such an instance, the girl obviously wouldn't be homosexual during that time, and since I don't date for a particular time but always with the intention to last, hopefully never.

What I'd be dead against though would be for people to openly homosexually adopt children - children need both a male and a female role model - or even to show their homosexuality off in public, and I'm generally not that comfortable with being around open homosexuals. It's no rational reason, it's just a gut feeling, it's probably not unnatural not to feel somewhat strangely around lesbians and gays.

I don't feel that comfortable around fairly camp, effeminate fellow men either, so I suppose it's something in the subconscious about believing that men should act like men and women should act like women. I didn't feel nearly as uncomfortable around a gay friend of my mother's who didn't act anything out of the norms as around heterosexuals who were pretty camp/butch.

Generally it is my opinion that whilst I couldn't care less what people do in their own four walls, that people who are sexually attracted more to people of their own sex, should still on some platonic basis establish an emotional bond which can last, and potentially even found a loving heterosexual family upon that; and if they are unable to do so, they should stay without partner.


Certainly they would get a completely different image of love since their parents do not love each other. This could have a strong influence on the kid's development.

There are many types of love. You love your siblings, parents and children without (at least, usually and normally) feeling any sexual attraction towards them, yet there is still a deep emotional bond between them which ensures that the family works together in a cohesive way. To some extent you even love your friends, albeit in a non-sexual manner.

And let's face it --- how many people who are married for 20+ years really still love each other in the same sexual way they did when they first met? At that stage, it's really just endearing love in a somewhat platonic sense, because you truly care about that person. The sexual part often is then just a by-product.

So if people who've been married for a long time and have lost their sexual attraction to each other (but not their emotional attraction) can still keep together without much negative vibes brewing, and still bring up children lovingly, so can people who weren't that sexually attracted, but only emotionally attracted to each other to begin with.

The claim that one should just let it go and stress at every occasion "this is my gay lover, I'm a homosexual" is about as annoying as the person who constantly tries to reap sympathy from people by saying "look at me, I am disabled". People should try to not fall out of the norm, and where they do fall out of the norm, only in a way which raises that norm to a higher standard rather than lower it to celebrating that which is evidently a biological defect, in such instance the aristocratic principle applies, i.e. they should stride to be as good as they can and approximate to the norm where they are below it.

Nachtengel
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 01:10 PM
The question is how you could raise your kids properly in such a relationship. Children are dependent on their parents in their very first years. They learn everything from them until they have found other idols in their environment. Certainly they would get a completely different image of love since their parents do not love each other. This could have a strong influence on the kid's development.

And I doubt the parents' relationship would last very long, either.
Do you equate love with erotic love and sexual attraction? Why should children be exposed to that anyway? My parents didn't show me the way they were displaying each other's affection and basic instinct needs when I was a child, and it didn't impede my development.

Sól
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 01:28 PM
What I'd be dead against though would be for people to openly homosexually adopt children - children need both a male and a female role model - or even to show their homosexuality off in public, and I'm generally not that comfortable with being around open homosexuals. It's no rational reason, it's just a gut feeling, it's probably not unnatural not to feel somewhat strangely around lesbians and gays.
I don't think any sexual behavior is for the public or children's eyes. I'm on par with Todesengel. I neither knew what was going on under my parents' bed sheets.


Generally it is my opinion that whilst I couldn't care less what people do in their own four walls, that people who are sexually attracted more to people of their own sex, would still on some platonic basis establish an emotional bond which can last, and potentially even found a loving heterosexual family upon that; and if they are unable to do so, they should stay without partner.
I don't agree with that. Nature has left me unable to reproduce but this doesn't mean I shouldn't have the right to enjoy life. I was willing to make this sacrifice to carry on my genes, because I think Iceland is in dire need for more Nordic people. But if it can't happen, I have no need for a partnership with a man.

Being a man, you probably know that there is some physical urge every now and then, that needs to be taken care of. It's not any different with women. We have needs too. Celibacy is unnatural, it affects people physically and psychologically, and can have some pretty ugly consequences. Look at what happens to Christian priests. People need love and to be loved, people need companionship, and yes, people need sex. I can't enjoy sex with a man, just as you wouldn't be able to enjoy sex with one yourself. Imagine yourself having to have sex with someone towards who you feel absolutely no attraction. This is how I would feel if I had to entertain such relationships with a man.

Stimme
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 02:45 PM
It has worked for a long time. Marriages in Iceland used to be arranged, even before Christianity conversions. The father picked a husband for his daughter. Dating is relatively new.

Oh well, I don't think you can compare forced marriages (because that's what 'arranged' marriages are) with a voluntary relationship between two persons not feeling attracted to each other.

And, as you already stated, you and your partner have needs you have to satisfy. Sooner or later one would cheat on the other one. And even if this would be ok for both of you, this certainly would have a bad influence on your child's development.

Sól
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 03:01 PM
Oh well, I don't think you can compare forced marriages (because that's what 'arranged' marriages are) with a voluntary relationship between two persons not feeling attracted to each other.
Not all arranged marriages are forced marriages. To force is to make someone do something against will, but many women accepted it as given.

They are comparable because sometimes arranged marriages didn't involve erotic love.


And, as you already stated, you and your partner have needs you have to satisfy. Sooner or later one would cheat on the other one. And even if this would be ok for both of you, this certainly would have a bad influence on your child's development.
Like I said, the sexuality of parents is not for the children's eyes. The Vikings accepted homosexuals to marry and have children, while still having other sex partners. It is not cheating if the pair agrees to it. I know to someone heavily influenced by Christian morality this sounds strange, but please read how our ancestors conducted their family life.

Stimme
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 03:17 PM
To force is to make someone do something against will, but many women accepted it as given.

I guess in earlier times many women also accepted to get beaten badly during marriage.


They are comparable because sometimes arranged marriages didn't involve erotic love.

Ok, that makes sense.


Like I said, the sexuality of parents is not for the children's eyes.

Of course. I did not say you should have sex in front of the child's eyes.
But still, It will begin to wonder why daddy goes out so often - but without mommy.


I know to someone heavily influenced by Christian morality this sounds strange

I do not consider myself a Christian and I am not against homosexual relationships, either. I just do not think a homosexual couple is a good parental environment for a child.

triedandtru
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 03:33 PM
Todesengel made a poll in this theme, about why peoples don't want children, which turned into a heavy debate:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=125674

I'm creating this new theme, not to interfere with the old one, because I'm curious to establish the most common reasons peoples don't have children nowadays, including (and especially) those who are ethnocentric. Is it because peoples really don't want children and prefer the childfree lifestyle, or is it because the conditions of the modern society prevent us from reaching our goals so early, even if we'd like a child or more?

I'm making the poll anonymous, so I urge as many peoples as possible to vote. The poll is multiple choice, so if you have more than one reason, please vote all. Please only vote if you have no children at all at this time.

The peoples who don't have children because they don't want them can elaborate about their reasons in Todesengel's thread.


I do not have children yet because I am firstly unmarried, and I am the sort of person that if I were to be pregnant first I would always wonder if he stayed with me because he felt like that was what was expected of him and "right", or because he actually loved me. Secondly, I want to first obtain a college degree, both for the sake of knowledge and for financial reasons.

Hersir
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 03:38 PM
None of my exes wanted children yet, they wanted to get education first and have everything in order. And I dont want to get a child when im single.

Einsiedler
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 03:42 PM
Hersir... that is the usual mindset, but the women, who truly want to make a career will have their children with 20 and study parallelly.

Also they will seek themselves a partner who doesn't get in their way.

Sól
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 03:44 PM
I guess in earlier times many women also accepted to get beaten badly during marriage.
I don't think there is comparison.


Of course. I did not say you should have sex in front of the child's eyes.
But still, It will begin to wonder why daddy goes out so often - but without mommy.
My father went out without my mother sometimes. Work, drink with friends... why does it have to be suspicious by default?


I do not consider myself a Christian and I am not against homosexual relationships, either. I just do not think a homosexual couple is a good parental environment for a child.
I did mention my friend was male, didn't I? The parental environment would involve the child's biological parents, nothing more or less.

Wolgadeutscher
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 03:49 PM
I was going to propose to my most serious girlfriend, and I brought up the discussion about children and family. She was very affectionate towards children, so I assumed she would be willing to make me a husband and father. Wrong. She rejected the idea and said she wouldn't want any children of her own in the near future. It appears children are cute enough to play with and watch, as long as they're someone else's. The other women I have been seeing are obsessed with emancipation and liberal views. Having children doesn't fit anywhere in their world view.

Stimme
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 03:53 PM
I don't think there is comparison.

I compared because both things were once accepted but not right because of that.



My father went out without my mother sometimes. Work, drink with friends... why does it have to be suspicious by default?

Maybe my thoughts about this are too extreme and the child would never wonder what is going on but to assume this kind of relationship could last long enough is at least as Utopian.


I did mention my friend was male, didn't I? The parental environment would involve the child's biological parents, nothing more or less.

Oh, sorry. I meant homosexual persons, not homosexuals couples.
(homosexuals of different sex being in a relationship would be the most precise).

Sól
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 03:57 PM
I compared because both things were once accepted but not right because of that.
Could you define what is right?


Maybe my thoughts about this are too extreme and the child would never wonder what is going on but to assume this kind of relationship could last long enough is at least as Utopian.
We have centuries of arranged marriages and even marriages where extramarital relationships occurred, not only homosexual ones, but many heterosexual ones too, which even bred bastard children, and yet the world didn't collapse.


Oh, sorry. I meant homosexual persons, not homosexuals couples.
(homosexuals of different sex being in a relationship would be the most precise).
My friend is not homosexual, only I'm the lesbian, he is straight.

Stimme
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 04:09 PM
Could you define what is right?

Not forcing one's children to marry strangers for starters. :P


We have centuries of arranged marriages and even marriages where extramarital relationships occurred, not only homosexual ones, but many heterosexual ones too, which even bred bastard children, and yet the world didn't collapse.

Wow, you're really defending those arranged relationships. If your father told you to marry his best friend's son, would you do it? I guess not.


My friend is not homosexual, only I'm the lesbian, he is straight.

This is even more critical. He could develop feelings for you that you do not have for him. I see a family crisis under which the child would suffer heavily. I see it clearly.

Sól
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 04:17 PM
Not forcing one's children to marry strangers for starters. :P
The woman could decline the arrangement if she had a good reason and didn't find it suitable. It's not Islam, but Germanics.


Wow, you're really defending those arranged relationships. If your father told you to marry his best friend's son, would you do it? I guess not.
If you already answered in my name, what's the point of asking? ;)

It would depend on his racial stock and character.


This is even more critical. He could develop feelings for you that you do not have for him. I see a family crisis under which the child would suffer heavily. I see it clearly.
You see nothing clearly since you don't know either me or my friend, or the nature of our relationships. You talk from behind a computer screen, and make assumptions only. My friend and I are just fine. He knows me and he is aware of the situation.

velvet
Saturday, November 7th, 2009, 04:42 PM
I'm very much against open homosexuality, but since it is a biological given, I usually consider two choices: That people either stay partnerless, or would enter a heterosexual relationship nonetheless, potentially even raising children in the traditional setting.

Sir Sigurd :-O
You demand dishonesty or 'lifetime solitary punishment'?

I have to say, I'm shocked...



This is why I wouldn't have a problem with having a bisexual girlfriend, frankly for the reason that whilst she's with me she's obviously with me and favours me as a man, for whatever reason that may be; so the additional attraction to the female body as well as the male body would become a non-issue in such an instance, the girl obviously wouldn't be homosexual during that time, and since I don't date for a particular time but always with the intention to last, hopefully never.

Okay, your girlfriend is bisexual. One night she stays with you, another she stays with her best female friend for a pyjama party. What would you do?
Would you consider a sexual adventure cheating on you?


What I'd be dead against though would be for people to openly homosexually adopt children - children need both a male and a female role model - or even to show their homosexuality off in public, and I'm generally not that comfortable with being around open homosexuals. It's no rational reason, it's just a gut feeling, it's probably not unnatural not to feel somewhat strangely around lesbians and gays.

Lesbian girls dont need adoption, they can make their own babies. Would you go and take the child away?

That you feel 'strangely', is it really because you think it would be sort of natural to feel so or is it because you are told by all these 'repressed' people that homosexuality is 'infectious', unnatural, weird, disgusting? Remember, these are the same people who told you that masturbating makes twisted fingers and leads to a loss of spinal cord ;)



Generally it is my opinion that whilst I couldn't care less what people do in their own four walls, that people who are sexually attracted more to people of their own sex, should still on some platonic basis establish an emotional bond which can last, and potentially even found a loving heterosexual family upon that; and if they are unable to do so, they should stay without partner.

Beside your animosities and probably the inferior complex that you couldnt compete with another women or an irrational fear that your gay friend could suddenly wants to have sex with you, is there any rational, sound reason on which you base that homosexuals should not have a partner?

I mean, after all, you demand a life-time cheating and acting-as-if as alternative, you demand hishonesty and lying about ones preferences and a total distancing from that what one feels - for the sake of that some sensible people dont get offended by a different, but not necessarily detrimental to society as such, lifestyle.


People should try to not fall out of the norm, and where they do fall out of the norm, only in a way which raises that norm to a higher standard rather than lower it to celebrating that which is evidently a biological defect, in such instance the aristocratic principle applies, i.e. they should stride to be as good as they can and approximate to the norm where they are below it.

So, when you consider it a biological defect, a genetic thing, why the Hel do you demand that these people should found a happy-lying family and produce more children which possibly carry these genes too? This makes no sense whatsoever.
Why cant you just let them live the life they want as long as they dont transgress sound laws (that apply to everyone anyway)?
You see, I think when homosexuals just would be accepted it would make the situation a lot easier. They wouldnt celebrate their homosexuality, because it would be no longer exotic. You wouldnt produce more 'biological defects' with a much higher likeliness with forcing them to marry and play family.

And to the norm thingy. You either stick to the norms (as this is what norms are for) or you fall out. From the norm's point of view the direction of falling out doesnt matter. You hurt the norm.
The direction is directly dependend on your point of view. Someone who prefers white curtains will think it is a degeneracy when someone else prefers green or blue curtains, while for the green preferer white curtains are a sign of backwardness and philistine. It is completely random. :shrug

And how in the world can you expect that someone who lies constantly about his/her very basic feelings and emotions, his/her preferencies and dislikes, can possibly educate a child to a honest, straight and proud adult? The child would grow up in a complete fake environment.

And, at some point, when the child has become an adult, its parents would most likely divorce, and then tell their child that it is because its entirely 'played happy' family life was fake.

Although my parents didnt divorce for that reason, all my life was fake nonetheless. When I came to know the truth it left a crack in me, and as you know I broke contact with my mother completely. All my life, all my childhood, was a lie and fake. You dont know what that causes in people. It creates the biggest damage you can imagine. I guess rape victims feel something similar, or people who got robbed out in their flats who never feel save again.

This is a price to pay when you force people to live a life that is not theirs. And no random 'norm' is worth that price, when you with that fake norm create in row mental cracks, who lack trust in other people and stop being part of the society that created the fake norm, who feel not save in their society because they have learned that many of the things, and for them personally important things are not real and hold no real worth.

Sigurd
Sunday, November 8th, 2009, 02:05 PM
Okay, your girlfriend is bisexual. One night she stays with you, another she stays with her best female friend for a pyjama party. What would you do? Would you consider a sexual adventure cheating on you?

If such a settlement is pre-arranged, then no, that's not cheating. If such a settlement is pre-arranged, then it is as much cheating as though she would cheat on me with another man. Cheating is sleeping outwith the relationship without permission.

I could add a male perspective about how much any man would complain if she invited her female friend around, but I'll let that rest. That'd open a can of worms, so since I'm not that much into threesomes, I'm not going to comment.

Either way, I would not have a problem to make such an arrangement. I have nothing from a woman to fear, end of story. If she subsequently leaves me for that woman, then that's no different than if she leaves me for another man. ;)


Lesbian girls dont need adoption, they can make their own babies. Would you go and take the child away?

Gay men don't need adoption either, they can make their own babies just as much. At least last time I looked, since it needs a male and female component to actually make it work.

Apart from that, a same-sex couple to bring up a child is always wrong, regardless if it's the biological child of one of them. Children need a male and a female role model, sociological gender does not replace biological sex here.


That you feel 'strangely', is it really because you think it would be sort of natural to feel so

Yes, because deep inside it repulses me. I can be tactful and tolerate it, but only in the literal sense, because it'll only be my upbringing which will mind me to shut my mouth about matters none of my business.

I don't find lesbianism to be any more acceptable than gayness. I actually don't even find it arousing in an erotic sense, for instance it doesn't do it for me to watch two girls kissing and touching each other up. Lesbian porn doesn't do it for me either (to deal with a dead-beat argument already before it is brought up).


Remember, these are the same people who told you that masturbating makes twisted fingers and leads to a loss of spinal cord ;)

I was not brought up in a particularly Christian way, actually. I was actually brought up by a mother very tolerant towards the issue, and a stepfather who never voiced any opinion on the matter. My grandparents, both sets, were always dead against homosexuality, but the topic was never raised by them or with them. In school, this was also not raised.


Beside your animosities and probably the inferior complex that you couldnt compete with another women

I have no more fear that I couldn't compete with another woman than I have a fear that I couldn't compete with another man - basically none at all. Like I said above --- it doesn't matter whether a woman would leave me for a woman or a man, and both are scenarios I don't usually plan for; if she dumps me for any person, other-sex or same-sex, she wasn't the right one to begin with.


or an irrational fear that your gay friend could suddenly wants to have sex with you,

If it is indeed a friend, I would expect that friend to have enough tact not to become intrusive on me. I don't allow my female friends to become intrusive either, I will tell them soon enough that I just see them as friends, not more. If they are indeed friends, they will respect that.

So no, I am not afraid that one of my male friends could be a closet gay and wish to do me up the hind. If it does turn out like that, it would make me feel pretty awkward, but no more than it would make me feel awkward if a female friend fancied me whilst I didn't fancy her. Except obviously the shock of finding out, since it was obviously less to be expected.


is there any rational, sound reason on which you base that homosexuals should not have a partner?

They can have a partner of the other sex. With that partner they can arrange taking care of their other needs, or not. An understanding spouse could be open to such things. The children wouldn't even need to know.


I mean, after all, you demand a life-time cheating and acting-as-if as alternative, you demand hishonesty and lying about ones preferences and a total distancing from that what one feels

I did not say that. First of all, if it is pre-arranged that "sexual adventures" may take place in private, that is not cheating. Secondly, I wouldn't dump a woman if she honestly confessed that she also liked women.

Obviously, there would be another good reason why she'd be with me, as long as she did her "duties as a girlfriend", I couldn't care less whether she secretly phantasises to make love to another woman.


- for the sake of that some sensible people dont get offended by a different, but not necessarily detrimental to society as such, lifestyle.

Let's see ... Greeks took a more tolerant attitude towards homosexuality. Men who were gay were still married and often had children and were good fathers and husbands, whilst they also enjoyed themselves otherwise.

We know this since it was staged fairly publically and seen in a sense that the real love was between men and men. If we remove this public part, where's the issue.

No one said, that married people could not arrange with their spouses to have "sexual adventures" as you call it. The difference between the way the Greeks did it is that such an agreement exists between the wife and the husband alone, and not as an open thing all around society.


So, when you consider it a biological defect, a genetic thing, why the Hel do you demand that these people should found a happy-lying family and produce more children which possibly carry these genes too? This makes no sense whatsoever.

These children could undergo the same self-restrictive procedure. And if they wish to not pass those genes on to their potential children, they can - much like other people who possess biological genetic defects - choose not to have children altogether for the sake of not dooming those children to a potentially harsh position.


Why cant you just let them live the life they want as long as they dont transgress sound laws (that apply to everyone anyway)?

Give me an example of a law that is always sound. ;)


The direction is directly dependend on your point of view. Someone who prefers white curtains will think it is a degeneracy when someone else prefers green or blue curtains, while for the green preferer white curtains are a sign of backwardness and philistine. It is completely random. :shrug

If the 10% of homosexuals would consider the 90% of heterosexuals to fall out of the norm in a negative manner, then that'd be all the more dangerous. Luckily enough for your argument, this is not the case. ;)


And how in the world can you expect that someone who lies constantly about his/her very basic feelings and emotions, his/her preferencies and dislikes, can possibly educate a child to a honest, straight and proud adult? The child would grow up in a complete fake environment.

Some topics need not be mentioned until it is necessary to be mentioned, and if eventuality doesn't happen they don't need to be mentioned at all. If your child doesn't have such tendencies you can just as well not mention such topics, and let them make their own opinion.


And, at some point, when the child has become an adult, its parents would most likely divorce, and then tell their child that it is because its entirely 'played happy' family life was fake.

Why would they automatically divorce after the children have become adults? They will still develop an emotional bond, perhaps they might prefer keeping that emotional bond by convention, than to suddenly decide aged 50 that they now need all the joys and lusts of life.

Like I said above, many married couples don't feel sexual attraction to each other anymore at the time their children leave home, but they still stay together because they have a strong emotional bond. That is no different, that married couples should still feel sexually attracted after such a long time is very rare.

Just because they aren't, or aren't any longer, sexually attracted to each other to the point that their very last fibre screams for their spouse to take them on the kitchen table after 25 years of marriage (to put it very frankly), doesn't mean they love each other any less.

Finally, in the past, not all people married solely for love; and often enough the arrangement still held without much issue. They would often only learn to love each other as they went along.

Sigurd
Sunday, November 8th, 2009, 02:41 PM
I don't think any sexual behavior is for the public or children's eyes. I'm on par with Todesengel. I neither knew what was going on under my parents' bed sheets.

Of course not. But that appears to be precisely the problem with a society where open homosexuality is considered just as normal as open heterosexuality: That many gays nowadays - not saying all, of course - feel the need to profile themselves by doing things in public any self-respecting couple would not.

The example of the gay friend of my mother's is a good one. Precisely the same thing there - he never mentioned it in public: He dressed normally, he acted normally --- except that his personal preference was for men. He simply believes that people's sexual orientation is not for the public eye, whether that be straight or gay. This went to the extent that you couldn't tell he was gay immediately, and that my stepfather was actually deeply jealous when he was cuddling with my mom until he discovered that friend was gay. :P

I can respect such things to some extent. But it doesn't mean that I condone it. And I would still much rather that they stride for a heterosexual relationship, and keep their homosexual fantasies to themselves, at best perhaps arranging with their spouse that they are allowed an open relationship as long as the extra-marital encounter is same-sex. :shrug


I don't agree with that. Nature has left me unable to reproduce but this doesn't mean I shouldn't have the right to enjoy life.

I apologise, that is not what I meant by "if they are unable to do so". I didn't mean that in the way that unfertile people shouldn't. I meant by that --- people should stay partnerless if they can't form an emotional bond.


I was willing to make this sacrifice to carry on my genes, because I think Iceland is in dire need for more Nordic people.

And you have my great respect for that, and I would have probably stressed you as a shining example of sacrificing selfish desire for the bigger picture. If only more people thought like that, then the whole thing would be a non-issue anyhow. :thumbup


But if it can't happen, I have no need for a partnership with a man.

Companionship? Potentially adoption of Nordic orphans or those who are less fortunate and are looking for a loving family? Just because you can't be a mother yourself doesn't mean that you can't pose a loving mother to another child of your folk, the result is the same: To shape the life of a Nordic child in a positive manner. :)


Being a man, you probably know that there is some physical urge every now and then, that needs to be taken care of.

Technically there can be the gratification of that urge outwith a relationship. I'm not an advocate of that, so I tend to swallow that urge down at times when I am not in a relationship. But if other people can cope with "friendships with privileges" it's not my position to tell them they cannot.


I can't enjoy sex with a man, just as you wouldn't be able to enjoy sex with one yourself.

How do we explain the good old stories about men having homosexual encounters then whilst incarcerated? We have a saying in German which translates into In need, the devil eats flies.

Again, no one is saying that you can't have a same-sex sexual encounter. I just don't believe that same-sex relationships should happen, since I don't believe it is good to the public psyche that same-sex people are seen walking hand-in-hand down the road, ancient Germanic tolerance and tact would hinder people to say something against something they all find a little awkward.

Now I will admit that it sort of sounds a little hypocritical, since I personally believe that sexual intercourse should ideally happen within a relationship (at least for me), and between loving people. But well, that's another matter --- here applies the other rationale: If people really can't keep it in their pants, they should do so in an arranged way rather than a non-arranged way.


Imagine yourself having to have sex with someone towards who you feel absolutely no attraction. This is how I would feel if I had to entertain such relationships with a man.

Absolutely no attraction I couldn't say. I have however, had sex with females to whom my attraction was more on an emotional than a sexual manner. The old adage that good male and female friends will usually end up in bed together earlier or later. Not ideal, but we all grow wiser as we grow up. ;)

Strangely enough, whilst neither is ideal, the feeling of having sex with a person whom I had some sort of bond with on an emotionally attached level (i.e. very good friends), but felt little to no sexual attraction was more rewarding than having sex with girls to whom there was a sexual attraction but no emotional attraction (yes, I had that time as well...). It meant that the girl still felt safe with me nonetheless, and that was kind of more arousing than any absolutely meaningless encounter could ever be. :shrug

velvet
Sunday, November 8th, 2009, 04:10 PM
Gay men don't need adoption either, they can make their own babies just as much. At least last time I looked, since it needs a male and female component to actually make it work.

True, but for a women it is much easier to realise, with or without the knowledge of the guy, than a guy could. ;)


Apart from that, a same-sex couple to bring up a child is always wrong, regardless if it's the biological child of one of them. Children need a male and a female role model, sociological gender does not replace biological sex here.

This doesnt answer my question.
We assume the 'ideal' family to be mother and father. But there are single mothers who cannot offer the male role either.
My question was, would you take away the child? If the answer is yes, then you must consequently also take away children from single mothers, as they dont represent the ideal family environment either.


I was not brought up in a particularly Christian way, actually.

Your entire environment was (and is) christian, whether you visit church every week doesnt matter. Our entire society is christian, even convinced atheists are heavily influenced by christian moral teaching, even if they never in their life saw a church from the inside.
So, even when the 'topic' itself wasnt brought up, you still are influenced by the thoughts that flow through your direct environment, whether you actually notice that or not.



They can have a partner of the other sex. With that partner they can arrange taking care of their other needs, or not. An understanding spouse could be open to such things. The children wouldn't even need to know.

So, they can either have a partner of the other sex or none at all.
For that you dont feel offended.


I did not say that.

Yes, you said so:
I usually consider two choices: That people either stay partnerless, or would enter a heterosexual relationship ....
...and if they are unable to do so, they should stay without partner.

You ask them for self-deception, lying and betraying, mostly themselves, but also all others, for that you dont feel offended.



First of all, if it is pre-arranged that "sexual adventures" may take place in private, that is not cheating.

Did you ever thought about that there also could be another arrangement, namely that of 'arranging a male role in the child's life' through friendship?
This wouldnt demand life-time cheating to the homosexual person's emotions and preferencies, and in the end, would ultimately benefit the child.


We know this since it was staged fairly publically and seen in a sense that the real love was between men and men. If we remove this public part, where's the issue.

The Greeks also had the same thing with lesbians, just to add that.
The error indeed was that marriage was but a necessity for reproduction. But this isnt Greece, and it isnt 2000 years ago either.


The difference between the way the Greeks did it is that such an agreement exists between the wife and the husband alone, and not as an open thing all around society.

The point is that the 'publicity' only exists because people make it an issue.
It is the same like people wearing a blue shirt. Just because you feel bothered by blue shirts doesnt make it a real issue though.
You could just ignore two girls or two men walking hand in hand (although this seems anyway out of fashion, it might be years ago that I saw a couple hand in hand).
The question remains, why do you feel bothered?


These children could undergo the same self-restrictive procedure. And if they wish to not pass those genes on to their potential children, they can - much like other people who possess biological genetic defects - choose not to have children altogether for the sake of not dooming those children to a potentially harsh position.

This would be their decision alltogether though.

But I dont think that self-restriction benefits anyone. Not the society, not the people around, not the possible children, not the arranged partner, not the person itself. It creates ultimately more damage than good.


Give me an example of a law that is always sound. ;)

Criminalising homosexuality would be unsound, this is the point ;)


If the 10% of homosexuals would consider the 90% of heterosexuals to fall out of the norm in a negative manner, then that'd be all the more dangerous. Luckily enough for your argument, this is not the case. ;)

You see, the relation is most likely 99,8 : 0,02, and therefore there is absolutely no reason to make such a fuzz about that matter.


Some topics need not be mentioned until it is necessary to be mentioned, and if eventuality doesn't happen they don't need to be mentioned at all. If your child doesn't have such tendencies you can just as well not mention such topics, and let them make their own opinion.

The child could find out by accident, someone tells it, the arranged parents have a verbal disput and it is mentioned, whatever.
The risk of the not reparable damage is just too high to even consider trying to hide that would be worth the (imagined) 'win'.


Why would they automatically divorce after the children have become adults? They will still develop an emotional bond, perhaps they might prefer keeping that emotional bond by convention, than to suddenly decide aged 50 that they now need all the joys and lusts of life.

This is not about lust and joy, but about with whom you spend your time and life.

I tell you a little story. When I was a child and went to school, there was a Turkish girl in my class. Her parents came already together to Germany and they led a typical Turkish life, with the wife being at home, producing six or so children, the wife did not speak one single word German. Funny side story, the girl in my class didnt speak Turkish either. Anyway, of course, the marriage was arranged. As a good muslim women she raised her children, and when the girl (being the youngest) moved out of the household, the first thing the mother did was going to a lawyer to have her divorced. Divorce in muslim families is the biggest shame you can imagine. She did nonetheless.
Long after finishing my school I met the girl while shopping and she told me that. And she also said that she always was convinced her parents loved each other, that they found the emotional basis despite being an arranged marriage. They never shouted at each other, the father didnt beat her, everything was perfectly normal.
Still, the women left him, and the girl said also, that she felt for quite a while cheated by both of them. You suddenly wake up and your childhood, your family, everything has become a fake.

The same with another German family, although I dont know the opinion of their son here. But when he moved out, it was just a year or so and his parents divorced. They were a really classical family, the father with his beer can in underwear on the couch and the mother doing literally everything for her son, the total self-sacrifice.
They did their duty to raise the child, and noone could imagine that they would even consider divorcing, never. Child gone, relation gone though.


Like I said above, many married couples don't feel sexual attraction to each other anymore at the time their children leave home, but they still stay together because they have a strong emotional bond. That is no different, that married couples should still feel sexually attracted after such a long time is very rare.

I always find it funny when people honestly think that their parents or, huh, grandparents 'of course' dont have sex anymore ;)

The difference is that they once had also the sexual bond, which was integral part of the developing of the emotional bond.
A 'convenience' relation like you demand wouldnt not develop either of it. Sure, friends can live together, but they are only friends, they are not 'parents' even if they act as if they were.


Finally, in the past, not all people married solely for love; and often enough the arrangement still held without much issue. They would often only learn to love each other as they went along.

Well, not going to comment on the 'not much issue', just remember that divorce in some centuries was worth stoning.

In the northern countries there werent much issue with divorcing and chosing another partner. This was the same way normal like the generated life-long marriage in further south regions. Yes, it is possible that also an arranged marriage holds for a life, or that they even develop love for each other. Still, you cant bet on that.

And you can even less bet on it when the other is only 'chosen' to please anyone else except the person in question.

Sigurd
Sunday, November 8th, 2009, 05:14 PM
But there are single mothers who cannot offer the male role either. [...] My question was, would you take away the child?

Single mothers have one of two tendencies - either they try to find a suitable partner to act as a father figure for the child. Or they stay without partner, because no such suitable partner is to be found. The latter option is hardly ever from choice, even if many say so.

Single motherhood (or fatherhood for that matter) is not the ideal, as the child may - whether by divorce or by being widowed - potentially grow up without a father figure. The complete absence of a father figure is however still preferable to having two mother-figures which could make the child believe to some extent that such is a natural order in which children are brought up.


So, even when the 'topic' itself wasnt brought up, you still are influenced by the thoughts that flow through your direct environment, whether you actually notice that or not.

Let's see it in a less behavioristic way, shall we? It is of course true that to some extent we are influenced by our surroundings, however a basis for many things are natural, including a natural aversion against that which deviates against the norm.

This time, the natural aversion is against anything which deviates the norm, I suffered much for my intelligence in primary school and early secondary school just by virtue of being different. They just, for a long while, didn't like the boy who didn't have to revise to write top marks whilst they received bottom marks for trying hard.

So if even an aversion against deviating from the norm in a positive manner exists, then there could well be something natural to an aversion against deviating from the norm. Many people feel repulsed by homosexuality, just from a gut feeling. This is actually even true to some extent for cultures in which homosexuality is accepted to the extent that homosexual men are afforded a second sociological gender.

Whether this is geared by the sub-conscious in a matter of potential enhanced competition (thanks, Renwein ;)) is possible, but certainly it is more likely to have a natural reason of some sort, that is only extended by external influence.


You ask them for self-deception, lying and betraying, mostly themselves, but also all others, for that you dont feel offended.

What you call self-deception, I call discipline. What you call lying and betraying, I call potentially necessary sacrifice. ;)


Did you ever thought about that there also could be another arrangement, namely that of 'arranging a male role in the child's life' through friendship?

That friend would have to be an acting father essentially from very young in the child's life onwards. Children are not that stupid, they can tell the difference whether the person performing the male role is just going out of the house for work, or going out of the house to go home to their wife.


The Greeks also had the same thing with lesbians, just to add that.


Could you provide an example of lesbianism being publically pardoned in Greece. I was always of the impression that it existed to the same latent extent as always, whilst mainly main homosexuality was praised.


The error indeed was that marriage was but a necessity for reproduction. But this isnt Greece, and it isnt 2000 years ago either.

What is marriage if not the basis to found a family? A man and a woman can easily provide for themselves, at least within the context of the whole community. A woman who is not involved in child-rearing can work long hours and is not dependent on her husband in any form. There is no real sense of security involved here, except being able to inherit from him once he dies.


You could just ignore two girls or two men walking hand in hand (although this seems anyway out of fashion, it might be years ago that I saw a couple hand in hand). The question remains, why do you feel bothered?

Because to me it is an urge which should be counter-acted to the extent that a person leads a normal life.

here are many other sexual tendencies where such a question of "Why do you feel bothered?" is not asked, why should that question even have to be asked here?

"Miscegenation occurs to some natural extent, also with two consenting partners. You could just ignore a mixed race couple walking hand in hand. The question remains, why do you fell bothered?" ---> Can you see the problem? I mean, surely if the mixed-race couple chooses not to have any children, it can't be dangerous either, no? ;)


But I dont think that self-restriction benefits anyone. Not the society, not the people around, not the possible children, not the arranged partner, not the person itself. It creates ultimately more damage than good.

So self-restriction is always good? I'd like you to put that argument to the ex-girlfriend of a friend who cheated on her with all of her best friends merely because he couldn't keep it in its pants, i.e. didn't practice self-restriction.

Self-restriction can be, to some extent, necessary for the orderly functioning of society as well as the orderly functioning of people's relationships of all types between each other.


Criminalising homosexuality would be unsound, this is the point ;)

That was not the question, give me an example of a law that is always sound, this is the point. ;)


The child could find out by accident, someone tells it, the arranged parents have a verbal disput and it is mentioned, whatever.

That again is a matter of self-restriction. A good friend of mine and his girlfriend have had so many arguments with me next door where I didn't notice that they were arguing (though I found it odd they were gone for 20-odd minutes) basically because they were keeping it down.


This is not about lust and joy, but about with whom you spend your time and life.

So you believe everyone should just choose who they wish to marry and spend their lives with? Again, why are you so bothered about miscegenation then? I mean, this is not about lust and joy, but about with whom you spend your time and life.


Anyway, of course, the marriage was arranged. As a good muslim women she raised her children, and when the girl (being the youngest) moved out of the household, the first thing the mother did was going to a lawyer to have her divorced. Divorce in muslim families is the biggest shame you can imagine. She did nonetheless.

Arguing by examples again? Just because this happened in this arranged marriage doesn't mean this happens in all arranged marriages, nor that it means that people who stick together in arranged marriages after children leave the house are always unhappy.

People can grow to love each other to the extent that they could not live without each other. There are many types of love that are not primarily sexual in character. Fr instance, I love my siblings more than anything but I don't feel any sexual attraction towards them - as much as I am from Austria. ;)


They were a really classical family, the father with his beer can in underwear on the couch and the mother doing literally everything for her son, the total self-sacrifice.

Well, that's where that one went wrong: The father was a lazy, selfish git by the looks of it.

At the time the woman does the hoovering, changing the nappies or cooking the dinner, the man should be for example tending to the garden, fetching the firewood, fixing the broken oven or something like that, typical male roles around the house.


They did their duty to raise the child, and noone could imagine that they would even consider divorcing, never. Child gone, relation gone though.

Looks like she did that duty entirely on her own, whilst he was being lazy and excused it with working long hours? Obviously it can't work when the man isn't willing to at least adopt traditionally male roles around the house.


I always find it funny when people honestly think that their parents or, huh, grandparents 'of course' dont have sex anymore ;)

No one said this is always the case, but it certainly does occur. But let's turn this around --- why do some married couples who haven't had sex in years and have no common children, pets, debts or any such obligations together, still stay together if it's not for an emotional bond of love? ;)


The difference is that they once had also the sexual bond, which was integral part of the developing of the emotional bond.

There are enough known cases where people were merely good friends who shared many common experiences before they became romantically attached to each other, and also before they hopped into bed with each other, perhaps didn't even feel sexually attracted at first.

I would find it hard to believe that there is someone registered on the forum who doesn't know at least two such couples who were friends for long enough, but it took one years to chase the other.


Sure, friends can live together, but they are only friends, they are not 'parents' even if they act as if they were.

Friends can fall in love and develop sexual attraction out of emotional attraction. See above point.


Well, not going to comment on the 'not much issue', just remember that divorce in some centuries was worth stoning.

During the age of the Icelandic Sagas for instance, we know that a divorce was fairly easy to obtain. We also know that killing one's spouse to marry another was also a rare enough exception. We finally know that many marriages were arranged to the extent that people often only knew each other for mere hours before they were betrothed. Yet the overwhelming majority of those marriages lasted.

The fact that Laxdaela Saga features such a complicated instance but was still worthy of being written IMO shows more likely that it was an uncommon and noteworthy enough eventually to still deserve mention than to be a commonplace issue. Then like now, people only wrote family sagas if they were something extraordinary. ;)

VergesEngst
Wednesday, November 11th, 2009, 02:39 PM
Other people are taking up both sides of this debate very intelligently and eloquantly, so I feel no need to dive into the thick of it. As I have read through these posts, most of the responses that come to my mind are soon said by other members.

I do, however, have just one observation to make about this conversation before I go back into "voyeur mode" on this topic.


What is it that makes people think that a child who does not have a (e.g.) female parent will have no female role models?

When people say "A child must be raised by both a man and a woman because children need both male and female role models" .... I never understood the assumption that children can't have role-models other than their parents.



Anyway, that is all I wanted to add.

velvet
Wednesday, November 11th, 2009, 05:21 PM
Ups, overseen the reply ;)



Single mothers have one of two tendencies - either they try to find a suitable partner to act as a father figure for the child. Or they stay without partner, because no such suitable partner is to be found. The latter option is hardly ever from choice, even if many say so.

The reason doesnt matter, it is the fact that there is no father figure that matters in the context of the question.


Single motherhood (or fatherhood for that matter) is not the ideal, as the child may - whether by divorce or by being widowed - potentially grow up without a father figure. The complete absence of a father figure is however still preferable to having two mother-figures which could make the child believe to some extent that such is a natural order in which children are brought up.

So, you judge the same situation differently, just because the one parent tries desperately to find an other-sex partner and the other lives with a same-sex partner.

It is for example also not uncommon that two single mothers live 'just so' together, to not being alone, to share the costs of the flat, and so on. Even if both these single mothers are hetero, they would create such an environment 'which could potentially make the children think this would be normal'.

And you still didnt answer my initial question ;)


Let's see it in a less behavioristic way, shall we? It is of course true that to some extent we are influenced by our surroundings, however a basis for many things are natural, including a natural aversion against that which deviates against the norm.

This time, the natural aversion is against anything which deviates the norm, I suffered much for my intelligence in primary school and early secondary school just by virtue of being different. They just, for a long while, didn't like the boy who didn't have to revise to write top marks whilst they received bottom marks for trying hard.

This is not for falling out of the norm, this is envy and being frustrated ;)



Whether this is geared by the sub-conscious in a matter of potential enhanced competition (thanks, Renwein ;)) is possible, but certainly it is more likely to have a natural reason of some sort, that is only extended by external influence.

True, your natural reaction is that homosexuality is not natural, not the norm. But this refers to the simple fact. The reaction to it though, that people find it 'disgusting', 'pervert' or whatever, is a reaction engineered by the moral background.

You see, homosexuality is a thing that happens every once in a while to all mammals and even birds. Bonobo apes use sex as a mean to solve disputs and to lower aggression levels. But even in monogamic species like penguins homosexuality occures, and they even adopt left eggs and raise the little penguin just the same way as normal couples do. It becomes a perfect little penguin, without sociological damage ;)


What you call self-deception, I call discipline. What you call lying and betraying, I call potentially necessary sacrifice. ;)

Remember for a moment the ugliest girl from your school time (that with the purulent spots and the thick glasses and fatty hairs, y'know) and imagine that you will for ever have 'disciplinised' sex with her, wake up beside her each morning, have breakfast with her, and that she will be the mother of your children, because this sacrifice is worth some children, no?


That friend would have to be an acting father essentially from very young in the child's life onwards. Children are not that stupid, they can tell the difference whether the person performing the male role is just going out of the house for work, or going out of the house to go home to their wife.

Yes, and this father will be much more reliable, and the relation between mother and father will be much easier, because they did not have a love-relation that at some point broke up, an experience that will forever influence the relation between the two, negatively.
This negativity can never occure in a friends-only relation, and they'd probably even spend more time together than a biological father would due to the crack in the relation.

You said, divorce is no problem.
Let's assume that there are these patchwork families, there are indeed a lot of them. The child grows up with new partner of its parent part, while the other parent also has a new partner. The child is aware that one parent parts leaves the house for his/her new partner, and probably sees both constellations as its parents and has therefore four. Norm? Certainly not. But it happens and usually the children dont have a damage either ;)



Could you provide an example of lesbianism being publically pardoned in Greece. I was always of the impression that it existed to the same latent extent as always, whilst mainly main homosexuality was praised.

How do you think came the lesbians to their name? It was the island Lesbos, where the lesbians of that time lived and were glorified ;)



What is marriage if not the basis to found a family?

You didnt understand. It became a bothersome duty for reproduction, it hadnt much to do with 'family'.
But as said, this is neither Greece nor 2000 years ago.



Because to me it is an urge which should be counter-acted to the extent that a person leads a normal life.

What is normal? Who defines normal? And what is the win in contrast to the negatives that are generated by enforcing 'normality'?


here are many other sexual tendencies where such a question of "Why do you feel bothered?" is not asked, why should that question even have to be asked here?

You're going on child abuse or something, yes? Well, the reason for the difference is obvious, because child abuse creates huge damage in the child's soul and development.

This damage though is in no way proven for children of homosexuals, quite the opposite. The children usually are self-confident, independend in thought and generally not affected in their own partner choice.


"Miscegenation occurs to some natural extent, also with two consenting partners. You could just ignore a mixed race couple walking hand in hand. The question remains, why do you fell bothered?" ---> Can you see the problem? I mean, surely if the mixed-race couple chooses not to have any children, it can't be dangerous either, no? ;)

This is quite another problem and affects not only the involved individuals but indeed also the abstract of the folkish coherence, since most of these foreign people are basically hostile to our race. Their presence (and with this the possibility to miscegenation) is the realm of the state. Well, our states are right now hostile to us as well, but it is much more a problem of opportunity than it is a natural behavior.

And, it would be easily possible to chose another partner, because it is a generated by the current world reality behavior (actually against the nature of people), where the nature of the homosexual limits the possible partners.

But as well as I'm against telling people to miscegenate, because it is unnatural, as well am I against telling people, who got from nature a 'defect' in their genes, to live a 'normal' life and behave unnatural to their own nature.

I just think that there are so few of them that it isnt worth bothering, and seeing that their lifestyle doesnt cause damage to their possible children, I see even less reason, as I think that it just causes more damage to play your life to please all others.
This total altruism, where your own wishes, wants, needs and dreams play no role whatsoever is just sick. And it generates sick people.



So self-restriction is always good? I'd like you to put that argument to the ex-girlfriend of a friend who cheated on her with all of her best friends merely because he couldn't keep it in its pants, i.e. didn't practice self-restriction.

Good that she noticed that before they married, no? ;)


Self-restriction can be, to some extent, necessary for the orderly functioning of society as well as the orderly functioning of people's relationships of all types between each other.

I agree with you to a certain extent. But it a huge difference to make a conscious decision to cheat your partner or not being able to find pleasure, sexually and mentally, with an other-sex partner. This is not solved with self-restriction, as it is not a conscious decision but in their nature.



That again is a matter of self-restriction. A good friend of mine and his girlfriend have had so many arguments with me next door where I didn't notice that they were arguing (though I found it odd they were gone for 20-odd minutes) basically because they were keeping it down.

The point is, you cant trust this method. It is like saying "I'll take care, you dont get pregnant, trust me". :wsg

This doesnt work. Dark family secrets sooner or later come out, and the later they come out, the more damage they usually cause.

You see, I value honesty the most of all things, because my life was made a lie. Since I know how deep one falls who finds out that everything was just a lie and can attest you the damage dishonesty causes, I just dont want anyone to experience something like this. It took me years to get over it that I can live a normal life again, the damage is still there though, I have just learned to live with it.

When you lie to yourself, in that altruistic self-restriction attempt, you dont only lie to yourself. You lie to your partner, you lie to your children, you are not honest. That weird 'normality' demands from you that you lie, constantly, and that you restrict yourself to the point where you arent yourself anymore.


People can grow to love each other to the extent that they could not live without each other.

True, but an arranged marriage also holds the danger of growing a deep hate between the two. This even happens to people who once chose to be together. ;)


Well, that's where that one went wrong: The father was a lazy, selfish git by the looks of it.

No, he lived the conservative and highly estimated (*yikes*) life-style that his parents showed and teached him. The wife was ultimately the one to care for the child and the household, and he got the money home.
He was one of this oh-so classical father figures who strictly enforced the gender roles. Since on the seventh floor of a 28 flat house isnt much gardening or reparation things to do, the result was this.
Indeed she did that on her own, do you think you can bring a conservative to be bothered with the wellbeing of his wife or child? Of course not.


No one said this is always the case, but it certainly does occur. But let's turn this around --- why do some married couples who haven't had sex in years and have no common children, pets, debts or any such obligations together, still stay together if it's not for an emotional bond of love? ;)

Maybe the relation between them is only friendship? Or being used to each other? ;)


There are enough known cases where people were merely good friends who shared many common experiences before they became romantically attached to each other, and also before they hopped into bed with each other, perhaps didn't even feel sexually attracted at first.

Yes, but you talk about a man and a woman, both hetero, who first are only friends and then for some reason fall in love. I know countless such cases myself, actually, my current relation that already lasts for almost nine years also came to be in this way.
The difference is that a homosexual will not be able to develop another feeling than friendship to an other-sex person, it is for them biologically not possible.


Friends can fall in love and develop sexual attraction out of emotional attraction. See above point.

So, you consider it possible that the friendship with your male best friend can develop into a sexual attaction? ;)


During the age of the Icelandic Sagas for instance, we know that a divorce was fairly easy to obtain. We also know that killing one's spouse to marry another was also a rare enough exception. We finally know that many marriages were arranged to the extent that people often only knew each other for mere hours before they were betrothed. Yet the overwhelming majority of those marriages lasted.

How do you know when you say that most likely a speciality was required for the life story to end up as saga story? ;)

Well, we also know that either of both sides could say no and then the marriage didnt happen. I'm not against arranged marriages, when people are willing to do that it is entirely their thing, and I also dont say that it cannot work.

The point was to enforce a 'normal' lifestyle onto someone who's nature doesnt allow such a relation by free choice. It is not only not their self-chosen partner but an arranged one, but it also is a partner of the - for them - wrong sex. Their nature doesnt allow to develop, regardless of the amound of friendship between the two, a however formed sexual attraction, and they will love their arranged partner as a friend maybe, but never as they would love a partner.

Huginn ok Muninn
Wednesday, November 11th, 2009, 07:11 PM
Sigurd and Velvet,

Here's a case study for you two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_Wagner

Whatever the insignificant particulars might have been, the significant ones are that they produced four children, who, in turn, produced twelve grandchildren. Granted, no family is perfect, but there is always hope when there are future generations. Thus, woe be to us and damned be our excuses.

VergesEngst
Wednesday, November 11th, 2009, 07:15 PM
Sigurd and Velvet,

Here's a case study for you two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_Wagner

Whatever the insignificant particulars might have been, the significant ones are that they produced four children, who, in turn, produced twelve grandchildren. Granted, no family is perfect, but there is always hope when there are future generations. Thus, woe be to us and damned be our excuses.

I don't understand what you think the "lesson to be learned" here is? What "excuses" are you damning?

Huginn ok Muninn
Wednesday, November 11th, 2009, 08:12 PM
I don't understand what you think the "lesson to be learned" here is? What "excuses" are you damning?

The excuses that we all need to be perfect to marry and have children. The excuse that one cannot overcome homosexuality/bisexuality preferences in order to have a family. In fact, the only thing that matters is to HAVE CHILDREN.


I was going to propose to my most serious girlfriend, and I brought up the discussion about children and family. She was very affectionate towards children, so I assumed she would be willing to make me a husband and father. Wrong. She rejected the idea and said she wouldn't want any children of her own in the near future. It appears children are cute enough to play with and watch, as long as they're someone else's. The other women I have been seeing are obsessed with emancipation and liberal views. Having children doesn't fit anywhere in their world view.

Why is it that so many women are so misled? Well, it was the professed goal of the critical theorist/cultural marxist/frankfurt school jews and other leftists to reduce population by the education of women. Their success is our doom. This is why I see liberalism as the antithesis to everything we profess to value here. Liberalism equals women with messed up priorities which do not need to be messed up. Another case in point of a successful woman who had her success when her children were grown:

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?GRid=5719&page=gr

She had success, but she also HAD CHILDREN, who in fact were instrumental in assisting her success.

The many social ills which have resulted in our low birth rates are man-made. Leftists have been and still remain instrumental in the promotion of these social ills which will destroy any cohesive Germanic community, such as militant feminism, militant "anti-racism" and militant homosexual "liberation." In each of these cases, the left has built up in the minds of a group some form of "oppression" which must be confronted and fought against. That oppression is simply normal people being normal. Most people do not wish for the oppression of women or homosexuals or other races, but they have a right to expect that in pursuing their rights, women, homosexuals, and minorities, will not openly and angrily rip apart the social fabric, destroying all hope for our posterity. This has been the ongoing course of events, and it has almost succeeded. This is why I believe none of us can afford to side with the left in any way whatsoever. Their goal is our annihilation.

VergesEngst
Wednesday, November 11th, 2009, 11:23 PM
In fact, the only thing that matters is to HAVE CHILDREN.

An interesting hypothesis. Although it completely contradicts what we understand of natural law and the evolution of species.

The fitness of a population can often be improved by having a certain percentage of that population help with building society, protecting and caring for the young, but not reproducing themselves. By having a certain portion of the population NOT produce offspring, but caring for the offspring of their relatives, you actually increase the survival rate of their genes because you aren't taxing the environment with as much competition for resources.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, November 12th, 2009, 04:43 AM
An interesting hypothesis. Although it completely contradicts what we understand of natural law and the evolution of species.

The fitness of a population can often be improved by having a certain percentage of that population help with building society, protecting and caring for the young, but not reproducing themselves. By having a certain portion of the population NOT produce offspring, but caring for the offspring of their relatives, you actually increase the survival rate of their genes because you aren't taxing the environment with as much competition for resources.

I am not hypothesizing, and we are not in some isolated bubble where we can mentally masturbate about this problem. We are a people whose numbers are declining dramatically, and you want to debate whether or not we should have children while mexicans, negroes, and muslims outbreed us into extinction. You act as though you don't care about this. Tell me, why are you here? You do seem quite willing to prove my point about liberals.

velvet
Thursday, November 12th, 2009, 12:06 PM
I am not hypothesizing, and we are not in some isolated bubble where we can mentally masturbate about this problem. We are a people whose numbers are declining dramatically, and you want to debate whether or not we should have children while mexicans, negroes, and muslims outbreed us into extinction. You act as though you don't care about this. Tell me, why are you here? You do seem quite willing to prove my point about liberals.

You see, 'liberals' or 'the left' is not our problem, it is Jews who design these concepts and play their successful game of devide and conquer.

Our numbers are not in decline, in fact we have exploded in numbers. The middle age black plaque wiped off a third of the european (Europe, from France over Germany to the Russian areas) population, that were 25mio who died, the entire population of europe therefore was 75mio and just a few years after the plaque the number was reached again.
Today, Germany alone has more than 80mio people, the entire european (Germanic) population of Europe is about 250mio, plus the about 300mio white Americans. Our numbers are nowhere near 'decline'.

It is open to discussion if we can save our races and cultures if we turn ourselves into just another third-world population by over-reproduction.

We will not be able to outbreed the other races. We are just a bit over half a billion all in all, while the other races start off, when we take 'now' into account, with already 6,2bio. In ten years there will be over 10bio human beings on this earth, in 20 years most likely far over 20bio.
In fact, humans are too many. This earth is limited. It doesnt grow, it doesnt get out of nowhere new soil where humans can live and grow their corn and keep their cattle. This space is limited.
Overpopulation, and we already have over population, even the white race, will not help us.

If we dont learn to keep the other races out of our homelands, we will wither away, whether we breed like rabbits or not.


This blubbering about the population decline is just another Jewish nonsense to justify mass immigration. It is Jews who need an ever growing population to exploit and enslave them in their businesses. Jews know that large populations dont work, in cities there are no 'communities'. This is why Jews run these kibuz villages, where they raise their racially full aware youth and to send them out into the world wide think tanks (CoFR, ADL...). Big cities are just another mean to destroy the coherence of our people.
When you start breeding like rabbits, you will produce just more cities, cities in which every folkish awareness will cease to exist.

Instead of fantasising about outbreeding other races, which is pure nonsense, think about how to reduce other numbers. Specially on our soils. Keep them out and care that they dont come back. Leave them to themselves and countries like China and India will just collapse, all the high population countries in Africa would just die out when we stop sending tons and tons of medicine and countless helpers there to pamper them.

Huginn ok Muninn
Thursday, November 12th, 2009, 01:40 PM
You see, 'liberals' or 'the left' is not our problem, it is Jews who design these concepts and play their successful game of devide and conquer.

To support liberal politicians is to support the cultural marxist anti-White anti-Germanic agenda they press upon us. It is remarkably uniform throughout the West. One of the Labour party officials in Britain admitted recently that they had purposely opened the floodgates for the expressed purpose of destroying the White British ethnicity. You may not be seeing your world utterly turned upside down like many of us are in places like South Africa and parts of the United States, but you cannot allow them to do to you what they are doing to us! Support for liberal politicians is support for 50 million africans raping Germanic women in Germanic homelands. You must understand why I feel strongly about this. Open your eyes.


Our numbers are not in decline, in fact we have exploded in numbers. The middle age black plaque wiped off a third of the European (Europe, from France over Germany to the Russian areas) population, that were 25mio who died, the entire population of Europe therefore was 75mio and just a few years after the plaque the number was reached again.

You are talking about many hundreds of years ago, when there were no leftist cultural marxist politicians who would purposely replace the dead with Somalians to prop up the tax base and provide them with eternal power, because negroes always vote for those who take from Whitey and give to them.


Today, Germany alone has more than 80mio people, the entire European (Germanic) population of Europe is about 250mio, plus the about 300mio white Americans. Our numbers are nowhere near 'decline'.

Where have you been? Go outside and walk the streets of any major German city and tell me what proportion of that 80 million looks like true Germanic people to you. And those who look Germanic, are they young or old? Are they past their prime so they will never be able to have another child? The fertility rate amongst Germans in Germany is 1.2. That means there are only an average of 1.2 children born to the average German woman in her lifetime. 2.1 would be the replacement rate, which would allow for some natural decline due to early deaths. At a rate of 1.2, in the next generation, there will be 40% fewer Germans than the present generation, and if nothing is done, again 40% fewer in the generation following, while the muslim population, due to their traditional ways, reproduces at a much higher rate. Remember this when you are 80 years old and Germanic people are a small minority in Germany and you are being stoned to death by muslim thugs because of your liberal views.

Your other figures are even more misleading. Where do you get 250 million Germanic Europeans? As I've shown, you cannot count 100% of the population as Germanic, and the 300 million figure for "White" Americans is a complete fantasy (and I know Hauke will choke when he sees the term "White Americans.") Even going by the census, which shows a "White" population now under 70%, that is a poor trend when we were at a stable 90% 40 years ago. And that part of the "White" figure is not 100% Germanic either, though Germanic elements are probably the most dominant, through English, German, and Scandinavian antecedents. Most of these people are suffering the same demographic decline as their cousins in Europe, though. And they are not being encouraged by the anti-White leftists in charge of the schools and media either. When, as a child and young teen, you are told that you are an evil race, that you butchered the indians, gassed the jews and lynched poor negroes unjustly (all blown out of proportion and repeated ad nauseam), you become infused with guilt and think yourself unworthy to live, certainly unworthy to live as a people. Why do you think so many Whites here voted for the negro? They have low self esteem inflicted by anti-White leftists. Surely they do the same to you in Germany.. tell you how evil Germans murdered jews and that you are rich so you should feed the world and if you are a woman you should not marry and have children because that wastes your life.. you should have a career and not care about family.. blah blah.

These policies leading to our decline have all been implemented by the left. Masterminded by jews, yes, but championed by people like Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden as well. And now Obama. Obama and his administration are in open war against the White man. Evil Whitey. Kill Whitey. "America is now South Africa Lite" (no disrespect intended to our SA brethren, I know your situation is a lot worse.) When the Obama-era democrats talk about the "disadvantaged," they mean the non-Whites. Affirmative action assures White men that they will not be considered for top jobs or indeed any jobs when a black woman can be hired instead. Universities are the same way. To be White is to be marginalized now in the US. Be warned, leftist policies will do the same to Germany and the rest of Europe as well.


It is open to discussion if we can save our races and cultures if we turn ourselves into just another third-world population by over-reproduction.

We will not be able to outbreed the other races. We are just a bit over half a billion all in all, while the other races start off, when we take 'now' into account, with already 6,2bio. In ten years there will be over 10bio human beings on this earth, in 20 years most likely far over 20bio.
In fact, humans are too many. This earth is limited. It doesn't grow, it doesn't get out of nowhere new soil where humans can live and grow their corn and keep their cattle. This space is limited.
Overpopulation, and we already have over population, even the white race, will not help us.

If we don't learn to keep the other races out of our homelands, we will wither away, whether we breed like rabbits or not.

This blubbering about the population decline is just another Jewish nonsense to justify mass immigration. It is Jews who need an ever growing population to exploit and enslave them in their businesses. Jews know that large populations dont work, in cities there are no 'communities'. This is why Jews run these kibuz villages, where they raise their racially full aware youth and to send them out into the world wide think tanks (CoFR, ADL...). Big cities are just another mean to destroy the coherence of our people.
When you start breeding like rabbits, you will produce just more cities, cities in which every folkish awareness will cease to exist.

Instead of fantasising about outbreeding other races, which is pure nonsense, think about how to reduce other numbers. Specially on our soils. Keep them out and care that they dont come back. Leave them to themselves and countries like China and India will just collapse, all the high population countries in Africa would just die out when we stop sending tons and tons of medicine and countless helpers there to pamper them.

We do not need to outbreed other races. We simply need to raise our fertility rates to replacement level and keep out the foreigners. We also need to restore a positive attitude in our people towards themselves as a group. Some of these things can be done on an individual basis. I feel good about one small thing I've done by encouraging my Dutch friend and his very Germanic American wife to have children, and they now have two. I have encouraged others whose minds have been warped by this jewish dogma of not caring about our legacy and worrying about overpopulation. It's not high IQ Germanic people who should stop breeding to stop overpopulation, its the hordes of low-IQ third worlders who need to stop breeding. Without our people, who will solve the problems of the world?

I agree that our homogeneous communities are our vital lifelines, but as I've said, these are under attack from the left. Modern leftist philosophy is primarily anti-White, anti-Germanic, jewish cultural marxism. It will show its true face in Germany, as well, as soon as it does not need German votes anymore. I'm afraid you need to rethink your political views if you want to save your people from what's happening in Britain and America and South Africa. The left is the enemy of our blood.

Nordlander
Thursday, November 12th, 2009, 01:51 PM
I personally love children ,and it was only my warrior life as a United States Marine that kept me from having made more than my beautiful Daughter.I also realize that nature is flawed and some people should not be allowed to procreate.I put homosexuals in this category.To allow homosexuals to raise children is a terrible injustice to the child as a child will think this is normal and grow up totally screwed up.It is just as bad as having two drug addicts or alchoholis in the house ,as children grow up learning by example.I personally find homosexuals repulsive .I cannot understand (from a mans point of view) how a man can not find the most beautiful of natures creatures ;the Arian Woman unnatractive.Just look at the thread on this forum of the most beautiful Germanic women and se what I am saying.The great beaty of the Arian Woman is one of the wonders of nature.

VergesEngst
Thursday, November 12th, 2009, 02:21 PM
I am not hypothesizing, and we are not in some isolated bubble where we can mentally masturbate about this problem. We are a people whose numbers are declining dramatically, and you want to debate whether or not we should have children while mexicans, negroes, and muslims outbreed us into extinction. You act as though you don't care about this. Tell me, why are you here? You do seem quite willing to prove my point about liberals.

Just because someone reaches different conclusions than you do, doesn't mean they don't care or that they don't understand.

Whether you recognize it or not, you ARE hypothesizing. You are hypothesizing that the best way to get a strong, stable (or even growing) population is to simply maximize fertility rates.


I quite simply don't think that's true. I don't think evidence is consistent with it, and I don't think that it's even logical.

You think that by merely having more children, all other things will remain constant: the quality of the people produced, the quality of their lifestyles, the ability to retain values and culture. As Velvet said, it's not really clear that the way to keep a race healthy and strong is to simply over-breed until you look the same as the third-world countries: desperate poverty and an inability to maintain any kind of cultural quality because of it.


I'll return to what I said before: There is a lot of evidence that genetically -- from an evolutionary standpoint -- you increase the strength of a population and its chances for success when a certain percentage of the population spends time caring for society, and the offspring of their relatives, rather than having children themselves. Whether you can or cannot accept this scientific fact is really something you have to deal with yourself.


But the fact remains. And I would even suggest further (based on my own intuition) that it not only strengthens the biological, evolutionary chances of success of the group's genes.... but also increases the chances of success of the culture and society, as well.

velvet
Thursday, November 12th, 2009, 03:22 PM
To support liberal politicians is to support the cultural marxist anti-White anti-Germanic agenda they press upon us. It is remarkably uniform throughout the West. One of the Labour party officials in Britain admitted recently that they had purposely opened the floodgates for the expressed purpose of destroying the White British ethnicity. You may not be seeing your world utterly turned upside down like many of us are in places like South Africa and parts of the United States, but you cannot allow them to do to you what they are doing to us! Support for liberal politicians is support for 50 million africans raping Germanic women in Germanic homelands. You must understand why I feel strongly about this. Open your eyes.

I do understand you, but I urge you to think about your own stance. Yes, the current left is a dangerous concept, but conservatism isnt a solution either. In Germany it has been conservative parties who pushed through the 'work immigrants' in the 50s against the opposition of the 'left' parties and the work unions, it is conservative parties who push through Sharia law, etc.

I dont care about these concepts, left, right, middle, conservative, generic conservatives (the most worse of all). It's all the same nonsense, these concepts are designed by Jews, none of them represent anything near our real nature. You shouldnt subscripe to any of such concepts, they just keep you from focusing on the real enemy: the Jews.


You are talking about many hundreds of years ago

No, I'm pointing out that we constantly rose in numbers.



Where have you been? Go outside and walk the streets of any major German city and tell me what proportion of that 80 million looks like true Germanic people to you. And those who look Germanic, are they young or old? Are they past their prime so they will never be able to have another child? The fertility rate amongst Germans in Germany is 1.2. That means there are only an average of 1.2 children born to the average German woman in her lifetime. 2.1 would be the replacement rate, which would allow for some natural decline due to early deaths. At a rate of 1.2, in the next generation, there will be 40% fewer Germans than the present generation, and if nothing is done, again 40% fewer in the generation following, while the muslim population, due to their traditional ways, reproduces at a much higher rate. Remember this when you are 80 years old and Germanic people are a small minority in Germany and you are being stoned to death by muslim thugs because of your liberal views.

Replacement rate, just another term.
Judging by some numbers, of the ~83mio people here about 70mio are real Germans.

But why dont you want to do something against the muslims that will according to you at some point stone me? Why are conservatives more eager to fantasise about some weird (and basically semitic) morals than to fight the invasion?

You see, people here would get more children, when there would be a save environment, without countless hostile foreigners. But nothing is done. Instead, people are attacked for their allegedly leftist opinion, while all these wanna-be anti-feminist, anti-left, anti-freedom and anti-liberty conservatives sit on their asses and watch their countries going down in a third-world invasion mess.



When, as a child and young teen, you are told that you are an evil race, that you butchered the indians, gassed the jews and lynched poor negroes unjustly (all blown out of proportion and repeated ad nauseam), you become infused with guilt and think yourself unworthy to live, certainly unworthy to live as a people. Why do you think so many Whites here voted for the negro? They have low self esteem inflicted by anti-White leftists. Surely they do the same to you in Germany.. tell you how evil Germans murdered jews and that you are rich so you should feed the world and if you are a woman you should not marry and have children because that wastes your life.. you should have a career and not care about family.. blah blah.

So, please my conservative hero, kick those freaks out of your policy centers and throw out all the foreign scum.
Unless you didnt, dont tell people that they should produce 20+ children to catch up with the third world population.



These policies leading to our decline have all been implemented by the left. Masterminded by jews, yes, but championed by people like Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden as well.

You dont understand the game. These peoples are just figures, actors paid to sell these policies to the populace. You think Bush was better? Member of Council of Foreign Relations. This is the pool where all your recent politicians came from, it is all and without exception the same nonsense.
And yes, it is these very same institutions who design European policy as well.


And now Obama. Obama and his administration are in open war against the White man. Evil Whitey. Kill Whitey. "America is now South Africa Lite" (no disrespect intended to our SA brethren, I know your situation is a lot worse.) When the Obama-era democrats talk about the "disadvantaged," they mean the non-Whites. Affirmative action assures White men that they will not be considered for top jobs or indeed any jobs when a black woman can be hired instead. Universities are the same way. To be White is to be marginalized now in the US. Be warned, leftist policies will do the same to Germany and the rest of Europe as well.

I have to correct you. It is American policy that will do the same to Germany. Germany is not a souvereign country, it is ruled by America. Since WWII Germany exists under American martial law. Germany is listed in UN chartas as 'enemy state'. This status is still active. America can command our soldiers to any war they want. But more important is, America decides over candidates for political positions. Indeed they are German, but they do what America wants.

Do you really think the European Union would be a european invention? No, it's not. It is an invention brought by Americans and sold as an 'economical counterforce to America'. In fact, America determines how this economy is run, to whom we are allowed to sell. The so-called 'world market' exists in a bubble in Wall Street, the entire money business of the world exists in the same bubble. The crisis is generated to deprave people of their property and to enslave them with debts for ever in the mills of the financial business, which is entirely Jewish.



We do not need to outbreed other races. We simply need to raise our fertility rates to replacement level and keep out the foreigners. We also need to restore a positive attitude in our people towards themselves as a group. Some of these things can be done on an individual basis.

No, we need to give people a future and a save environment.
We need to get back in charge of our own countries, and when this is successfully done there will be a fertility rate of more than replacement level, even without enforcing reproduction on everyone.

Not everyone can or should reproduce, while others feel happy with having ten+ children. I agree that we should support those as much as possible and that we in general should encourage people to get children, but we also need an environment in which to raise children savely.


I feel good about one small thing I've done by encouraging my Dutch friend and his very Germanic American wife to have children, and they now have two. I have encouraged others whose minds have been warped by this jewish dogma of not caring about our legacy and worrying about overpopulation.

That's fine, but why dont you have children?


It's not high IQ Germanic people who should stop breeding to stop overpopulation, its the hordes of low-IQ third worlders who need to stop breeding. Without our people, who will solve the problems of the world?

Before we start caring about 'the problems of the world' we better start caring about our own problems.

Again, our biggest, and actually THE main problem is that we are not in charge of our own countries. As long as this problem isnt solved, there will be no solution to any of the other problems.



I agree that our homogeneous communities are our vital lifelines, but as I've said, these are under attack from the left. Modern leftist philosophy is primarily anti-White, anti-Germanic, jewish cultural marxism. It will show its true face in Germany, as well, as soon as it does not need German votes anymore. I'm afraid you need to rethink your political views if you want to save your people from what's happening in Britain and America and South Africa. The left is the enemy of our blood.

No, the Jew is the enemy of our blood. As said above, it is all the same nonsense on the political stage, whether you call it left, right, middle, conservative or other nonsense. All these concepts are designed and applied by Jewish think tanks. None of them represents us or our way of life.

Instead of fighting your own people, whether they are confused, brainwashed and misled right now or not, you better start fighting our real enemy. You see, you need to aim your weapon on the shoes behind the curtain, not on the actor in the spotlight. There is no point in shooting the messenger, you should shoot the one who designed the message.

You tell me to wake up? You refuse to see the enemy, the one who is responsible for all that nonsense.

You think the evil Russians had killed half their population in the bolshevik times? Almost 80 percent of the ruling people were Jews, it was Jews who designed mass starving to death, and they watched them and made sure, that noone survives. To subscripe to any of these concepts is to subscripe Jewish agendas, and however they look on their surface, they are all designed to destroy us as a people. This hasnt started after WWII, it has started 1500 years ago, when Semits, Jews and Arabs alike, utilised christianity to save the concept of the (then almost dead) Roman Empire and to spread that all over the world. Today it is called the New World Order or the One World Government, subdivisions of that are America (now the North American Alliance) the European Union, the UdSSR (which was a failed experiment to apply communism, btw a Jewish invention), and that what is to become the east Asian alliance.

Wake up and start fighting the real enemy, instead of random shooting at your own people. Yes, I like my own liberties, that doesnt make me 'left' or a 'feminazi' as generic conservatives like to call that. But I tell you that there is no point to fight the one suppressor to be replaced by another. Fighting the devil with belzebub has brought us over the centuries only deeper and deeper into the mess we find ourselves in. Break the concepts, they are nonsense anyway. When you're not able to make your own mind but need such a concept, you might not be the one to lead us out of our misery.

Honestly, where is the point to bring people to get children, just to expose them to black or muslim violence? Create a save environment for our people, then people will automatically reproduce more. This is the most urging problem, and nothing what you do on an 'individual level' with change the least. Right now, each child born is a born slave to the NWO.

Hauke Haien
Friday, November 13th, 2009, 09:12 AM
Your entire environment was (and is) christian, whether you visit church every week doesnt matter. Our entire society is christian, even convinced atheists are heavily influenced by christian moral teaching, even if they never in their life saw a church from the inside.
So, even when the 'topic' itself wasnt brought up, you still are influenced by the thoughts that flow through your direct environment, whether you actually notice that or not.
Your entire approach smacks of a Christian bias that considers all pre-Christian beliefs to be a perfect antithesis to Christian doctrine, even if they could not have possible known or cared about what Christianity thinks. The bible is not the revealed word of God; making an effort to counteract it at all times is therefore pointless. In case you are interested, you can stop being a Christian by shifting your mindset outside of this sad antagonism.

What the ancients found objectionable about homosexuality was what is now colloquially known as "faggotry" among males and unmarried childlessness among both genders. The concept of a homosexual identity protected by individual rights would not have occurred to anyone, since it is rooted in Enlightenment, which is Christianity at its most primitive, without mystery and authority, leaving behind a collection of dumb ideas to cherry-pick from. The notion that the liberal/libertarian clowns in the circus of modern politics represent an undiminished reflection of Germanic tradition is a cruel joke.


Today, Germany alone has more than 80mio people, the entire european (Germanic) population of Europe is about 250mio, plus the about 300mio white Americans. Our numbers are nowhere near 'decline'.
They are not our numbers.


It is open to discussion if we can save our races and cultures if we turn ourselves into just another third-world population by over-reproduction.
The idea of a limited rescue plan is pointless and misconceived. A people should have as many children as they like. If that means they have none or perhaps one, then they lack the vitality and outward pressure that allows them to compete and they are certain to be defeated in the end. If their approach to life has such an effect, then it is not an approach to life at all.


Instead of fantasising about outbreeding other races, which is pure nonsense, think about how to reduce other numbers.
A false dichotomy and a false priority. What is most important to us is that we thrive. That others suffer under our power is just a necessary side effect.


Specially on our soils. Keep them out and care that they dont come back.
Pure fantasy. It will take countless generational cycles to regain the power we have lost.

velvet
Friday, November 13th, 2009, 11:57 AM
They are not our numbers.

No, and the problem with people like you and Jäger is that you would happily press the red button to wipe off everything non-German, regardless of Germanic or not :thumbdown



The idea of a limited rescue plan is pointless and misconceived. A people should have as many children as they like.

And why is it that mr superelite does not have any children?


If that means they have none or perhaps one, then they lack the vitality and outward pressure that allows them to compete and they are certain to be defeated in the end. If their approach to life has such an effect, then it is not an approach to life at all.

The over idolising of this funny 'all for the community' that some people spouse here is pure nonsense, and I will not take part in that.
In contrast to you I can accept people who decide to live another life, and as long as they dont hurt anyone I see no reason to intervene or to force them to be like mr superelite wants them.

Humans are different, different doesnt mean necessarily negative, in fact I think that the difference is one of our strengths. But for someone who tries to restore the prussian empire (where other folks have a state, prussia has a folk), this might not be obvious.


A false dichotomy and a false priority. What is most important to us is that we thrive. That others suffer under our power is just a necessary side effect.

Thriving on your own is something very different from demanding that we try to outbreed other races. A thing that is simply impossible.


Pure fantasy. It will take countless generational cycles to regain the power we have lost.

False stance. If we dont get back the power soon, there will be no more generation cycles, they will end in about 50 years, at latest.

VergesEngst
Friday, November 13th, 2009, 12:40 PM
A people should have as many children as they like.

We agree!!!!!!


If that means they have none or perhaps one, then they lack the vitality and outward pressure that allows them to compete and they are certain to be defeated in the end.

Oh no! We disagree!

But at least we agree that people should be able to do what they want. And in the end, the question is an empirical one: which type of society gets stronger, both culturally AND in numbers? The one that pressures every single person to have as many offspring as possible, or the one that allows for and even encourages a certain small proportion of its members to educate, build, and do all of the work of society WITHOUT reproducing?

We will see. Actually, look around.. maybe we HAVE seen. India and Mexico aren't winning any competitions for cultural quality.





Your basic premise is simply BIOLOGICALLY wrong. You forget that your brother has half of your genes. If he has no children, but helps make your children twice as strong, then he has been successful, from an evolutionary point of view.

Hauke Haien
Friday, November 13th, 2009, 01:06 PM
No, and the problem with people like you and Jäger is that you would happily press the red button to wipe off everything non-German, regardless of Germanic or not :thumbdown
There is no need to be so harsh, some of their shattered pieces can be recycled and reformed.


The idea of a limited rescue plan is pointless and misconceived. A people should have as many children as they like.

And why is it that mr superelite does not have any children?
The answer is already obvious in the text you have quoted: The nominated 'mr superelite' has not wanted any so far. If people maintain this attitude until the end of their reproductive ability, their lines break and end as well. That is not an accusation, it is just what happens. I do not believe in emotional appeals as a remedy to this problem, if it is even perceived as a problem anymore; it is clearly necessary to re-engineer a world view to get even close to anything resembling health under current circumstances, which only allow for a voluntary implementation, and are likely to deteriorate further.


The over idolising of this funny 'all for the community' that some people spouse here is pure nonsense, and I will not take part in that.
I agree, it is preferable to see the expanding family as a social structure of its own, perhaps in coalition with others, rather than as an extension of currently decaying structures.


In contrast to you I can accept people who decide to live another life, and as long as they dont hurt anyone I see no reason to intervene or to force them to be like mr superelite wants them.
Disruptive and uncooperative behaviour can also harm the group and necessitates intervention insofar as it is possible and applicable.


Humans are different, different doesnt mean necessarily negative, in fact I think that the difference is one of our strengths.
There are different strengths, but difference is not a strength in itself. It fosters a lack of solidarity and cohesion, which leads to a loss of direction. In that case everything is permissible, but nothing is meaningful.


But for someone who tries to restore the prussian empire (where other folks have a state, prussia has a folk), this might not be obvious.
"Prussia was not a state with an army, but an army with a state."


Thriving on your own is something very different from demanding that we try to outbreed other races. A thing that is simply impossible.
The fact the we exist is evidence that it is possible, it is just a question of whether it continues favourably. I am not demanding anything, I am pointing out that it is not happening and your response is nothing but contempt for people who successfully exploit our unwillingness to live. I do not know what that is supposed to achieve.


False stance. If we dont get back the power soon, there will be no more generation cycles, they will end in about 50 years, at latest.
The application of power depends on people who wield it; ideas, money, matter of any other sort is auxiliary. A plan that carries us barely toward the end of our own lifetime is of no use without a trajectory toward eternity, to be pursued and purposefully modified through the generations.

VergesEngst
Friday, November 13th, 2009, 01:53 PM
The nominated 'mr superelite' has not wanted any so far. If people maintain this attitude until the end of their reproductive ability, their lines break and end as well. That is not an accusation, it is just what happens.

I'm very sorry to nit-pick on this point so persistently, but as I've said before, this is a mis-understanding of one of the basic process of evolution.

Other members of your family share your genes. This is crucial.

Evolution works on populations of genes, not on individuals. Every generation of a family can have some members who do not produce offspring, without diminishing the ability of the family gene pool to go on. Indeed, to the extent that the members who do not reproduce contribute to gathering food, providing protection and shelter, educating the young, etc, they actually INCREASE the fitness of the family gene pool because they increase the strength of the family as a whole, and increase the chances for reproducive success of their siblings' offspring.

And to the extent that having slightly fewer numbers in population of each generation that result will result in less competition for scarce resources within the family, this could also lead to INCREASED success of the family gene pool because each child that is produced will get a larger slice of the pie: better education, more food, more attention.


This is one of the mechanisms through which evolution actually works. Saying to each individual, "if YOU don't reproduce yourself, then you are decreasing the fitness of your genes" is just.... well, wrong.


This is biological fact. I personally also believe that it is true culturally, as well. The more time a community can focus on raising a solid population of children with good values, the better.... and I think that is more important than just churning out as many babies as possible, with the potential for not being able to educate them properly as a result. (see, e.g., Mexico).

Hauke Haien
Friday, November 13th, 2009, 03:18 PM
Your basic premise is simply BIOLOGICALLY wrong. You forget that your brother has half of your genes. If he has no children, but helps make your children twice as strong, then he has been successful, from an evolutionary point of view.

Evolution works on populations of genes, not on individuals.
This thread assumes the point of view of the individual ('Why Don't You Have Children?'), which is why I focus on the individual and its connection to the group.


Every generation of a family can have some members who do not produce offspring, without diminishing the ability of the family gene pool to go on.
That is beside the point.


Indeed, to the extent that the members who do not reproduce contribute to gathering food, providing protection and shelter, educating the young, etc, they actually INCREASE the fitness of the family gene pool because they increase the strength of the family as a whole, and increase the chances for reproducive success of their siblings' offspring.
Fitness is not merely a chance of reproducing at all, it is about quantity. There is an exploitable effect here, but reducing the number of offspring is the opposite of fitness.


And to the extent that having slightly fewer numbers in population of each generation that result will result in less competition for scarce resources within the family, this could also lead to INCREASED success of the family gene pool because each child that is produced will get a larger slice of the pie: better education, more food, more attention.
Quite wrong, a reduction in quantity means reduced success by definition.

Your idea of concentrating resources also remains possible with additional offspring. Limiting the number of offspring means limiting the number of people who can simultaneously work on acquiring further resources and, more generally, group size.


This is one of the mechanisms through which evolution actually works. Saying to each individual, "if YOU don't reproduce yourself, then you are decreasing the fitness of your genes" is just.... well, wrong.
Yet my real quotes read "A people..." and again "If people..."


This is biological fact. I personally also believe that it is true culturally, as well. The more time a community can focus on raising a solid population of children with good values, the better.... and I think that is more important than just churning out as many babies as possible, with the potential for not being able to educate them properly as a result.
We average at 1.35 children. The fact that the federal republic is unable to educate them properly does not mean that it is not possible, or even for greater numbers than that.

VergesEngst
Friday, November 13th, 2009, 04:03 PM
[...] a reduction in quantity means reduced success by definition.

We may simply have to agree to disagree on this point, then. To me, the success of a society is judged by the culture it produces, its heritage, and the virtues of its people... whether it is a village or a nation.

The number of members is not a factor in my definition of cultural success. What matters is survival of values and culture and heritage: as long as those things go on, and are pure and strong within the group, it isn't "better" or "worse" if it is embodied by 100 people or 100,000,000.

Good discussion, though; I thank you for it.

Siebenbürgerin
Friday, November 13th, 2009, 04:06 PM
That's fine, but why dont you have children?
That's the key question of my thread and I'm hoping more members answer it than debate away from the original question. If the lack of children is a problem, we've to identify the causes peoples, especially the nationalist ones as the ones who frequent this site, aren't having any. If we don't identify the cause we can't find solutions.

Hmm, I think I've elaborated my reasons before: I'm waiting to see if my relation will be a serious one (i.e. marriage), because I don't want children out of wedlock. I'm waiting to finish the university and move with my boyfriend to Germany, receive citisenship based on our German ancestry and hopefully become financially stable.

velvet
Friday, November 13th, 2009, 04:20 PM
There is no need to be so harsh, some of their shattered pieces can be recycled and reformed.

I think that the several Germanic nations dont need to be re-integrated into Germany. In fact I believe that only several strong nations can probably save our races over the next few decades, a single nation will not reach anything.



The answer is already obvious in the text you have quoted: The nominated 'mr superelite' has not wanted any so far. If people maintain this attitude until the end of their reproductive ability, their lines break and end as well. That is not an accusation, it is just what happens. I do not believe in emotional appeals as a remedy to this problem, if it is even perceived as a problem anymore; it is clearly necessary to re-engineer a world view to get even close to anything resembling health under current circumstances, which only allow for a voluntary implementation, and are likely to deteriorate further.

Fine, you dont want any. You use your free choice, but at the same time demand that people, and specially in the context of the post I made we are talking about 'genetic defect' people, dont care about their own choice but reproduce what the body can give.
Always funny to find out that despite claiming we all need to be as one, some still are outside that definition.


I agree, it is preferable to see the expanding family as a social structure of its own, perhaps in coalition with others, rather than as an extension of currently decaying structures.

Indeed, a tribe has a place for everyone.


Disruptive and uncooperative behaviour can also harm the group and necessitates intervention insofar as it is possible and applicable.

Disruptive and uncooperative behavior? Please define.

And honestly, I find a homosexual who decides not to reproduce 'different', and also cooperative, and not the least disruptive.


There are different strengths, but difference is not a strength in itself. It fosters a lack of solidarity and cohesion, which leads to a loss of direction. In that case everything is permissible, but nothing is meaningful.

Yes, difference is a strength in itself. It causes different talents, different likes and dislikes, different preferencies etc.
When you dont have different people, you end up with a mono-society of, let's say, soldiers only. But you will notice that even among soldiers are differencies, because every single human is different from all others, even identical twins are different. Cohesion and solidarity doesnt come from an enforced none-difference, it comes from social structures.


"Prussia was not a state with an army, but an army with a state."

No need to try that nonsense again, no?


The fact the we exist is evidence that it is possible, it is just a question of whether it continues favourably. I am not demanding anything, I am pointing out that it is not happening and your response is nothing but contempt for people who successfully exploit our unwillingness to live. I do not know what that is supposed to achieve.

As far as I'm aware of history, we didnt outbreed anyone.
All of the folks became ever more and more, which caused at some points battles which solved the space problem for a while.
Battles are an important selection process and a necessary thing to thin out the population (due to a lack of predators). That doesnt happen anymore, a clear negativity in evolutionary terms.

The point is, when we breed like all the other third world populations, we will become a third world population. The level of culture is directly dependend on the size of the population. And this is a field where that saying 'much helps much' does not apply.

There is a point on which size itself becomes a negative factor. I would think, right now, we long have passed this point. Our sheer size is a problem, the more people the less a single one matters, the less a single one matters, the less interest he has in 'community life', and at some point, community life isnt even existent anymore. Every bigger city with atomized individuals will tell you that it's true.


The application of power depends on people who wield it; ideas, money, matter of any other sort is auxiliary. A plan that carries us barely toward the end of our own lifetime is of no use without a trajectory toward eternity, to be pursued and purposefully modified through the generations.

A plan that thinks we would have countless generations to restore any power for ourselves is of no use.
The next generation will, if we havent managed to be back in charge of our own lands, see the final downfall of Germanics. We wont even be outbred, we will just be killed and wiped off. This isnt far away, actually I personally think that it will openly start in five, maximal ten years. So, any plan that aims over the next generation and not for immediatly or at least, the sooner the better, will be of no help, because by then we, as a people, will have ceased to exist.

That this getting back in charge cannot and should not be an end in itself is obvious, and surely it helps to have a vision beyond this point, but it's soon enough when (and if) we are back in charge to start a detailed attempt on that. As you said, it will take generations anyway to really restore that. But it will be pointless when we refuse to react to the immediate problems.

And, I'm also not sure if we should attempt a however formed 'moral' or societal structure from our nowadays point of view at all. This was the weak point in all these systems, to counterforce 'degeneracy' by weird concepts, only bringing forth other forms of degeneracy. In the end, each short-time enforcing of a homogenous group broke up from the inside. This is not a problem caused by the 'wrong' people in charge, it is because the system is wrong.

Bärin
Friday, November 13th, 2009, 04:46 PM
I'm very much against open homosexuality, but since it is a biological given, I usually consider two choices: That people either stay partnerless, or would enter a heterosexual relationship nonetheless, potentially even raising children in the traditional setting.
Homosexuality is a mental illness. Homosexuals shouldn't reproduce at all, simple as that. That's the only right option. Gay parades and gay clubs should be prohibited as well as any public homosexual indecencies.

Besides, what kind of nationalist would enter a relationship with a homosexual? Oh yes, that's right, liberals. :oanieyes

Homosexuals have a predisposition for paedophilia, at least the homosexual men. Don't you read the news about all those paedophile priests, teachers and the like? They have a preference for boys, of the same sex as them. Coincidence? They should be prohibited to be around children. Why would a woman in her right mind want to risk letting her child alone with daddy when he goes to bed, to read him a story? Yeah right. :oanieyes :thumbdown


This is why I wouldn't have a problem with having a bisexual girlfriend, frankly for the reason that whilst she's with me she's obviously with me and favours me as a man, for whatever reason that may be; so the additional attraction to the female body as well as the male body would become a non-issue in such an instance, the girl obviously wouldn't be homosexual during that time, and since I don't date for a particular time but always with the intention to last, hopefully never.
Maybe it's easier to accept for men, but what about a woman? What about when her homosexual husband goes out with his mates for a beer or a football game? Will she be able to sit still at home without worries? I doubt it.

Homosexuals should be banned from having sexual relationships, reproducing, marrying or adopting children. They should breed out instead of transmitting the disgusting gene to next generations and molesting children.

Huginn ok Muninn
Friday, November 13th, 2009, 05:05 PM
The number of members is not a factor in my definition of cultural success. What matters is survival of values and culture and heritage: as long as those things go on, and are pure and strong within the group, it isn't "better" or "worse" if it is embodied by 100 people or 100,000,000

You must believe in absolute autocracy of the elite, then. This happened in Rome, with the imperial families, which became inbred and died out, taking Rome with them.

Or if you are a "liberal" as you say, perhaps you believe in "democracy." Well, then, why don't you ask the Afrikaners here how their people are getting on as a minority among the savages they must endure? Is that a healthy existence? Even without democracy, greater numbers translates to greater influence, all else being equal. Whether that influence is economic, cultural, or military, greater numbers command greater respect.

The more individuals within a society, assuming all else is equal, the better off it is, as long as it owns enough living space to sustain it. This argues true even from your perspective, because more total individuals means more fit individuals and more exceptional individuals in total numbers. If the society is not "liberal" and does not tax the strong to support the weak, the society will gain strength by the perpetuation of the strong. Again, if the society is not "liberal" it will not destroy itself by promoting alien culture over its own or teaching faggotry to five year olds as being something beneficial.

Numbers and geographical spread also enhance survivability. If there is a plague or a natural disaster, or rampaging hutus killing all in their path, the impact is correspondingly lessened and the survivors can rebuild (and develop ways to combat the plague or build a sea wall or take revenge by wiping out the savage hutus.)

Perhaps the best example of quality losing to quantity is World War II. Germany had the best technology, the most efficient society, the best people, and lost because their numbers were too small compared to the hordes of Russia and the United States. They also occupied less space than the latter two, which gave them fewer resources to draw upon. So despite being the superior society, they lost because of lower numbers and smaller living space.

The one example you could point to of success in small numbers is the international jew. This is in fact an extremely unhealthy society, because its existence is predicated upon parasitism. The parasite cannot live without the host, but the host can live a much better existence without the parasite. The inevitable war will decide whether the host lives and grows stronger or both die. The status quo cannot be maintained.

triedandtru
Friday, November 13th, 2009, 05:15 PM
Maybe it's easier to accept for men, but what about a woman? What about when her homosexual husband goes out with his mates for a beer or a football game? Will she be able to sit still at home without worries? I doubt it.

First of all, your avatar is absolutely adorable. :D

Secondly, I agree. There is no way that would not be a concern and stress the relationship, and if the relationship between the parents is stressed it definitely negatively effects the child.

velvet
Friday, November 13th, 2009, 05:50 PM
Again, if the society is not "liberal" it will not destroy itself by promoting alien culture over its own

This is not what 'liberal' intentionally was, and I would assume that attacking 'liberalism' on this false accusation will not help you.

And I remind you, once again, that here in Germany it wasnt the left or the liberals who promoted alien cultures, it were and are so-called conservative parties.
Latest example of outright stupidity in this regard is our CDU saying we need Islam (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=130012) (sorry, in German), a conservative, and actually christian party. The same party that forced foreign workers unto us in the 50s. So maybe you want to start to understand that 'conservatives' arent the goods and 'liberals' the evils. It's not that easy.



@Bärin:
homosexuality is not a mental illness, it is a biological defect. Unlike mental problems this cant be treated.
I agree though that they are, men and women alike, supposed to be genetic deadends and shouldnt reproduce.

VergesEngst
Friday, November 13th, 2009, 06:55 PM
A biological predisposition to schizophrenia is a biological defect, because the appearance of schizophrenia in an individual contributes negatively both to the individual and to the population.

A biological predisposition to attention deficit disorder is (arguably) is an adaptation that has lost its obvious benefit. If you are a hunter, in a hunter-gather society, then it works very much to your advantage if you are easily distracted by movement in your environment, and you are motivated to keep on the move. Now, in today's "desk job" oriented world, it has lost its adaptive value... but it's not a "defect" per se. It's just an adaptation that isn't as adaptive as it used to be.

A biological predisposition to being a leader (extrovert, independent-thinking, able to garner the following of others) had a benefit.... as long as NOT EVERYONE has it. There always have to be followers, or leaders can't be successful. So if there is a specific biological pre-disposition that causes people to be more likely to develop as "leaders", one might say: this biological mechanism helps society, but only as long as it only exists in part of the population at any given point in time.



If there is some biological mechanism that leads individuals to NOT REPRODUCE (whether this mechanism is homosexuality or whatever), the interesting (in my opinion) question is: into which of the above categories does it belong?

Is it like #1, serving no function but a destructive one... a true defect?

Is it like #2, something that evolved as a benefit at some point and now is just an abberation?

Or is it like #3, something that indirectly can help a population, even if it does not do so in an obvious way for the individual, and even if it only helps under certain conditions?


In my opinion, the scientific "jury" is still out on this one. We simply do not know.

VergesEngst
Friday, November 13th, 2009, 06:56 PM
You must believe in absolute autocracy of the elite, then.

Absolutely. I am an elitist to the core. And just because Rome did it wrongly doesn't mean it's the wrong way to go. ;-)

Huginn ok Muninn
Friday, November 13th, 2009, 11:55 PM
This is not what 'liberal' intentionally was, and I would assume that attacking 'liberalism' on this false accusation will not help you.

And I remind you, once again, that here in Germany it wasnt the left or the liberals who promoted alien cultures, it were and are so-called conservative parties.
Latest example of outright stupidity in this regard is our CDU saying we need Islam (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=130012) (sorry, in German), a conservative, and actually christian party. The same party that forced foreign workers unto us in the 50s. So maybe you want to start to understand that 'conservatives' arent the goods and 'liberals' the evils. It's not that easy.

Any party in Germany that doesn't see its leaders mysteriously die in "accidents" is a front for jew interests. Just like here. What once was called "liberalism" has taken on an entirely different meaning by association. It used to mean "freedom." Now, here, it simply means freedom for the negro and the feminist and the homosexual, and taxes and cultural disenfranchisement for Whites. Similarly, the words "gay" used to mean "happy" until it was hijacked by homosexuals. Your CDU was never "conservative," it was just controlled opposition, as our republican party has become. The republican candidate, McCain was what we call a RINO (republican in name only) who actually introduced the bill calling for amnesty for illegal aliens awhile back. All a bunch of traitors.

We can discuss the principles of the 1848 revolutionaries elsewhere, but this is the type of thing I believe you refer to as "liberalism" (where we still may have disagreement.) :P

The topic of the thread concerns the procreation of the Germanic race, I believe. We both want the foreigners (all non- and anti-Germanics) out of our respective countries, and you, I think, have a more valid argument for this, just like the BNP's argument. But we need more than that. We need to extricate the anti-Germanic sentiment as well from the poisoned minds of our people. We need to educate our children in a positive way, against the policies that endanger our people, like feminism and misguided "charity," which feeds africans and helps them to overpopulate the world with their primitive species. And we need to put Germanic people in charge of Germanic media so that our people relate to their own culture and not those the jew wishes us to.

Ulfvaldr
Saturday, November 14th, 2009, 03:12 AM
Well for me its not from a lack of trying :)

velvet
Saturday, November 14th, 2009, 01:19 PM
We can discuss the principles of the 1848 revolutionaries elsewhere, but this is the type of thing I believe you refer to as "liberalism" (where we still may have disagreement.) :P

Well, my knowledge about these concepts is quite superficial. As I said before, I dont care about these concepts, I make my mind to a certain topic on my own, not to fit into a certain concept. ;)


The topic of the thread concerns the procreation of the Germanic race, I believe. We both want the foreigners (all non- and anti-Germanics) out of our respective countries, and you, I think, have a more valid argument for this, just like the BNP's argument. But we need more than that. We need to extricate the anti-Germanic sentiment as well from the poisoned minds of our people. We need to educate our children in a positive way, against the policies that endanger our people, like feminism and misguided "charity," which feeds africans and helps them to overpopulate the world with their primitive species. And we need to put Germanic people in charge of Germanic media so that our people relate to their own culture and not those the jew wishes us to.

Hmm, in Europe this is the same way difficult, I mean, after all Germany was the starting point of the open anti-Germanic and identity destroying propaganda.
I would even tend to think that this idea is a european export to America, although you had the former events of the slaves and Indians. But this open and aggressive anti-white agendas became strong only after WWII.

However, I agree with you on the most parts, we have this sick form of charity and the perverted feminists who even destroy our language with their nonsense here too. As well as disgusting gay pride parades, which I condemn the same way like you do. But instead of just pushing the pendulum into the opposite extreme, I try to understand the reasons for those developments and how to counteract them in a way that they dont become extremes, as I think that every extreme only provokes the next likewise or even more extreme counterreaction. When women finally got equal rights in society, it brought forth extreme, man-hating feminists, when the laws were removed which made homosexuality a crime it brought forth gay pride parades etc. These things are counterreactions to former suppression, and I try to find ways to avoid these extremes.

And I think, this is the 21th century, when we claim to be matured humans with superior think abilities we should also be able to deal with people who dont fit into the 'ideal' like matured people. For thousand years or so we were educated to hate our bodies, our needs, our emotions, our very nature, we are turned into sheeple. It is time to return, and also come to, a stance that is in accordance with nature. When this nature also produces some not so ideal humans, I think our societies should be able, eventually, to deal with that in a matured way. ;)

Devin De Blois
Monday, April 5th, 2010, 01:13 PM
I've actually decided not to because I'm now 30 and for money and genetic reasons (I wear glasses, very skinny, etc.). But I see a lot of people who listed "available" blowing up this section. There's so much relationship talk now, all this counciling, and debating, and banal and inane realtionship shows constantly around. Sheesh! What ever happened to going out and meeting people for real from behind the technology wall and just seeing straight away if you like one another, and lest we forget, it is possible to have a friend of the opposite sex if you're mature and understand the realities of the gender you're dealing with. And like Velvet said, in 10 or 20 years the last thing Euros will be thinking about is relationship issues and attempting to start a family and reproduce if drastic changes aren't made immediately. And it's true that there are enough whites. We'd be just fine without the invaders and if we were more forced to take responsibility of our own and our own families it would make whites more responsible to their kin and those they hold most dear, or should hold most dear to their hearts:the nuclear family. Anyways, just stop...beating around the bush and....pussyfooting about and remember there's nothing wrong with a Germanic male who may be a little bit...hungry and a strong, reasonable woman at his side who remains an open proposition. ;)

Víðálfr
Monday, April 5th, 2010, 08:08 PM
I didn't find yet someone good enough to be the father of my / our children.

Some time ago I thought I would never want to have children, but I've changed my mind meanwhile. I consider the ideal age for a woman to give birth to her first child is somewhere between 19 and 24. Honestly, I feel like getting old. Maybe I will reconsider that opinion, maybe not. Time will tell.

Studies? I'm sick of it. I'd rather have a family, a lovely husband and even more lovely children. I would like to have a more traditional life. I invested a lot in my education, successfully, I would say, as that brought me where I wanted to be and where I am now. But sometimes I feel worthless, with all my diplomas and achievements. Studies can be neverending, so finishing studies is a relative concept, at least for me.

Finding a (good) partner seems to be more difficult than any exams.

OneWolf
Monday, April 5th, 2010, 08:20 PM
I've actually decided not to because I'm now 30 and for money and genetic reasons (I wear glasses, very skinny, etc.).

Devin De Blois,that is one of the saddest sentences I have ever read.Having
children and passing on our genes,unless you are retarded,is really the only
thing that matters in this game called life.
Don't you know that unless you procreate, your genes,which basically means
you,will cease to exist and you will die forever.I don't see how wearing
glasses and being skinny bars you from having children.Don't be so hard on
yourself and go get some tail.;)

Sigurd
Monday, April 5th, 2010, 08:42 PM
I don't see how wearing
glasses and being skinny bars you from having children.Don't be so hard on
yourself and go get some tail.;)

Indeed. If you're skinny, find yourself a more rounded partner. If you're short-sighted find yourself a long-sighted partner and vice-versa. Chances are that it'll balance out. That is if one's really so bothered about that, I for one am dead grateful to be short-sighted, there's probably a few hundred things that have happened a fair distance away I'm glad I didn't need to see. ;)

SaxonPagan
Monday, April 5th, 2010, 09:00 PM
Víðálfr - getting old at 22? Are you kidding?? :-O I always find it very sad when youngsters become demoralised so early in life. What's the big rush here? There are so many women of your age who are saddled with 2/3 kids already and feel that life has passed them by. They will be envying you because you are single and free!

Devin De Blois - so you wear glasses? Big deal! So did I until I got some contact lenses, and then when I got fed up of these I had my eyes lasered so there's at least 2 options for you to consider! As for being skinny, why don't you look on the positive side and see yourself as fit (as opposed to overweight and unfit, like so many folks nowadays!)

And you talk about "genetics" as though your offspring will inevitably be just like you, but my lad is 4" shorter than me and, whereas I'm slim/medium build, he's built like a tank!!! He also has eagle eyesight, absolutely perfect, whereas I was shortsighted from the age of 16. I think people can read far too much into genetics, but even if you did have a child who was skinny , so what? Most women aspire to be slim and having a girl with a "skinny" father would be advantageous for her ... I'm sure she'd thank you for it one day! :)

Ralf
Tuesday, April 6th, 2010, 12:12 AM
No, no. I'm not a feminist or something like that. I didn't choose to be a lesbian. I dated men, but I never felt any sexual attraction towards them. I could fall in love with a man only mentally (emotionally). I am attracted to the female body. It's hard to explain to someone who doesn't feel the same thing. But just think about being attracted to women, as a man. Did you decide to be like that? Unlikely. Neither did I.


.
Hi Gudrun, Hope you dont mind me asking, you say you can fall in Love with a man emotionally, but are attracted to the female body.

Do you fall in Love with a Woman emotionally?, more or less than with a man?

If its less than with a man, do you think the sexual attraction is more important than the Love?

Its probably academic to me now as Iam too old to be Loved, but when I was younger I seemed to be emotionally attracted to some women but the sexual attraction wasnt so strong, or very sexually attracted to others but didnt even really like them much as people.

Siebenbürgerin
Tuesday, April 6th, 2010, 01:58 PM
Studies? I'm sick of it. I'd rather have a family, a lovely husband and even more lovely children. I would like to have a more traditional life. I invested a lot in my education, successfully, I would say, as that brought me where I wanted to be and where I am now. But sometimes I feel worthless, with all my diplomas and achievements. Studies can be neverending, so finishing studies is a relative concept, at least for me.
You've a good point Víðálfr, but studies aren't completely worthless either. Because they can serve in some potential situations. Some peoples take you seriously only if you've graduated and have a diploma. I know many peoples who are influenced by articles if they're written by someone with a Ph.D. ;)

The studies could also come in handy if you don't find a suitable partner to support you or something goes wrong in the marriage. It's not totally indicated to fully depend on someone else. Because nowadays the breakup and divorces are more and more common.

I'd like the traditional way myself, but the situation in this country and the entire Europe to an extent makes it difficult to have a numerous family (which nowadays means more than 2 children) without both parents working at some point, or the parent working having a very well paid job. Here for instance it's a challenge to live by yourself from a teacher's salary, let alone to support an entire family. I know many examples of families of teachers where both in the couple work (teach) and have bad salaries, so they have to resort to giving private meditations which brings a little bit more money, but sometimes the husband has to work double jobs. :|

Víðálfr
Tuesday, April 6th, 2010, 03:24 PM
Because nowadays the breakup and divorces are more and more common.
I'd like to be more optimistic, as some people aren't so much influenced by those trends. But indeed, you can never know. It's better to be prepared for any situation.


I'd like the traditional way myself, but the situation in this country and the entire Europe to an extent makes it difficult to have a numerous family (which nowadays means more than 2 children) without both parents working at some point, or the parent working having a very well paid job.
Sad but true. If things continue that way, in some generations there would be a predominant Gypsie population. They have plenty of children. At least I know for sure that in some villages things went that way, in the last decades.

It seems, unfortunately, that too many people worth having children have less, or later in life, because of those financial matters. I really hope things will change, otherwise I can't see a bright future for Europe, generally speaking.



Here for instance it's a challenge to live by yourself from a teacher's salary, let alone to support an entire family. I know many examples of families of teachers where both in the couple work (teach) and have bad salaries, so they have to resort to giving private meditations which brings a little bit more money, but sometimes the husband has to work double jobs. :|
When I was very little, my mother didn't worked, so my father had two jobs to sustain us. It was a hard time, I can remember it. Even after that, my father had two jobs, because my mother's salary was so little. (both my parents are teachers)

I wonder how things will work in the following years there (thanks God I'll be far away) regarding the education problem and the teachers' salaries. I've heard they want to dismiss lots of teachers starting the next autumn.

Private meditations work well if you're a Language or Mathematics teacher... but if you're a Physics teacher, or Chemistry, or even Biology teacher, for example, I don't see how things may work. I knew even students who were giving meditations, cheaper than the teachers, to make some extra-money.

Devin De Blois
Wednesday, April 7th, 2010, 02:48 AM
My apologies follks, I actually forgot to add that the reason I don't intend to have children is because I just simply don't want to, in addition to the genetic reasons I listed. But I don't quite understand, because even if I don't procreate my soul will still live on. And actually, since I just got out of a 4 year relationship recently, I'm kind of burnt for the time being plus I have to move now. But no worries, I'll be fine and chasing tail soon my friend! ;)


Devin De Blois,that is one of the saddest sentences I have ever read.Having
children and passing on our genes,unless you are retarded,is really the only
thing that matters in this game called life.
Don't you know that unless you procreate, your genes,which basically means
you,will cease to exist and you will die forever.I don't see how wearing
glasses and being skinny bars you from having children.Don't be so hard on
yourself and go get some tail.;)

OnePercent
Wednesday, April 7th, 2010, 04:01 AM
Speaking from my own experience I can tell you that I went through the first 30 years of my life fearing the possibility that I might have a child. Then my little girl was born and I now understand just how foolish my fears were. Having children is easily the greatest thing that has ever happened in my life. I now find it ironic that for so much of my life I was afraid to have kids and now one of my biggest regrets is not having had children earlier in life, which brings me to my point. Life is too short to put off starting a family.

I feel very sorry for anyone who does not get to experience the joy of having a child, because there is nothing else like it in the sum of human experience. Trying to explain to a non-parent what having a child is like is similar to trying to explain the color red to a blind person, the words just don't convey the reality.

Of course, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but generally speaking I think most parents would agree with me.

EQ Fighter
Wednesday, April 7th, 2010, 05:56 AM
Its probably academic to me now as Iam too old to be Loved, but when I was younger I seemed to be emotionally attracted to some women but the sexual attraction wasnt so strong, or very sexually attracted to others but didnt even really like them much as people.

You know as people age, women tend to out number men, so if you are looking for a mate, it is not too late, as long as you don't expect her to look like a 20 year old model. Look for someone in your own age range and you should have no problem :thumbup



I wonder how things will work in the following years there (thanks God I'll be far away) regarding the education problem and the teachers' salaries. I've heard they want to dismiss lots of teachers starting the next autumn.

Private meditations work well if you're a Language or Mathematics teacher... but if you're a Physics teacher, or Chemistry, or even Biology teacher, for example, I don't see how things may work. I knew even students who were giving meditations, cheaper than the teachers, to make some extra-money.

Education is a great thing if you are going to use it for something. But it is no substitute for practical everyday skills. The Old USSR is a perfect example of what happens when you have a retreating economy, certain jobs simply become obsolete or of less value, in which case those jobs and the education surrounding them is no longer supported.

Also many young people train for jobs they want and not the ones that will actually be available to them. A practical job is always more valuable than a popular one.

Huginn ok Muninn
Wednesday, April 7th, 2010, 06:42 AM
Why have I not had children? I probably would have, had the following conditions been in place:

1.) A homogeneous nation to live in, where every female of roughly my age would have been compatible and acceptable to me on some level. The odds are a lot better for finding someone this way.

2.) If, when I did find a woman bright enough to consider spending my life with, she had not been totally consumed by her studies or career (or maybe she actually just found me repulsive because I wasn't rich or for whatever reason imperfect.)

3.) If the culture had not been forcibly changed by the frankfurt school jews in the sixties, where parents once encouraged young people to get married and start a family, and might even help this along in one way or another, now children are encouraged to go to college and get a job and that's it. They are not even encouraged to get a job that pays a lot, just to "find themselves" or some other jewberal nonsense. By the time I figured out on my own how things should be, I was too poor and stuck in an area where the only women who were interested were mexicans, or divorced dumb women with 4 kids by another man and who had had hysterectomies, or other unsuitable people. And if (as was perfectly normal 100 years ago) a man in his 20s or 30s even looks at a high school aged girl now he is a "pedophile" (another mania inflicted by the frankfurt school to reduce marriage and reproduction among the goyim.) I'm glad my Great Grandparents were not inflicted by this societal tyranny, or I never would have been born. He was 27 and she was 16 when they married.

These people who purposely strangle society (and it absolutely IS by design) all deserve to be tortured to death, because that is what they have been doing to the rest of us for decades. :mad

ulvhedhnar
Wednesday, April 7th, 2010, 07:27 AM
I don't have children yet, because, well, it just hasn't happened yet. Simple to the point. We're trying though. :-) Can't wait to have little heathens running around.

tomtom
Wednesday, April 7th, 2010, 07:40 AM
I don't have children mainly because I don't like the world we live in today. I have always been an idealist. There are too many things I would change about the world if I had the opportunity to do so. People don't treat one another with respect, empathy, compassion, courtesy and honor, etc. However, I do have eight brothers and sisters who all have children. I consider their children as my children.

OneWolf
Wednesday, April 7th, 2010, 08:11 AM
I feel very sorry for anyone who does not get to experience the joy of having a child, because there is nothing else like it in the sum of human experience. Trying to explain to a non-parent what having a child is like is similar to trying to explain the color red to a blind person, the words just don't convey the reality.

Having Children is a wonderful experience.Seeing you in their faces and in
their actions is the ultimate gift one could ever give himself/herself.
You will never know true love until you have children my friends.I hope each
and every one of you who do not have children get to experience raising a
child before time passes you by.:thumbup

Blod og Jord
Wednesday, April 7th, 2010, 09:46 AM
The main reason right now is because I don't have a partner.
My relationships of late haven't been stable.
Before thinking of children, I want to make sure the person I'm with is suitable as a companion for me and a future father in my family.

Ralf
Wednesday, April 7th, 2010, 09:54 AM
I've actually decided not to because I'm now 30 and for money and genetic reasons (I wear glasses, very skinny, etc.).

I used to wear glasses, my observation is that a high proportion of intelligent people do, surely such genes should be continued?

I was allways skinny, at least that was how I felt in comparison to all the overweight that have become the norm in the West and who wouldnt stand a chance if they had to survive in the way an African bush man does.

It was only in my mid 40s I started putting on weight and looking "normal", I can tell you, its much better to be skinny, without a load of lard flopping up and down when you ride a horse, looking disgusting from the side when you bend over, Iam trying to get skinny again, I have a BMI of 19.7 which they tell me is good, but I still feel like Mr Blobby compared to how good everything feels when your not separated from the world by blubber, what must it be like for all the normal people carrying around a load of useless fat?

Bleyer
Wednesday, April 7th, 2010, 10:15 AM
I'm trying to secure a future as a provider first, establish in a fit location and buy a good home, and then I will think about having children.

jacktheknife
Wednesday, April 7th, 2010, 02:30 PM
Gentlemen,

I was asked the same question in rehab.
{Not drug rehab, I was in a bad wreck}
{Baylor Hospital severe, traumatic, brain injury, rehab ward}

"Jack, why don't you have any children"?
I answered, after thinking about it for a few seconds,
"because I always pull out on time."
{The room full of people all burst out laughing}
Hey! those are all clean words!
I thought about that for a long time before I said anything!
I was real careful about...
that...
too...
That really brought down the house.

One black school teacher said:
"All Leroy had to do was to pull out on time,
and we wouldn't have 'fo' grown kids at home dirtying up dishes
all day for me to wash after working all day,
then I cook dinner and then clean up that mess too.
All he had to do was to pull out on time.
Ha Ha...

But seriously...
Because 'the one I wanted' married someone else.
It happened a long time ago, 13 days out of high school.
June 13th 1969.
A rookie cop needed a bust so I never married Angela.
We went together all during Jr. high and high school.
She is the chick I would have married and had kids with,
but 'a rookie cop needed a bust'.
13 days out of high school...

A 26 year old, cigar smoking cop,
came screeching around the corner,
jumped out and was hassling us.
Angela had a matchbox and I had a joint.
I saw terror in her eyes...
and got out of the cop car and started walking off
to draw him away from her.
I heard Angela say:
"Don't shoot him!"
was jumped from behind and choked unconscious.
Got busted and got probation,
and the cop would go by Angela's house,
order parents out of the room and ask her out.
{She was 17 years old}
Her parents hated me then.

She married some short guy and had a kid,
soon divorced, but I never saw her again.
The cop was kicked off the police department for choking a minor unconscious after being handcuffed.
And is still selling used cars at some shixxx job
in the run down part of town,
unless he has smoked or drank his self to death.

Now I am 58 years old and
I don't think the world is a fit place to live.
The world is sxxx and there's no fixing it.
I will live alone with my hounds and my saddle mule,
my poultry.
I wouldn't leave my genes here
as I consider the world to not be a fit place to live.
I am still bitter as hell,
41 years later,
but now I don't like kids anyway,
didn't like being a kid and wouldn't wish it on any body.
Sad but true.


Tschüß



J. Winters von Knife
http://jacksknifeshop.tripod.com/

Hamar Fox
Wednesday, April 7th, 2010, 05:03 PM
The prevalence of whites not liking children, and feeling no desire to sire children of their own etc. really makes me consider the modern European a rather faulty machine. I always scratch my head at the sheer number of people who bewail the death of their race, but have no intention not to be part of the reason that race is dying. It surely can't be natural not to want children, given any gene coding that disposition would have been throughly routed out by natural selection, so my guess is it's cultural. Either that or previously the need to reproduce was wound up with fulfilment of libidinal desire, and only with contraception has the unity been splintered. Who can say?

Anyway, I've never been in a relationship and likely never will be. I love children and would love to have my own, though. Being an only child, my urge for a family of my own is particularly pressing. I can't have children by any natural means, owing to health reasons. I do, however, have semen stored away in a hospital somewhere. I feel I'm aging too (I'm 24), and I really feel my destiny is sealed. But I do plan to donate my sperm if the worst comes to the worst and I miss my chance to have a real family.

Jäger
Wednesday, April 7th, 2010, 06:12 PM
The prevalence of whites not liking children, and feeling no desire to sire children of their own etc. really makes me consider the modern European a rather faulty machine. I always scratch my head at the sheer number of people who bewail the death of their race, but have no intention not to be part of the reason that race is dying. It surely can't be natural not to want children, given any gene coding that disposition would have been throughly routed out by natural selection, so my guess is it's cultural.
Well, there are several animals that adapt their numbers of children to certain life circumstances (and I am not speaking of merely increasing the numbers if there is enough food).

Rassenhygieniker
Wednesday, April 7th, 2010, 11:23 PM
I used to wear glasses, my observation is that a high proportion of intelligent people do, surely such genes should be continued?

I am skinny and I wear glasses as well, I do not know if it is due to bad genes or if it is due to intelligence, or if it is has not much to do with anything. But according to some anti-jewish authors, short sightedness is also very common amongst jews.

Ragnar Lodbrok
Thursday, April 8th, 2010, 12:03 AM
I haven't found a partner yet...(A list of young ladies who were either already taken or who I had accidently put off.)

And I've been stuck in my hometown and unable to get my hands on the salary need for this sort of thing, the position of course being one in places much farther away from town which I was trained in and talented at in Vo-Tech class. I also have some landscaping experience and maybe I could use this to move far away from town or start a family as well.

Wulfric
Thursday, April 8th, 2010, 12:52 AM
I am skinny and I wear glasses as well, I do not know if it is due to bad genes or if it is due to intelligence, or if it is has not much to do with anything. But according to some anti-jewish authors, short sightedness is also very common amongst jews.

I've noticed that a lot of jews wear glasses, but that obviously doesn't mean that glasses = jew.

Rassenhygieniker
Thursday, April 8th, 2010, 01:07 AM
I've noticed that a lot of jews wear glasses, but that obviously doesn't mean that glasses = jew.

Obviously this is not what I was getting at when I said that, what I wanted to say particulary was that I don't think you can attribute short sightedness to bad genes, intelligence or jewishness.

Hamar Fox
Thursday, April 8th, 2010, 08:34 AM
Well, there are several animals that adapt their numbers of children to certain life circumstances (and I am not speaking of merely increasing the numbers if there is enough food).

No animal reduces its numbers to levels that threaten, or -- let's be realistic here -- ensure its extinction. Alterations of birth rates make sense as a trade-off when living conditions improve, in order to keep stable the number of offspring that survive into adulthood. It also makes sense to alter the birthrate to decrease competition when food is scarce. However, no members of any non-human species choose not to reproduce at all, such that their species/breed declines in numerical significance to the point that what few members remain will inevitably be absorbed into formerly rival populations whose numbers are far healthier. It just doesn't happen.

Matamoros
Thursday, April 8th, 2010, 09:55 AM
I didn't find yet someone good enough to be the father of my / our children.

Some time ago I thought I would never want to have children, but I've changed my mind meanwhile. I consider the ideal age for a woman to give birth to her first child is somewhere between 19 and 24. Honestly, I feel like getting old. Maybe I will reconsider that opinion, maybe not. Time will tell.


I'm in a similar situation. I get along well with plenty of woman, and have had two long term relationships in the last 5 years, but I have not met any European woman interested in settling down or starting a family.

I'm 24 now, and ready to have a family, both emotionally and financially. But it seems that family-minded women are extremely rare. At least among the women I meet they are.

To be honest, I long for the day when I have a loving woman at my side, with a child in her arms. :)

Grimsteinr
Thursday, April 8th, 2010, 02:58 PM
One of the largest of the United States..........8 out of every 10 Children born
were Hispanic, mostly Mexican. Of the other 2 children 1 was White and 1 was Black. It is close to that in several other States.

There are many Countries around the 3rd World where Children are one of their Greatest Natural Resources. So they continue to Breed more Children.

Meanwhile in the USA and the more advanced of the European Nations, the Birthrate among White Folks continues to fall.

Folks, there is only One Place This Can Lead Us.
The Handwriting is on the wall, Don't you think??

Jäger
Thursday, April 8th, 2010, 03:16 PM
No animal reduces its numbers to levels that threaten, or -- let's be realistic here -- ensure its extinction.
The problem are varying influences on the human mind, mostly it is (un-)reason.
I agree with you that it is cultural.

jacktheknife
Thursday, April 8th, 2010, 03:47 PM
Gentlemen,

A very nice and highly intelligent Sheriff's deputy 'chick'
asked me once while helping me with my flat:
"Jack, why don't you have any children".
{I don't mean to say, that I am 'a perfect physical specimen'...
but I am,
6'2" 200 Lbs, published poet, Mastermarksman,
handsome, good cook, play piano and accordion,
and still have all my hair and teeth,
at 58 years!} }...that's pretty good...

I told her that "there are too many people."
She responded:
that "Yes there are too many people but 'too few good ones".
I said: "There's too many people".
"And it's not my problem".

That's it, there is simply too many people.
Too crowded for me.


Thank you...♪


J. Winters von Knife

Víðálfr
Friday, April 9th, 2010, 09:48 AM
but I have not met any European woman interested in settling down or starting a family.
No wonder if in a few decades the situation in Europe would be even worst. But I still have some hope.


it seems that family-minded women are extremely rare. At least among the women I meet they are.
The same with men. I don't want to generalize, but more and more of them just want to have fun. I'd say: no, thank you, find another person just to have fun with! I'm more worth than that! ;)



To be honest, I long for the day when I have a loving woman at my side, with a child in her arms. :)

1hSpWo50gj0


... I've been reading the posts here and thinking more about it in the last few days... I wonder: is it safe to have children in THIS environment? I mean they could be used for blackmail, by the enemies of our folk, sometimes just if you dare to state openly your opinion. And could be even more if you are an activist of any kind...

Maybe that's a stupid fear, maybe not. And maybe having the right person at your side makes any fear disappear. However, there are risks in everything, isn't it?

But still I have some doubts...

Sigurd
Friday, April 9th, 2010, 11:05 AM
Obviously this is not what I was getting at when I said that, what I wanted to say particulary was that I don't think you can attribute short sightedness to bad genes, intelligence or jewishness.

Well, I was hoping so, because if being short-sighted, (medically) circumcised with a beard one likes to stroke when in deep thought (Jewish gesture! ;)) and not to forget wavy hair, meant being Jewish, then I'd certainly have to re-evaluate why the great-grandparental generation was almost without exclusion in memberships restricted to native Germans. :wsg

Lothringen
Friday, April 9th, 2010, 02:37 PM
Actually I have children, but as I got them lately (after 30) therefore I voted for my reasons to be counted.
First I wished children as soon as possible
Because of difficulties to find a full time job without diploma, I add to wait the end of long studies, then I was called to conscription which was mandatory at that time.
Despite of my diploma I was only able to find job with time limit contract here and there so I had no clue where to settled.

Because of my religious background I had quite difficulties to find a "serious" girl ready to marry for life. Of course I had some ethnic preference to make sure our children would be white skin & blue eyes (recessive gene...) like all my family. Because of XXI century demography/immigration, it was quite difficult among the 18-30 age class. More over for whatever reason, the germanic/norse young girls from France seems to be quite attracted by "latino lover" type or have "men in black" fantasm...

Anyway I manage to find the wondergirl but her education had conditioned her to start studies rather than been housewife at 18. So we had to wait for the end of her studies, then we decided that our 1st child would be fully legitim (born AFTER marriage).
I didn't expect how it could be long to organize a marriage !!
Find the place, make sure everybody from every family to be present....

Moreover, young girls should know that the longest you take "The Pill", the longer it take for your body to be fully functionnal.
For a cousin of mine, in fact it never become functional again and she never managed to have anything else than miscarriage...

Lothringen
Friday, April 9th, 2010, 03:55 PM
Obviously this is not what I was getting at when I said that, what I wanted to say particulary was that I don't think you can attribute short sightedness to bad genes, intelligence or jewishness.


Short sightedness is only partially genetic.

Children of short sight parents who takes care training their eye by:
- having correct position/luminosity when reading/writing
- look as often "far away" landscape until they sea the pick of the mountain, the branches of the tree, the windows of the highest building,...
are less likely to be short sighted than the one of good sight parent that
- lay their head on the table while writing
- watch TV in a dark room sitting at 1m from it all day long
- never stare at something else than the building on the other side of the road

Ciliary muscle is like the other ones, it needs a bit of training and resting.
His rest strenght will define the lens shape.

Of course genes helps, just as you will find strong guys who never touch a dumbbell and other desesperatly trying body building with little results.


By the way, does anyone know who said:
"Victory will not only come from men and weapons but also from women and cradles" ?

Víðálfr
Friday, April 9th, 2010, 05:23 PM
Moreover, young girls should know that the longest you take "The Pill", the longer it take for your body to be fully functionnal.
For a cousin of mine, in fact it never become functional again and she never managed to have anything else than miscarriage...
Good that you mentioned it! That's one of the many reasons I am against taking pills!

A good friend of mine (blonde haired, blue eyed, very intelligent) became pregnant, while taking pills, without even realizing it. Nor her, nor the doctors. The gynaecologist (known as one of the best in the town) even prescribed her to take stronger pills, that managed to destroy her body. She almost died, thanks God she was saved in time. And now, with only one ovary, many complications, and lots of horrible memories, there are very slight chances that she will ever be able to become pregnant again!

There is no doubt that contraceptive pills are a strong factor which contribute to our decline! And I would tell something not nice to all those guys who tell their girlfriends (or girls, in general) to take that s***! :thumbdown

SaxonPagan
Friday, April 9th, 2010, 07:07 PM
I think a lot of blokes tell their girlfriends to take the pill (if not doing so already) simply to avoid an unwanted pregnancy and I don't see too much wrong with that, personally. True, there could be a selfish element involved but it could also be sound advice in many cases, especially given the huge number of accidental teenage pregnancies we're blighted with in the UK right now!

As for the health issues, I'm not saying for one moment that “The Pill” is good for you overall (although I've seen some studies suggesting there are some benefits) but many of life's big decisions feature a “lesser of two evils” component and unwanted kids are surely the worst scenario. I'm afraid natality rates are not purely about numbers - there are quality-of-life factors to consider as well.

But personally, I think “feminism” has a lot more to do with falling birth-rates than anything else, including the Pill and contraception in all its other forms. Please note, I always put the “F” word in inverted commas and if you'd known as many butch, foul-mouthed, “laddish” women as me – many of them lesbians – you'd understand why! I'm afraid the media has been encouraging women to “compete” with males for so long now that many of them are starting to act like them (or at least imitating the worst aspects of male behaviour :oanieyes ) and this cannot be healthy for any nation – especially as a lot of chaps are told to “explore their feminine side” and all that bullsh*t!!!

Let's face it, you have to strike up a relationship first before such things as the Pill even become relevant and many women are not interested in this for purely selfish reasons. TBH, you don't have to look far beyond "feminism" to see where many of the woes of the western world lie and it's really quite obvious ... a nation whose sexes are busy “competing” against each other is doomed to failure, simply because they should be working as a team to compete with other races.

I am (by today's standards) an unashamed SEXIST because I believe there are clearly-defined gender roles and once large numbers of individuals begin to depart from these we're all shafted (metaphorically speaking, of course :D) I don't know what's the worst between some drippy, “metro-sexual" male and your ice-cold, professional “career-woman” but neither of these two freakish groups are of much use to the future of the Germanic races as far as I'm concerned!!