Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: Is the White Birth Rate Too Low to Sustain Our Civilisation?

  1. #11
    Senior Member prodeutsch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, July 28th, 2012 @ 01:36 PM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Deutschland
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    282
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Well I did my best, 5, yup count them 5 children. I would have had more but my wife struggled with the last one, otherwise I was working my way up to 8! The answer to the question is yes, having children does matter.

    The future that scares me is the one in which I have to look into my grandchildren's blue eyes and tell them I did nothing to stop the invasion of the west by muslim and third world immigrants. That being said I am doing my best, I will not be defeated by a bunch of bedouin butchers, I have germanic blood running through my veins! Every chance I get I speak up to my germanic friends and tell them they need to have children and not to worry about ficticious global warming. As I said before it is the third world and muslims that need to have fewer children, not us!
    Last edited by prodeutsch; Tuesday, April 28th, 2009 at 11:24 PM. Reason: Add relevancy

  2. #12
    Moderator "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Sigurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    3 Days Ago @ 11:16 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Bavarii, Saxones, Suebi, Alamanni
    Subrace
    Borreby + Atlantonordoid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Location
    Einöde in den Alpen
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Engaged
    Politics
    Tradition & Homeland
    Religion
    Odinist
    Posts
    9,107
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    73
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    217
    Thanked in
    127 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Aptrgangr View Post
    It said blonde men lack testosterone and therefor are not as manly as the darker ones.
    The problem is not such an assertion, but the pretext under which it is made. Our folk is not by definition blonde, and as such, the assertion that our darker-pigmented kinfolk had more testosterone than our light-pigmented kinfolk should not bother us overly.

    Instead, what makes it bothersome is that the assertion there uses that ailing folk-spirit and the lack in self-consciousness in an attempt to make acceptable the interbreeding with groups who ARE by definition dark-pigmented, thus leading young women to believe that your average Turk is more manly than your average German.

    Science is neutral and objective, interpretation thereof is ideally neutral yet subjective, application thereof is never neutral and always subjective. It is the latter which poses the problem, as it tends to choose information and facts selective and base an untrue worldview thereupon.

    The intention of a false re-interpretation of "dark"? If they can stop women fantasising about Colin Firth and get them to fantasise about Seal or Will Smith, then they can bring on that social experiment of the one coffee-coloured race. As usual, the application of science is not only always subjective, but also never neutral.
    -In kalte Schatten versunken... /Germaniens Volk erstarrt / Gefroren von Lügen / In denen die Welt verharrt-
    -Die alte Seele trauernd und verlassen / Verblassend in einer erklärbaren Welt / Schwebend in einem Dunst der Wehmut / Ein Schrei der nur unmerklich gellt-
    -Auch ich verspüre Demut / Vor dem alten Geiste der Ahnen / Wird es mir vergönnt sein / Gen Walhalla aufzufahren?-

    (Heimdalls Wacht, In kalte Schatten versunken, stanzas 4-6)

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Saturday, March 24th, 2018 @ 12:20 AM
    Ethnicity
    Celtic-Germanic
    Gender
    Posts
    437
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    How the heck is it a "call to action" by calling it "impossible to reverse". 'Its not going to happen over night but it will happen' would probably be a way to put it.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Quo vadis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    Friday, July 15th, 2016 @ 06:35 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Lower Saxony Lower Saxony
    Location
    Göttingen
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Family
    Single adult
    Posts
    76
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    In a way, this is very true. Observations of birthrates throughout the ages would testify that birth rates tended to be naturally higher when the Folk was healthy, self-conscious and more fully in touch with its folk spirit.
    [...]
    Once the folk spirit mends itself, the birth rate will likely normalise without much need for guidance, though more family-friendly politics would aid this trend further.
    If I understand you correctly, you believe that we don't need to change our habits, that it is enough to reawaken our folk spirit, to raise awareness for folkish thought. Is that what you mean? And you seem to believe that, regarding our reproductive behaviour, we are not in a fundamentally different situation than our ancestors from 150-500 years ago who did not have advanced methods of birth control.

    I disagree. Even many folkish thinkers or leaders of past and present did not or do not have any children or far too few. I have only a fragmentary knowledge of ancient history, but I thought that the ancient Greeks and Romans reproduced insufficiently, too. Was that because they lost their folk spirit? I thought that the primary reason for the exploding population of Europe after the losses of the great plague epidemia was that the knowledge and practice of birth control was deliberately suppressed.

    We are an individualistic people, we are used to personal freedom and privacy and tend not to meddle into the affairs of others. We cherish the ideal of romantic love with a perfectly fitting partner as the ultimate fulfillment in life. I think that these traits of ours are detrimental to our survival in our current environment and that we need to change our attitudes and habits.

    It's upon ourselves to reverse the trend and have many children. We know that, but I suspect that for many of us the knowledge alone will not cause us to change our habits much. Probably for many different kinds of reasons, because we can't find a partner, because we avoid risks, but maybe ultimately, because we lack incentive? Could not the lack of integration into a community and the lack of social control play a big role, too?

    If we want each one of us to have more children and understand why, at the moment, we don't yet, we have to put each's life under close scrutiny, look what the individual causes and stumbling blocks for more children are and do our best to get them out of the way - not just everyone on his own, but one for another. In an individualistic society everybody is expected to manage his life best alone and deemed to be the best judge about his personal affairs - but are these not fallacious assumptions? What about a young adult who lacks social skills and can't find a suitable partner or have a poor judgment concerning the other sex? Maybe there are young women who decide against children because they fear being left without assistance if their child's father leaves them? What about sheer self-indulgence or laziness? I can think of more potential stumbling blocks which all need to be addressed. I mentioned in another thread that I have no children myself. Some of you might have thought by themselves "Why doesn't he have children? He should!" but remained silent, because they don't know me and my life circumstances and it would be impolite to intrude into my personal affairs.

    In our own personal matters we are, of course, partial and inclined to decide in a way that feels comfortable to us, even if it is not beneficial to our group as a whole. Some person might fully understand the need for more children but see compelling reasons why, of all people, he/she can't contribute him-/herself and do less than we could to overcome these obstacles. If we are to let others have a say over our lives, it would require of us to give up our cherished autonomy and privacy but maybe it is nevertheless necessary for us to survive as a group?

  5. #15
    Schimmelreiter
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Hauke Haien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    Monday, September 4th, 2017 @ 09:59 AM
    Ethnicity
    Deutsch
    Location
    Land der Deutschen
    Gender
    Posts
    1,841
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    22
    Thanked in
    19 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Quo vadis View Post
    And you seem to believe that, regarding our reproductive behaviour, we are not in a fundamentally different situation than our ancestors from 150-500 years ago who did not have advanced methods of birth control.

    [...]

    I thought that the primary reason for the exploding population of Europe after the losses of the great plague epidemia was that the knowledge and practice of birth control was deliberately suppressed.
    It was caused by improvements in agriculture and, of course, the immediate underpopulation after the Great Plague. Our current reproductive behaviour is caused by a diminished economic incentive compared to the times of the Industrial Revolution, but it is pure fantasy to restore that within current parameters and we want precisely those people to have children who really draw no economic benefit from it and risk their accumulated wealth getting torn to pieces within the next generation. Children need to be valued as an end in itself, and the way to get there is a folk spirit that emphasises community and continuity. All of this draws on constants in human behaviour, which are presently redirected into an ideology of personal autonomy, childless wealth, hedonism and so on, but if having children improves the social rank of a person within the community and his life as such, without being perceived as a burden, there will be a desire to have children. Getting rid of contraception and all the other irrelevant diversions that are considered hot button issues in some countries, that is just optional. The point is to remove the demand and need for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quo vadis View Post
    It's upon ourselves to reverse the trend and have many children. We know that, but I suspect that for many of us the knowledge alone will not cause us to change our habits much. Probably for many different kinds of reasons, because we can't find a partner, because we avoid risks, but maybe ultimately, because we lack incentive? Could not the lack of integration into a community and the lack of social control play a big role, too?
    Yes, this is also an inextricable part of the folk spirit as I understand it. Perhaps there is a tendency to confuse the concept with a mere awareness of the state structure and the worship of its unsubstantiated symbols. We should always be ready to burn our flags and spit on the political ideas they stand for. What is sacred and beyond reproach is only our people as an eternal entity.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012 @ 12:02 AM
    Status
    On Holiday
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Location
    in a valley between two lakes
    Gender
    Family
    Devoted father & husband
    Politics
    E Pluribus Unum
    Religion
    Ascension
    Posts
    585
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Posted by Quo vadis:
    I disagree. Even many folkish thinkers or leaders of past and present did not or do not have any children or far too few. I have only a fragmentary knowledge of ancient history, but I thought that the ancient Greeks and Romans reproduced insufficiently, too. Was that because they lost their folk spirit?
    The ancient Greek and Roman civilizations were warrior based. In such societies the object is quality over quantity. A very important thing to consider in light of the present birth rate. Still, I do not deny, that the current trend glorifies a selfish lifestyle. Highly detrimental to the health of the Folkish spirit.

    Posted by Quo vadis:
    We are an individualistic people, we are used to personal freedom and privacy and tend not to meddle into the affairs of others. We cherish the ideal of romantic love with a perfectly fitting partner as the ultimate fulfillment in life. I think that these traits of ours are detrimental to our survival in our current environment and that we need to change our attitudes and habits.
    Yes, we do need to change our attitude and habits. We need to re-evolve into a warrior/farmer based society again. Self sufficient, and able to contribute to the whole of the community. Leave the cities to rot and re-root in the surrounding countryside. Children will grow to be magnificent if they are allowed the proper space. Producing children like Mexicans is far from a solution though. In fact it is the problem, especially if you live in the cities.

    All cultures are bound to experience the same generative process that is evident in all life forms. Birth, death and re-birth. It should be obvious what stage we are in now. So ask yourself, what is it that is threatening our existence right now? Likewise, how will having more children combat this? And is it possible, to focus the same quality attention on many children that you would on a few? Finally, can the few accomplish more or less than the many? I ask these questions to illustrate that the reason we are in trouble now, is because of the past trend of supplanting quantity for quality.

    In our thirst for power, in just over 200 years we have populated an entire continent with the sole aim of displacing the natives and becoming a world class empire. When I look back in my own ancestry, from the early settlers till before the great war, it is uncommon for me to find grandparents who did not have less than 6 children. Some had as many as 16. My grandmother was one of 11 sisters. But, when my lines find their way back to Europe, the families are smaller. Then, it is uncommon to find ancestors with more than 6 children. The average being between 1-4. I, myself am 1 of 4.

    The problems we face in the States, are largely due to this thinning of the blood. Because our ancestors spread their seed so carelessly, they sired a nation that quickly became overwhelmingly populous. Especially in the urban areas. Such a people fare no better than trees in a crowded wood lot. They often grow crooked, or tall and reedy. Distorted and unfit they are embattled in a rat race from the day of their birth and have no time to live life and spread branches. Their main struggle becomes one of mere survival. Their sole worth in life is the pulp harvest. To this end, a people who are primarily immersed in a superficial battle to live, will hardly have the energy to fight outside threats. As the case has been.

    Trees, grow mighty only when there is room to do so. People today are suffocated and their blood has become water. Neutral.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Quo vadis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    Friday, July 15th, 2016 @ 06:35 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Lower Saxony Lower Saxony
    Location
    Göttingen
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Family
    Single adult
    Posts
    76
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    @Vindefense:

    You pose some challenging questions:

    Quote Originally Posted by Vindefense View Post
    All cultures are bound to experience the same generative process that is evident in all life forms. Birth, death and re-birth. It should be obvious what stage we are in now. So ask yourself, what is it that is threatening our existence right now? Likewise, how will having more children combat this?
    My answer would be that your existence is threatened
    1. because all Germanic peoples, except some subgroups like the Mormons and the Amish, have been having fertility rates below replacement level for several decades now. That alone would already kill us unless this trend was reversed. And quality is going down, too, because the more creative and intelligent of our own breed even less.
    2. because we are in a struggle against other peoples over territory (Lebensraum). But this aspect is admittedly more complicated because, currently, most Germanic people do not support or even oppose the nationalist forces fighting for them. So we are threatened both by external enemies and by the treacherousness of many of our own.

    How will having more children combat this?
    Isn't it true, that - all other factors remaining the same - the higher our number, the more powerful our forces are? Be it in war, in elections or in the realm of spreading ideas.

    If you disagree, can you elaborate extensively, why - all other factors remaining the same - higher numbers would not help us in our struggle for existence?

    And is it possible, to focus the same quality attention on many children that you would on a few? Finally, can the few accomplish more or less than the many? I ask these questions to illustrate that the reason we are in trouble now, is because of the past trend of supplanting quantity for quality.
    It is not obvious to me that many children must inevitably lead to a decline in quality, and that it is impossible to provide them with the attention and education they need. In the past the European population was expanding fast, while at the same time conquering the world and while arts and sciences flourished. It seems to me that they bred both quantity and quality. I agree that we need high quality children - and I advocate deliberate eugenic breeding practices - but I think that we need as many of them as possible, too. When a couple is ready to breed children with high-quality genes, they should have as many children as they can adequately take care of - and everyone in the community should assist them in this task as much as possible.

    In our thirst for power, in just over 200 years we have populated an entire continent with the sole aim of displacing the natives and becoming a world class empire. When I look back in my own ancestry, from the early settlers till before the great war, it is uncommon for me to find grandparents who did not have less than 6 children. Some had as many as 16. My grandmother was one of 11 sisters. But, when my lines find their way back to Europe, the families are smaller. Then, it is uncommon to find ancestors with more than 6 children. The average being between 1-4. I, myself am 1 of 4.
    I heard that Americans bred even more than Europeans but I think that Europeans had pretty high numbers of children at that time, too, didn't they?

    The problems we face in the States, are largely due to this thinning of the blood. Because our ancestors spread their seed so carelessly, they sired a nation that quickly became overwhelmingly populous. Especially in the urban areas. Such a people fare no better than trees in a crowded wood lot. They often grow crooked, or tall and reedy. Distorted and unfit they are embattled in a rat race from the day of their birth and have no time to live life and spread branches. Their main struggle becomes one of mere survival. Their sole worth in life is the pulp harvest. To this end, a people who are primarily immersed in a superficial battle to live, will hardly have the energy to fight outside threats. As the case has been.
    This relationship isn't obvious to me. Aren't there many counterexamples of peoples who fought outside threats ferociously in spite of (or even because of?) living in a densely populated country? I am thinking of Germany during the world wars and Japan.

    And today our countries happen to be densely populated and a large part of the population consists of people not of our own. Wouldn't it reduce our power and thus our chances even further not to breed many children while our competitors do? What can we achieve with small numbers and how can we achieve it?

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, May 24th, 2009 @ 07:39 PM
    Ethnicity
    Norway (P) + Scotland (PM) + Austria (MP + MM) + Swabia (MP) + Prussia (MM)
    Subrace
    Nordid-Atlantid and Bruenn
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Pacific North West
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Paleo-Liberalism
    Religion
    AGNOS/Athiest
    Posts
    797
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Economic conditions are certainty a factor. But that doesn't excuse how 'minorities' can have 8 children and we have a replacement rate of 1.9 and below.
    Immigration does peg down the birthrate because a lot of these immigrants are young and older men, who are competing for houses and jobs on the market. I have no idea how I will ever be able to purchase a home in my city, with a decent home in a safe community costing a minimal of $400,000.


    Not many people (certainty not me) aren't willing to raise 5 children in an apartment. True I could get a mortgage but that's a long term investment and I don't even know if I'll be living in this city in the next 5-10 years, especially when it's going to be minority-majority in a couple of years. Some parts of the city are already no-go zones for whites.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Aryianut's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, May 24th, 2009 @ 03:59 AM
    Ethnicity
    Danish
    Ancestry
    Denmark
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Location
    Lehigh Valley
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Homemaker, mother of 5
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    I believe in God
    Posts
    33
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Note the snowball effect. As of 1990, states with 90% whites have remained relatively the same over the past 15 years or declined by less than 5%, states 70-90% have declined by 10%. Once non-whites get a foothold their population explodes.

    What is also curious is that some of the most white states are also blue states (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire I take it these are neo-liberal whites who really don't have a lot of interaction with minorities feel good supporting diversity issues at every election.

    Diversity sounding dirtier yet?

  10. #20
    Senior Member Freigeistige's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Online
    Tuesday, August 24th, 2010 @ 11:48 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German/Dutch/Austrian/Danish
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Gender
    Age
    29
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    246
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Immigration is not a problem imagined by "social conservatives" or "racists". In large numbers, it can truly destroy a society.

    Rome, arguably the most renowned of all civilizations, suffered just that. While immigration did not fell Rome alone, it was a large contributing factor. Rome was weakened by immigration because the immigrants did not assimilate into the Roman way of life. It became a patchwork instead of a union of like minded individuals. The immigrants refused to homogenize with Roman culture but still took advantage of the benefits of Roman culture. It weakened the unity of Roman society, as it undermined the Roman way of life.

    Historical precedent has shown us that rampant immigration can cause the decline of even the greatest of civilizations. How can anyone say it cannot happen to Europe?

    I cannot bear the thought of our history existing only in museums. I don't want to see Islam flying its flag over the Palace of Westminster or the Reichstag. I may not live in Europe, but it runs through my veins.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Germany's Falling Birth Rate - Source of National Alarm
    By Aeternitas in forum The German Countries
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: Thursday, October 31st, 2019, 10:55 AM
  2. Austria Has Second-Lowest Birth Rate in EU
    By Verðandi in forum The German Countries
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Sunday, August 1st, 2010, 01:12 PM
  3. Can Northern Europe's Low Birth Rate Be Remedied?
    By Northern Paladin in forum Germanic Europe & Outlying Islands
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: Saturday, July 3rd, 2010, 10:02 AM
  4. Iceland Tops European Birth Rate Chart
    By White Iceland in forum Iceland
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: Tuesday, May 26th, 2009, 04:25 AM
  5. Declining Birth Rate Threatens the Very Existence of Europe
    By Northern Paladin in forum Germanic Europe & Outlying Islands
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: Saturday, January 1st, 2005, 02:41 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •