That Which Bears No Ripe Fruit

[Caledonian]

By ripe fruit I mean children to which they are the fruitful progeny of our culture, race, consciousness, identity, and our entire existence.

Why is it that more and more of our women have either no children or have very few children in their late ages?

Races of every other type of woman in this world that are foreign outbreed our women ten to one by general statistical ratio.

Why is that? What is the component that is damning us into exinction?

What is the component that is a hindrance to our multitude and flourishing?

I specifically would like to hear some answers from fellow members here at Skadi that are specifically female where they might be able to give some of us male members a bit of insight.

Do not women understand that in the life span of a woman the breeding cycle is between the ages of 18-35 where after the age of 35 there is only infertility afterwards?

Our people have a existential crisis in all of this and for me our women have alot to answer for. In all this there is only deepening divide or seperation between men and women in modern culture.

It is a dividing wound that runs deep and only illustrates our current frailty.

Out of all the conflicts, struggles, and turmoil of our people this simple most basic facet of human life is the most neglected but also considering our crisis it is also the most needed more than ever.

[Ediruc]

I think the reason non-White/Germanic races have more children than us is because their level of intelligence is lower, and thus they must have some sort of instinctual urge to procreate and carry on their genes (much like how animals procreate constantly).

Since Germanics/Whites are to a higher level of intelligence, we've transcended the ideas of a need to carry on our genes and instead they focus more on their own individuality. More Germanic/White women are going out and focusing on their careers and believe that with a high education and good paying job they are higher in the social and intellectual strata; and thus they have a higher value.

Of course, they forget their genes have a far higher value than some life career. Genes continue to live on in our progeny. Careers don't.

[Amerikanerin]

Hmm... it's particularly curious to read thoughts like these from a man who is known on this forum for his anti-woman stance. First he says all women are unloyal, materialistic creatures, then he asks why they don't want to breed. How about... because in the absense of loyal and caring men we don't really want to raise our offspring all alone?

[velvet]

Races of every other type of woman in this world that are foreign outbreed our women ten to one by general statistical ratio.

First of all, the third world is third world because of their over population and mindless breeding.

We have long left this animal status behind, our development was for large parts drawn from a better distribution of raw materials and food on fewer individuals.

It is entirely folly to believe that mindless mass-breeding will get us anywhere else than third-world level.

Why is that? What is the component that is damning us into exinction?

Individualism and egoism.

I specifically would like to hear some answers from fellow members here at Skadi that are specifically female where they might be able to give some of us male members a bit of insight.

Do not women understand that in the life span of a woman the breeding cycle is between the ages of 18-35 where after the age of 35 there is only infertility afterwards?

With better nutrition and better health care, also the time of fertility for a woman has become longer. Although it is not exactly an ideal age, women can get children on natural ways until their mid-end 40s, some even longer.

Our people have a existential crisis in all of this and for me our women have alot to answer for. In all this there is only deepening divide or seperation between men and women in modern culture.

I think the men, specially those who are generally hostile to women, have a lot to answer for too.

Have to agree with Amerikanerin here, the risk of being left alone with the children produced quickly in the hotphase of desire is simply too high for a woman to risk at a young age.

The attitude of men has changed a lot during the last 100 years, and the blame-everyone-else-for-your-own-shortcomings-culture has taken control of way too many people.

You say why do women dont get children with 18 or even earlier? But you would be quick to condemn the next-best teenage-mom for being unable to keep her desires under control and fucks around and what not all.

And how many men flee the moment they are told that they will become father? They give the woman some money to have an abortion and leave her alone with the kids if she refuses, and mostly also dont forget to make clear that they dont want anything to do with their offspring.

When men stop to be the reliable father, women will no longer be mothers.

Just some days ago there was some discussion about the demand often by women that their partner earns some money. This is indeed a valid demand, because money in a city is necessarily everything: money houses you, money hunts your food, money sews your clothing, it's not even about luxury goods, but that you can effort housing in a decent environment and arent forced to live in the third-world slums within your city, that you can effort for yourself and children some proper nutrition and not need to revert to cheap junk food, that you can cloth yourself and children in a proper way in order not to be bullied.

It's about social security, a secure environment for themselves and their offspring, something that less and less men are willing to provide, because paradoxically they think that a woman should provide for herself. The men deny the women the save and guarded cave to raise their children.

[Caledonian]

Hmm... it's particularly curious to read thoughts like these from a man who is known on this forum for his anti-woman stance. First he says all women are unloyal, materialistic creatures, then he asks why they don't want to breed. How about... because in the absense of loyal and caring men we don't really want to raise our offspring all alone?

I just call it how I see it Amerikanerin.

When it concerns women they are ten times more likely to judge a man on the basis of the amount of money [wealth], social status, and occupation that they have.

In contrast men do not judge women so materialistically.

If women don't want to be looked upon this way perhaps more and more women need to change somthing of themselves. [ From my expiriences I doubt the majority of women will change anytime soon......]

Hmm... it's particularly curious to read thoughts like these from a man who is known on this forum for his anti-woman stance

Yes I have much deserved contempt for a great deal of modern women but I am not anti - woman.

If anything I wish the behaviors of women would change so that genuine understanding between the sexes can take place where unions between both become more of the norm.

First he says all women are unloyal, materialistic creatures, then he asks why they don't want to breed. How about... because in the absense of loyal and caring men we don't really want to raise our offspring all alone?

That is a ridiculous arguement. While there are some men who are horrible to which are worth rejecting there are by far more single men out there in the world than there are single women where many including myself actually desire a spouse to have a family with.

The real problem is how most women nowadays are only attracted to the top fifteen to twenty percent of the male population that are the head income earners.

The men that are a part of that top fifteen to twenty percent know they are the most valued by women so in contrast women become more disposable to them because being the most valued males they can get another woman whenever they want to upon whatever dissatisfaction that they may have.

The irony is that men who value women the most who are willing to treat them in the best regards that won't treat them in such a disposable manner often enough are the men who do not make the most amount of income which are the same very men who women reject in droves generally.

It's got to the point that I don't feel sorry for most women that are in abusive relationships because most of you practically do it to yourselves in the type of men you chase after or have relationships with. I have no sympathy for most women in these regards.

Velvet : First of all, the third world is third world because of their over population and mindless breeding.

We have long left this animal status behind, our development was for large parts drawn from a better distribution of raw materials and food on fewer individuals.

It is entirely folly to believe that mindless mass-breeding will get us anywhere else than third-world level.

All I know is that if we don't start having large families again which equals more breeding we will become breeded out of existence altogether.

The patterns are the same of every western nation you go to whether it be Germany, France, England, and so on to which they are not isolated incidences when it concerns one declining population after the other.

Politicians expouse the solution to the problem in more international immigration because of the natives not contributing to population reproduction that much anymore.

I can remember a time looking at some 18th century demographics of the typical English family having three to five children per househould.

[It once was the same for all of Western Europe and all it's colonial nations.]

Now what is that number today reduced to? The staggering declining numbers are depressing to look at....

Since these are not random isolated incidences where they are becoming a typical pattern for western nations we have to come together in figuring out what is causing these terrible trends to begin with. Then a solution has to be made as well once the disruption of all of this has been revealed.....

Also if women only chase after the top fifteen to twenty percent of males where the other eighty percent of males remain single for pro long periods of time if not indefinately that means you have eighty percent of the male population not reproducing. Maybe that is what is causing the population decline along with the several other social trends women follow today.

I remember talking to a Vietnamese woman at my job where she and her husband both work low wage factory jobs to which both seem completely satisfied with.

She was talking about the ten children that she has. To my dismay I told her that I thought that was alot where she replied that it's typical in her culture to have very large families.

After saying that she asked me about how many children I had as a twenty four year old single male to which I replied none.

She seemed shocked and dismayed that somebody my age didn't have any children let alone was still single. This is typical of a great deal of foreigners that I have spoken to over the years and once more what is even more depressing is the comparison in how our women have little to no children at all in contrast to women of all other ethnicities.

Of course it's no surprise from my observation given how our women these days think of nothing beyond career and play.

We have long left this animal status behind, our development was for large parts drawn from a better distribution of raw materials and food on fewer individuals.

This so called civil ordained conservative approach to culture you speak of has done nothing but harmed us to which it has left entire generations of chronic single adults and little reproduction whatsoever on the part of our culture or race that has only contributed to our population decline.

This sort of attitude is better to be stamped out and erased from memory altogether.

If such a attitude is not erased we ourselves will become erased.

If anything we need to become a culture once again that celebrates life especially when it concerns the creation of life between men and women to which close family bonds once again occupies our lives.

Individualism and egoism.

Could you explain that in depth?

[Meister]

Relationships, in the past even whites would marry by the time they were 21 in most cases, and kids would just happen because marriage by and large would last forever back then. Also women didn't work and had their extended families for support.

Now we are more isolated, people look for stupid things in a partner and we are too absorbed by materialism and careers, hobbies, holidays etc to put the time into raising and having kids.

Intelligence is a major factor as well, even Non Whites who are more intelligent than their peers have less or no kids.

Depression and instability. When I look at Australia and all the non whites flooding in, terrorism, Islam, not to mention the general decay of society it does depress me and I have to admit I wonder if I really want to put a child through it all. I am sure I am not the only one to feel this way and the factors I mention are part of the genocide effect.

[Alfadur]

The better standard of living a population has, the lower the birthrate. When you've got a nice comfy lifestyle, you have better things to do than just trying to survive and reproduce like animals.

High intelligence will also lower the birthrate. The countries with highest average IQ (East Asia and North Europe) are also those with least children being born. So there will never be a "Germanic baby boom", just face it.

And that's just nature doing its work. In order to have a few natural superiors, you need to have many inferiors.

[Meister]

That's just nature doing its work. In order to have a few natural superiors, you need to have many inferiors.

I agree, the problem is Left Wing Socialism allows the weak to not only survive and reproduce but to also attain influence which brings us all down. Not just racial weaklings either, but also the lame laws and allowing criminals to sue for damages and vote etc.

It's humans screwing up natures laws which keeps everything in check.

[Ralf]

How about the anti-Germanic Jewish social engineering?
The destruction of Christianity and the family, when most people where Christians, sex outside marriage was far rarer, people would get married, wives would feel the security that resulted in children.

Feminism and sexual liberation mean that the top 10 to 15 % that Caledonian mentions, are free to be shared amongst womenkind, whereas previously they would have been married off, and womenkind would have had to make do with the rest of us.
Probably the same thing reversing the sexes.

Also Feminism, what man wants to marry another man, despite how feminine the body might be.

Divorce and Womens rights mean a lot of men who have worked hard, built up a home, and see thier friends discarded by thier women, loosing all thier possesions that the courts automatically give to the women, are naturally suspitious of women.

The poorer races havnt the possesions to risk loosing, either the physical ones, or the moral ones.

The destruction of the middle and working classes and the encouragement of the under classes.
Germanics tend to work for thier living, this results in having to buy your own homes, pay for your way, very expensive, too expensive to have more than a kid or two, whilst our high taxes are stolen by our jewish overlords to pay the underclasses, white as well as black, to have as many children as they can, the more they have, the bigger the house they are given.

Media, where are the glamourous icons promoting a traditional happy Christian marriage these days with the longed for attributes of faithfullness and security that we have been programmed to think are against our own interests?
I wonder if the sexual revolution has resulted in less sex?

Like the Bible says in the last days, "what is good will be called bad, and what is bad will be called good".

And how topical of the Daily Mail!:- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...menopause.html

[Alfadur]

Cry more, Caledonian. I just re-read the OP, and it's full of misogynist whining.

Sorry, but Germanic women are not about to go back to the kitchen and start popping out dozens of children. We've progressed materially way too much for that. It's the wealthy and advanced civilization of Europeans that allows us to spend time on recreational shit like feminism and gay parades. You can't be First World and have massive piles of babies at the same time. If we want to multiply our birthrate, we need to regress back to a Third World stage. And that ain't gonna happen.

And for god's sake, don't blame everything on "the evil ball-breaking feminists".

Japan is a largely pre-feminist society without any Jews or multiculture in it. It's also a super-wealthy country with the highest standard of living in the world. And their birthrate is very, very low.