How Many Children Do You Have/Do You Think You Will Have?

**Thorburn** · Monday, April 14th, 2003

How many children do you have/or do you think you will have?

If you do not have children yet, or still think you will have more, please try to give a realistic estimation of how many children you think you are most likely to have in your life, based on your personal circumstances and finances.

This is not a "if-I-would-be-a-billionaire-and-would-find-a-broodmare-then-I-would-have-15-kids"-poll. What interests me is how many children you realistically will have. If you are, for example, married already or have a partner for life, and your partner does not want any more children, then you should take that into account. The same applies if you would like to have five children, but don't think you will be able to afford them, or if you are not willing to make the necessary sacrifices, or if there are medical reasons that speak against the scenario.

The question is "How many children will you most likely have in your life?" and not "How many children would you like to have?" or "How many children would you have, if you were a Divine Emperor with 2,000 slaves?"

**Hellstar** · Monday, April 14th, 2003

Interesting thread.

I have this natural feeling that I have a girl first and then a boy.

This is based on me wanting to be a good parent to my children im afraid I cant give my self 100% if I had more, but i guess its just hard to imagine many sons of me. I wouldnt mind having a few girls but proberly only one son. but im open to destiny and if I had the wealth well then i would have alot of children. Many Many. the thought of just impregnating alot of woman has stroke my mind

but then again im a faithful type.

Im waiting a few years with getting children and I want to make sure im with the right woman in my life.

**Ominous Lord Spoonblade** · Monday, April 14th, 2003

I voted that I would have three, because that's my minimum

I dont want to have just a two child family, and one, well...that's barely an effort! hahaha It really comes down to if I have a good, strong man that is good with children and who respects that he has to help around the house too. If I marry a man like that, then I would like at least four. But if I marry a man who turns out to be more lazy than I'd like I would only want two or three, because a man like that requires as much effort as a child x_p Basically, it all depends on my situation and what kind of man I'm with.

**Glenlivet** · Tuesday, April 15th, 2003

I don't have such natural feelings. But I would like to have at least 3 children. But it all depends on the female. I knew a very nice girl who told me that she doesn't like kids. I cannot take that. There's no future then. Even though you're both young.

I think that I will wait at least 5-6 years before I have any children.

It can be harder to raise girls than boys. In this context, where the most common style of marriage elopement, an atmosphere of distrust between young girls and their parents is created. As a result, many parents feel compelled to refuse their daughter's request to participate in extracurricular activities. They then do not trust daughters because they fear the girls will sneak around with boys, or elope. But every child is an individual and reacts differently to situations. The upbringing is very important and gender roles are many times artificial and made up by the society in question.

My advice is to find a girl you love and stay with her and to have a strong family with many healthy children. A mate selection by a man who don't want any children is a deterioration of the race.

We have children because we want something of our own flesh; we want to have a family.

The goal of your genes is to survive. Have children and sustain those genes.

So this way, the meaning of life is to procreate, raise those children and then to die.

The point is, there is no purpose, just fill your life with hapiness
(what you find fulfilling) and that is just about it.

Originally posted by NORTHSTAR
Interesting thread.

I have this natural feeling that I have a girl first and then a boy.

This is based on me wanting to be a good parent to my children im afraid I cant give my self 100% if I had more, but i guess its just hard to imagine many sons of me. I wouldnt mind having a few girls but proberly only one son. but im open to destiny and if I had the wealth well then i would have alot of children. Many Many. the thought of just impregnating alot of woman has stroke my mind but then again im a faithful type.

Im waiting a few years with getting children and I want to make sure im with the right woman in my life.

**Thorburn** · Tuesday, April 15th, 2003

It shall not go unnoticed that in times in which the birth rate is lower than the replacement level, as it is now the case in all white nations, people with better or rare genes - the more intelligent, the more racially conscious, the more healthy, people with a better character or precious phenotypes, &c. - have an excellent chance to increase their genetic share in the genepool by having three or more children and to improve that way the genetic quality of the nation or the populace as a whole.

As far as I am concerned, I think that Europe is already hopelessly over-crowded, and it is not tragic or would even be beneficial if our population would shrink in numbers. For most of Europe's history less than 100 million people - and not 700+ million as we have now - populated the planet. There would be far less strain on nature and the resources, far more space and far less urbanization (with its negative consequences) if Europe's population would shrink back over the next generations to a healthy 50-100 million.

With applied eugenics one could easily even improve the genetic quality of the population during that process. Requirement for this would be, of course, that Europe's borders stay closed for immigrants of non-European heritage. In times where our population shrinks, our ability to assimilate members of alien races without that it would seriously affect our system characteristics is (close to) zero. It's this fact that makes today's mass immigration of alien races from the Third World the more criminal.

It shall not be overlooked, however, that the world population will rise until 2050 to about 9 billion people according to a U.N. study. While in 1900 about 2 non-whites could be counted for each white person, it was about 10 : 1 in 2000, and will be about 20 : 1 in 2050 (and about 50 non-Nords for every Nord) if one takes the ever increasing rates of miscegenation into consideration. In addition, most of our people will be over 40, while the majority of non-whites will be younger than 20.

This explosion of the world's population causes a serious problem, not only because the last resorts of nature will be destroyed and the last remaining resources will be plundered (China alone for example will need in 2020 as much oil as the OPEC currently produces), but also due to the immigration pressure onto the formerly exclusively white homelands in Europe and America. Only dedicated action can preserve the existence of the white race.

If our nations would be guided by a racially conscious policy again, it would even militarily not matter if our numbers in Europe are 100 million or 700 million strong. Nuclear arms and modern weapon technology can turn even a small nation with a few million inhabitants into a fortress nobody can afford to attack. If we are to perish then it is not due to our small numbers, but due to lack of will to survive.

Naturally, what happens on the rest of the earth affects us, too. There is only one global climate, and the destruction of the rainforests in Africa and South America, the ongoing global soil erosions, the plundering of resources, and the pollution of the planet by billions of non-whites will affect our environment and lives.

It will not be easy to reduce the world's population to a bearable figure again, but it will on the long run be necessary for our survival. In a nutshell, it is about the reduction of the quantity, and the increase of the quality of mankind.

The future will bring biologic weapons that only affect human beings with certain genetic markers. Allegedly, according to a British newspaper report, Israel possesses already a virus that only kills Arabs but not Jews (with 97% of accuracy, what is remarkable if one considers the close genetic relationship between Middle Eastern Arabs and Jews).

The planet might simply belong to the race that releases its virus first. Problems of rapid mutation rates still have to be overcome, but as it looks now, with the Western leadership being infested by pipe-dreams of racial egalitarianism, it might rather be some Asians or Jews than we.

The solution? Have many children, let them study genetics and convert your garage to a gene-laboratory.

**Evolved** · Tuesday, April 15th, 2003

Yes, Europeans should stop having children altogether to make more room for the Indians and Chinese..

eyes:

We should become gay or sterilize ourselves because the Earth is being polluted by us, Europeans are destroyers of everything decent in the world. The Chinese, Indians and especially Africans are gentle people who are more spiritual and closer to nature. We could learn a lot from them, so we should become a minority. I'm going to buy some fertility drugs and send them to Africa right away..

eyes:

**Thorburn** · Tuesday, April 15th, 2003

You missed the point completely, ladygoeth.

It is neither about "stopping to have children", nor about "making room for the Indians and Chinese". It is about shrinking to a size that increases the life quality of everyone and makes an end to the destruction of nature, while keeping the borders closed, i. e. exactly not giving non-Europeans any room (of which we have already far too little). And while we shrink (what's already happening), the better part of our genepool should have the children; or at least more children than the others, what will improve its quality.

There is no reason why Europe should be populated by 700+ million people. There is nothing what can be done with 700 million people, but not with 50-100 million, apart from the production of insane levels of urban decadence, pollution, and environmental destruction.

Urbanization rates of 90+% and average population densities of 150-300 persons/sqm as in Holland and Germany are insane. Our race developped in free areas with lots of free space around it. People are supposed to live in a country-side environment with nature and animals around them, where one can breathe clean air instead of inhaling pollution, drink clean water, eat grains and vegetables right from the own soil, and where children can roam freely.

They are not supposed to live in small apartment batteries and to be stuck in a traffic jam two hours/day. Urbanization alienates people; people that have lost contact to nature and soil develop the spiritual diseases we can observe today in our metropolises. Lack of space and this destructive environment is also one of the primary reasons why many city people don't desire more than one or any children anymore.

There is no need for towns that are larger than a few 100,000 inhabitants; even capitals should be rather smaller and will still be able to carry all the cultural and industrial operations of our people. Most of our people should live in spacious provinces composed of towns with a population from a few 100 to 5,000 people max, as it used to be the case during the renaissance. The country-side is the backbone of the Nordish man, the city is his grave.

And as to the 5.5 billion (soon 8.5 billion) non-Europeans beyond our borders: They should shrink, too. The entire world population needs to shrink: global air pollution, soil errosion, deforestation, waste of resources, climate change, destruction of wildlife, pollution of the oceans, &c. is our and everyone's affair. On the long run though, I would not mind either, if we expanded our territories of settlement to export our population surplus. At the moment, that's unfortunately not an option.

**Nordhammer** · Tuesday, April 15th, 2003

"If-I-would-be-a-billionaire-and-would-find-a-broodmare-then-I-would-have-15-kids", aw man, you ruined my dream... that's all I had goin' for me.

Seriously... I would say I'm financially and emotionally capable of having multiple kids, I probably would stop at 4 kids. Too many kids I think divides the attention to them from the parents. However, because of many reasons, there is a probability that I will have none. I'm the kind of guy that either does it right, or not at all. So far, I haven't had a relationship to go right. But men have a longer time to reproduce than women, so there's a chance of course.

Anyway, since these non-whites love to come to our nations so much, we should rather just colonize them and develop their nations. So they can enjoy our lifestyle while staying in their own nations.