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

Thread: Should the Powers That Be Limit Family Size?

  1. #11
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 28th, 2008 @ 07:44 PM
    Ethnicity
    British
    Subrace
    sub-nordic
    Country
    England England
    Location
    London - Just Around
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Family
    Single
    Politics
    National Anarchist
    Religion
    Hatha Yoga
    Posts
    897
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    I am trying to put something together for you on this. Not easy.

    According to this article one in five homes is dependent upon benefits:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

    Looking at the case of Britain, we are over-populated as it is, and so we will need the capitalist nexus to support our current population levels, which means wars, and to an extent immigration into our country, and emigration out of it.

    Worker-ownership could help to stablize our populations' movement, reduce the levels of people who are claming benefits (people on low incomes claim benefits, not just the unemployed) and better prepare us for any meltdowns which may occur.

    If we want Britain to be agriculturally self-sufficient, then our numbers would have to drop considerably, leaving us with a large ageing population.

    Perhaps a more specialized system for dealing with the elderly would help before we consider limiting our population size.

    What you are suggesting is eugenic and socially Darwinistic. If our economic and political system more closely mirrored nature, then I do not think that we would be having this discussion in the first place and there would be less need for the measures which you are describing.

    I would love to wake up tomorrow and discover that Britains' illegal immigrant population had vanished and to discover that we had referendum democracy.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, January 19th, 2009 @ 04:45 PM
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Gender
    Posts
    61
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Thrymheim View Post
    I would in theory support a licence for children based on the parents ability to look after said children without relying on the state for support.
    :nono0000: Maybe the problem is the other way around. People have more and more problems looking after their children because they work too much and their purchasing power dwindles. If we were to follow your advice maybe 30 to 40% of the already declining white population in France wouldn't have this license f.ex. And the standard of living isn't much better, if not even worse, in the UK. I think a much better idea would be that the state subsidize mothers who stay at home to take care of their kids.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis_in_Arduis View Post
    What you are suggesting is eugenic and socially Darwinistic.
    Or rather dysgenic as the ability to rake in the largest amount of cash possible is not really a valuable human quality.
    "The Star of David and the Pentagram go hand in hand like black metal and a camera." - Gelal of Grand Belial's Key

    "Without music, life would be a mistake." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

  3. #13
    Senior Member Thrymheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 15th, 2009 @ 08:32 PM
    Ethnicity
    Welsh/Scandinavian
    Country
    Scotland Scotland
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Gender
    Occupation
    student/Bar supervisor
    Politics
    mixed
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    613
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    How about this as a thought;
    If you were to limit the number of children to two for example, then this might actually encourage people to have two or more just because there was a rule to be broken. As a sort of a rebellion against such a nanny state.

    Originally posted by Weisthor
    30 to 40% of the already declining white population in France wouldn't have this license
    How many of the non white population would receive it?

    If this could be applied to the whole world, a population drop in Europe would not be a bad thing although it would cause the temporary problem of an aged population

  4. #14
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,387
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    65
    Thanked in
    37 Posts
    Germany has an annual increase in population of nearly nine hundred thousand souls. The difficulty of feeding this army of new citizens must grow greater from year to year and ultimately end in catastrophe, unless ways and means are found to forestall the danger of starvation and misery in time.
    There were four ways of avoiding so terrible a development for the future:
    1. Following the French example, the increase of births could be artificially restricted, thus meeting the problem of overpopulation
    Nature herself in times of great poverty or bad climactic conditions, as well as poor harvest, intervenes to restrict the increase of population of certain countries or races; this, to be sure, by a method as wise as it is ruthless. She diminishes, not the power of procreation as such, but the conservation of the procreated, by exposing them to hard trials and deprivations with the result that all those who are less strong and less healthy are forced back into the womb of the eternal unknown. Those whom she permits to survive the inclemency of existence are a thousandfold tested hardened, and well adapted to procreate-in turn, in order that the process of thoroughgoing selection may begin again from the beginning. By thus brutally proceeding against the individual and immediately calling him back to herself as soon as he shows himself unequal to the storm of life, she keeps the race and species strong, in fact, raises them to the highest accomplishments.
    At the same time the diminution of number strengthens the individual and thus in the last analysis fortifies the species.
    It is different, however, when man undertakes the limitation of his number. He is not carved of the same wood, he is ' humane.' He knows better than the cruel queen of wisdom. He limits not the conservation of the individual, but procreation itself. This seems to him, who always sees himself and never the race, more human and more justified than the opposite way. Unfortunately, however, the consequences are the reverse:
    While Nature, by making procreation free, yet submitting survival to a hard trial, chooses from an excess number of individuals the best as worthy of living, thus preserving them alone and in them conserving their species, man limits procreation, but is hysterically concerned that once a being is born it should be preserved at any price. This correction of the divine will seems to him as wise as it is humane, and he takes delight in having once again gotten the best of Nature and even having proved her inadequacy. The number, to be sure, has really been limited, but at the same time the value of the individual has dirninished; this, however, is something the dear little ape of the Almighty does not want to see or hear about.
    For as soon as procreation as such is limited and the number of births diminished, the natural struggle for existence which leaves only the strongest and healthiest alive is obviously replaced by the obvious desire to ' save ' even the weakest and most sickly at any price, and this plants the seed of a future generation which must inevitably grow more and more deplorable the longer this mockery of Nature and her will continues.
    And the end will be that such a people will some day be deprived of its existence on this earth; for man can defy the eternal laws of the will to conservation for a certain time, but sooner or later vengeance comes. A stronger race will drive out the weak, for the vital urge in its ultimate form will, time and again, burst all the absurd fetters of the so-called humanity of individuals, in order to replace it by the humanity of Nature which destroys the weak to give his place to the strong.
    Therefore, anyone who wants to secure the existence of the German people by a self-limitation of its reproduction is robbing it of its future.
    http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch04.html
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  5. #15
    Senior Member BeornWulfWer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, February 8th, 2019 @ 10:19 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt
    Ancestry
    West Country Zider 'ead.
    Subrace
    Brünn/Keltic-Nordic
    Country
    England England
    State
    Wessex Wessex
    Location
    Brycзstow,Sumorsǣte
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Family
    Engaged
    Occupation
    Slinger
    Politics
    Uncer Dæg Willa Becuman
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    1,145
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    A stronger race will drive out the weak
    We must ensure that it us who are not considered weak.
    "The only way to get smarter is to play a smarter opponent."

    _________________

  6. #16
    Senior Member SwordOfTheVistula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 1st, 2012 @ 12:21 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    50% German, 25% English, 25% Irish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Location
    Washington DC
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Construction, writer/editor
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    2,986
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Weisthor View Post
    People have more and more problems looking after their children because they work too much and their purchasing power dwindles...I think a much better idea would be that the state subsidize mothers who stay at home to take care of their kids.
    The problem with direct subsidization that is that it leads to the lowest elements having more kids. People working jobs as doctors, engineers, lawyers, executives, etc aren't likely to be enticed by the state benefits to have more kids, however it will be a strong incentive to the unemployed and those working menial jobs, both in regards to comparison with the income they already make and the standard of living they expect.

    A couple ideas to encourage more educated/successful people to have children:

    Write off 25% of educational debt per child the person has. This would be easy to do, since most educational debt is to government related entities.

    Tax deduction of say $25k/child. Thus, someone making $25k/year would derive no additional benefit beyond the 1st child, whereas a person making $100k/yr could avoid paying taxes entirely if they have 4 kids.
    Contact Congress on immigration
    Contact Congress to reject banker bailout
    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Ben Franklin

  7. #17
    Senior Member Old Winter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, February 28th, 2011 @ 09:30 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Ancestry
    French, Zeelandic, Dutch.
    Subrace
    CeltoGermanic
    Country
    Netherlands Netherlands
    Location
    Rotterdam
    Gender
    Politics
    None
    Religion
    Racial occultism
    Posts
    1,857
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Well, it has been a known fact that the population of whites in the world is getting smaller everyday yet the population of white lands is growing :

    that is because of mass immigration of people who also pop out many kids.

    So yes, limit family size but not over white people.


  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Monday, January 19th, 2009 @ 04:45 PM
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Gender
    Posts
    61
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Thrymheim View Post
    How about this as a thought;
    If you were to limit the number of children to two for example, then this might actually encourage people to have two or more just because there was a rule to be broken. As a sort of a rebellion against such a nanny state.
    No need to fix what's not broken.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrymheim View Post
    How many of the non white population would receive it?
    It doesn't matter that the non-white population would be greatly affected as they just have nothing to do here in the first place. Problems must be fixed at the core, a band aid solution is not good enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrymheim View Post
    If this could be applied to the whole world, a population drop in Europe would not be a bad thing although it would cause the temporary problem of an aged population
    Yes, it will cause a problem with the aging population, that's why it has to drop gradually.

    Quote Originally Posted by SwordOfTheVistula View Post
    The problem with direct subsidization that is that it leads to the lowest elements having more kids.

    People working jobs as doctors, engineers, lawyers, executives, etc aren't likely to be enticed by the state benefits to have more kids, however it will be a strong incentive to the unemployed and those working menial jobs, both in regards to comparison with the income they already make and the standard of living they expect.
    The lowest elements are in the media, entertainment, government and so on. I.e all those damn traitors. And unemployment should not even exist in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by SwordOfTheVistula View Post
    A couple ideas to encourage more educated/successful people to have children:

    Write off 25% of educational debt per child the person has. This would be easy to do, since most educational debt is to government related entities.

    Tax deduction of say $25k/child. Thus, someone making $25k/year would derive no additional benefit beyond the 1st child, whereas a person making $100k/yr could avoid paying taxes entirely if they have 4 kids.
    A better idea would be that people can live off any useful work decently.
    "The Star of David and the Pentagram go hand in hand like black metal and a camera." - Gelal of Grand Belial's Key

    "Without music, life would be a mistake." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

  9. #19
    Senior Member SwordOfTheVistula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 1st, 2012 @ 12:21 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    50% German, 25% English, 25% Irish
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Location
    Washington DC
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Construction, writer/editor
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    2,986
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Weisthor View Post
    The lowest elements are in the media, entertainment government and so on
    Media and entertainment are only a small portion of the upper/upper middle class, they are the most visible. Besides, millionaires are way beyond any incentive anyways. The idea is to get more high IQ/educated people in the middle/upper middle class to have kids, people making $60-200k/yr, engineers, doctors, lawyers, accountants etc.

    Government jobs tend to pay not as much comparative to private sector jobs with similar educational requirements, but they have much greater job security and benefits, if anything private sector employees would benefit more from tax reductions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Weisthor View Post
    And unemployment should not even exist in the first place.
    There's always going to be a certain number of people in between jobs, people just getting out of school and looking for work, etc-this is called the 'natural unemployment rate'. When I was in HS in the mid 90s the economists thought the 'natural unemployment rate' was 5.5-6%, but for most of the early part of the decade the unemployment rate was well below this, around 4% or so, so some economists are thinking the 'natural unemployment rate' is lower-more around 4%. Perhaps the development of the internet and temp agencies reduced the natural unemployment rate, but there's still going to be people in between jobs, it takes time to go through the job search and interview process and get started in a new job, and these people are going to be 'unemployed'


    Quote Originally Posted by Weisthor View Post
    A better idea would be that people can live off any useful work decently.
    It's ridiculous to say "someone should be able to support a family of 4 by being a McDonalds cook". If that's all the further they can advance in life, we don't need those people having kids. We need to have the smarter/successful people having more kids, whereas in today's society it is the reverse.
    Contact Congress on immigration
    Contact Congress to reject banker bailout
    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Ben Franklin

  10. #20
    Senior Member Thrymheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 15th, 2009 @ 08:32 PM
    Ethnicity
    Welsh/Scandinavian
    Country
    Scotland Scotland
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Gender
    Occupation
    student/Bar supervisor
    Politics
    mixed
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    613
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SwordOfTheVistula View Post
    It's ridiculous to say "someone should be able to support a family of 4 by being a McDonalds cook". If that's all the further they can advance in life, we don't need those people having kids. We need to have the smarter/successful people having more kids, whereas in today's society it is the reverse.
    I guess that this would come under licences for children or a limit based on income level, however you should be able to support a family by doing other menial and unplesant jobs e.g binman, cleaner etc as these are essential to the running of society maybe they could even be rewarded by higher birth quotas. The ones you don't want are those that are lazy, and will bring up their children without a work ethic as they are no use to anybody.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Magical Powers of the Futhark
    By Blutwölfin in forum Runes & Sinnbildkunde
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, July 24th, 2005, 11:47 AM
  2. Coevolution of Neocortical Size, Group Size and Language in Humans
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Anthropogeny & Ethnogenesis
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Friday, May 21st, 2004, 04:36 PM

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
  •