White Nationalist groups are almost exclusively men’s clubs, and most of the men are bachelors who complain that they cannot find suitable women. Furthermore, those men who are married frequently complain that their wives are indifferent or even hostile to their views about race. Men, it seems, are far more willing to espouse politically incorrect views about race than women. After perusing various websites and forums discussing this topic, I’ve found that many men resent this fact, construing it as some sort of moral failing on the part of women. But it is not. It merely reflects the hard-wired biological differences between the sexes.
Sex places different pressures on males and females. Eggs take more energy to produce than sperm, and females alone have to bear a pregnancy. And in over 90% of mammalian species, females provide substantial parental care while males provide none whatsoever. Thus females make a much larger parental investment in each offspring than do males. Parental investment increases the reproductive success of the offspring receiving it, while simultaneously decreasing the parent’s future reproductive success by consuming resources that could be spent on additional offspring.
Differences in behavior between the sexes came about as a result of these differing demands. A female’s potential reproductive success is relatively small, and is limited more by the number of eggs she can produce (or pregnancies she can carry) than by the number of males she can convince to mate with her. In contrast, a male’s potential reproductive success is relatively large, and is limited more by the number of females he can convince to mate with him than by the number of sperm he can produce. This difference in potential reproductive success allows us to predict that males will compete with each other for access to mates, while females will be selective about with whom they mate. Sexually, males are adventurers and risk-takers, while females are risk-avoiders.
These differences in reproductive strategies manifest themselves in behavioral and physical differences that go beyond sex. The competitiveness of males drives them to take risks more frequently, not just when appealing to females, but also in day-to-day decision-making. Car insurance rates are higher for teenage boys than for girls for precisely this reason. Risk-taking “raises the stakes” of many decisions, increasing the potential rewards but also increasing the consequences of failure.
This risk-taking makes evolutionary sense, because males are far more expendable than females. If all women were killed except one, the race would take many generations to return to its original size, if ever. Yet if all the men were killed except one, the remaining man would have his work cut out for him, but the race could theoretically repopulate within a generation. Since males are not as necessary for the maintenance of population size, males tend to take more risks, be more aggressive, and tend to work towards establishing themselves higher in social hierarchies than do women.
But if women are inherently conservative, then why are they generally more supportive of left-wing causes than men? First of all, in spite of the leftist rhetoric about progress and radical change, the leftist emphasis on social welfare, social planning, and anti-competitive egalitarianism has an obvious appeal to risk-averse females. Furthermore, in spite of the leftist posture of always being outsiders, the left now controls most of the authoritative institutions of society: the educational system, the news and entertainment media, the churches, etc. Leftist opinion is the “status quo.” Women are brainwashed to accept it and loath to criticize it, for fear of the risks to their social standing, their employment, and especially to the well-being of their children.
But more women support the White racialist movement now than in the past. I know this from personal experience. I have been reading racialist-oriented USENET newsgroups (and web-based bulletin boards, once the technology was developed), ever since I first went “online” back in 1994 or 1995. I posted a personals ad on Stormfront years ago, shortly after the personals section was created. I didn’t receive any responses. I did the same thing just several months ago, and was contacted by a number of women.
Part of the reason may be that women are more comfortable expressing politically incorrect ideas anonymously on the internet, a far less risky prospect than espousing the same views openly.
But surely that is not the main reason. For the same reason that women have been slow to take up the White nationalist cause, women may eventually become its strongest and most uncompromising supporters: their maternal instincts. More women are joining the White nationalist cause as it becomes increasingly evident that the health and welfare of future generations of Whites is at stake.
Aside from the love and protection my own mother gave me (which continues to this day), my first encounter with female maternal instinct came when I was seven or eight years old. At a lake near my old school, I observed a mallard duck leading her ducklings. Curious boy that I was, I ran over to the ducklings and picked one up. Although most adult ducks at the lake were apprehensive about approaching humans even when they were sharing food, the mother turned, came right up to me, and started quacking loudly. When I knelt down, she proceeded to flog my arm with her wing until I released the duckling. I was shocked at the length this mother would go to protect her baby. She went from risk aversion to quite possibly risking her life, but the underlying biological imperative was the same.
I have the feeling that more White mothers will begin behaving like that mother duck, once they can no longer ignore the fact that the world their children will inherit will be worse than the one into which they were born. In the meantime, more individuals need to stick their necks out, especially young men. Future generations of our race are counting on us.
Is KD Rebel by David Lane the sort of world Reginald and Lockeford are hoping for?
“High quality Men interested in marriage and children need to get back the comparative reproductive advantage stolen from them by feminists, and they need to get it back with interest.”
Reg, consider:
I am NOT a feminist. I like men. I think they’ve done a much better job running society than the women did when women were given the chance, and women do a much better job running the home.
I have sympathy for the plight of (especially young) White males in America. I have a teenaged son. I see the garbage he’s bombarded with every day. I want for him what my eldest brother (60 now) got to have.
BUT, I also have an 18-y.o. daughter. Who is NOT a feminist, who will want to marry and have children in her 20s. (She’s still a silly girl who needs her mother. She’s not ready to be a mother herself. She needs time to mature.)
But, if polygyny were legalized, if this quality girl were to marry, hoping to have the love and intimacy she’s been raised to expect from her man, she would be at constant risk of her husband marrying again, and again… All the while, reducing resources that are supposed to go to HER childen with him.
Sorry. As a married woman who, with my husband, sacrificed greatly, turned our lives upside down so I could be home to do a good job mothering, I CANNOT get behind polygyny, that my grandchildren will have to compete with some other woman’s children — and neither can my husband. This is a nonstarter.
““You can only have a wife well past her prime, after Men who lack your interest in the future of the Race have used her as a harlot for decades.””
I am not saying that is great, either. But, if the man is capable of loving a woman for who she is, at least he has access to a woman.
“The dynastic ones, the ones who take a longer view of things and lack the selfishness that’s correlated with lower fertility, will.”
And those who just happen to be rich will. Just being rich, doesn’t mean you have the right to mate with many wives while Lower and Middle Class men “do not have the right to even one wife.”
In our high celebrity culture, you do not have to have a stronger intelligence to accumulate excess wealth. Is Tiger Woods the ideal man?
Also, Reginald: Do you support legalizing polygamy, even while non-White males still have excellent access to our women?
Guys,
Please stop dragging this polygamy debate into each and every single thread that even remotely discusses or touches upon gender relations.
This topic has been discussed ad infinitum around here — and let us not potentially discourage any non-WN passers-by from getting the wrong ideas and leaving our site altogether.
Much thanks,
Landser
I’m with Barb #53, it’s non-starter, just forget it, I don’t care what your reasoning is, I will never support men having multiple wives (or wives having multiple husbands). This is very very deep and very very basic. I consider it unchangeable. Certain things about a society are absolutely basic, and “marriage equals one man and one woman” is one such. I used to read all of Reginald’s comments because he’s a smart guy and for the most part posts good posts. But since he’s been touting this pro-polygamy thing I’ve been skipping over all of his posts unread.
Theorem from elementary algebra: one man + one woman = marriage. Not two and one, not one and two, but one and one.
I deeply respect Islam, as I respect all serious religions, but Islam’s biggest flaw is permitting men to have “up to four wives.” It’s uncivilized.
Barb,
There’s no evidence that having more competition for paternal resources and affection has a negative effect on children’s life outcomes, or makes them at all unhappy.
Studies have shown no problems associated with a child coming from a large family where he’ll have lots of siblings competing with him.
And even having a large number of Step-Siblings has been found to have no ill effect, once you adjust for families with Step-Siblings being more likely to have parents who were divorced.
If Step-Siblings aren’t a problem on average, half-siblings certainly won’t be.
When it comes to your daughter, as opposed to your potential grandchildren, I admit that some Women don’t like having to share their husband with another wife or other wives.
This is why some Polygamous societies give the first wife veto power, so that the Husband needs her permission before taking each additional wife.
barb,
Thanks for your feedback. Reginald somewhat addresses this above, but I would like to know:
What if additional wives were always chosen by women? For example, the first wife decides whether there will be any additional wives?
And then if there are two both must agree, and so on. It’s communally discussed but female dependent.
And women can still vote.
Could we please, as some of the other sensible commentators have requested – GIVE THIS POLYGAMY DEBATE A WELL-DESERVED REST AROUND HERE?!
Wow.
“And women can still vote.” ( — Lockeford)
Lockeford, in Switzerland in 1971 only men could vote, and men could also only have one wife. From what I hear it was a great place to live, one of the best on the planet. No, I’m not trying to re-open the women’s suffrage debate here; that’s over for now. I’m replying to your insinuation above that a polygamous society is better, or no worse, than one without women’s suffrage. Earth to Lockeford: it isn’t.
“What if additional wives were always chosen by women? example, the first wife decides whether there will be any additional wives”
Well, Reg is making the argument that polygyny is pro-eugenic and will increase the birthrate because it will appeal to the female desire to “mate up,” that is, to take a mate who is “superior genetically.” (So defined as -a.- possessing more resources and -b.- desirability to many women) So, his genes will inhabit more uteruses, and more women will breed young because a “superior” man is readily available.
Yet, a woman who is married to a “superior” man has a direct incentive to VETO any further marriages because the offspring of those next marriages will compete with her own children for dad’s provisioning and affection, as well as be competition for herself. (Just as modern women dislike the “other woman” in infidelity for the same reason.)
So if the women have veto power, the only women who are likely to vote yes to another wife are women who dislike their husband and wish to not be conjugal with him, but still demand provisioning. (Like today’s ex-wife who gets alimony.) So that shoots down the pro-eugenic argument, because a man who does not excite his wife is not likely superior. (Is NOT superior, in fact, by definition, since we’re using, as one indicator in our definition, the fact that women find him attractive.)
It also shoots down the increased birthrate argument because a woman who is unhappy with her husband will likely criticize him to the younger wife, causing her to feel contempt for him, also. (Women being social and prone to accepting the opinion of the peers. At least today’s ex-wife is not in the house, nagging.)
“GIVE THIS POLYGAMY DEBATE A WELL-DESERVED REST AROUND HERE”
Sorry. I’ve only become well and truly wised-up to our predicament as Whites in the last few years. I’d not noticed that polygamy has been argued to death.
“GIVE THIS POLYGAMY DEBATE A WELL-DESERVED REST AROUND HERE” Sorry. I’ve only become well and truly wised-up to our predicament as Whites in the last few years. I’d not noticed that polygamy has been argued to death.
Dearest Barb,
I did not mean this toward you at all, sorry I didn’t clarify.
I am with Fred on this one, and just think it is getting a bit much with Reginald (who is a great writer) consistently riding his hobby horse into every thread that deals with human sexuality and/or relationship issues.
“Dearest Barb,
I did not mean this toward you at all, sorry I didn’t clarify.”
That’s okay. I owe the apology, because I did participate in the thread hijacking.
“Well, Reg is making the argument that polygyny is pro-eugenic and will increase the birthrate because it will appeal to the female desire to “mate up,” that is, to take a mate who is “superior genetically.” (So defined as -a.- possessing more resources and -b.- desirability to many women) So, his genes will inhabit more uteruses, and more women will breed young because a “superior” man is readily available.”
Yes.
“Yet, a woman who is married to a “superior” man has a direct incentive to VETO any further marriages because the offspring of those next marriages will compete with her own children for dad’s provisioning and affection, as well as be competition for herself.”
Actually, a Woman married to a superior Men would have FAR LESS of an incentive to veto further marriages, due to the simple fact that superior Men have more Wealth and on average more Sex Drive to spare, even after satisfying the needs of the first wife.
“(Just as modern women dislike the “other woman” in infidelity for the same reason.)”
Modern Women dislike the other woman largely because she could steal him from her, leaving her alone.
Polygamy is far more humane, and far less of a threat to older Women who will have seriously curtailed sexual needs anyway.
“So if the women have veto power, the only women who are likely to vote yes to another wife are women who dislike their husband and wish to not be conjugal with him, but still demand provisioning.”
You are greatly underestimating the conjugal capacity of Men. With Polygamy the Man can leverage his sexual and emotional capacity far more efficiently because he doesn’t have to expend so much time on travel, like the Men who want to concurrently satisfy multiple Women have to in the West today.
“So that shoots down the pro-eugenic argument, because a man who does not excite his wife is not likely superior.”
Actually, the more a Woman is sexually attracted to a Man, the more likely she is to defer to his judgment, partly for the fear of losing him.
“It also shoots down the increased birthrate argument because a woman who is unhappy with her husband will likely criticize him to the younger wife, causing her to feel contempt for him, also.”
The scenario I envision for the legalization of Polygamy would entail the continuation of no fault divorce.
Women who hate their husbands will do what they do now, and get divorced.
“The scenario I envision for the legalization of Polygamy would entail the continuation of no fault divorce.”
Okay, that’s what I thought. So no-fault divorce laws coupled with polygyny would put a young woman first wife at high risk of the husband marrying and marrying and marrying, because if she protests, he can dump her. Or if she gets annoyed about something trivial like the cap on the toothpaste tube, he can punish her by marrying again. And she has no recourse because no-fault divorce means no alimony, too.
So Grandmas and Grampas need to be very sure to oppose this proposition, lest our daughter get mixed up with one of the old-timey philanderers — who now are in the happy circumstance that they get to philander by marrying, with all its legal ramifications including the b—— children are now legally legitimate. And there wouldn’t even be the brakes upon them that exist minimally currently of social shaming.
Thus us Grampas and Grammas’ own daughter and grandchildren would be at risk of losing resources and get much less affection, devotion and time from dad. Likely, she’ll end up back home, just as if she’d taken up with a negro, since she probably won’t be able to stand the other women, who she’ll undoubtedly spend more hours per day with than hubby.
(Suggesting that reducing the time away from his wife that a philanderer is traveling would mean wife gets more attention is a disingenuous argument because men who are cheating tend to overcompensate by lavishing affection on their wife when home, at least until caught.)
So not only would average men who are honest with themselves about their own “hunkiness” be against such a plan, so would reasonable Grampas and Grammas.
Sorry, Charlemagne. I’m done, I promise.
Barb,
You are completely wrong.
Grandparents, in their capacity as Grandparents, have no reason to oppose Polygamy.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOVER that it harms children to be provided with more half-siblings, with the exception of one particular circumstance:
If you view your future son-in-law as a future corpse your little grandchildren can pick at when he’s dead like a pack of disgusting vultures, than yes, there’s a disadvantage to a child having more half-siblings because then he’ll have to share the estate with more heirs.
But who says that children have a right to an inheritance? Their Parents already gave them life and provided for them in their childhood.
That is enough.
“Thus us Grampas and Grammas’ own daughter and grandchildren would be at risk of losing resources and get much less affection, devotion and time from dad.”
Do you condemn the Duggars for putting their children in the exact same situation?
And actually, what the Duggars did to their children was FAR worse, according to your wrongheaded logic, than what Polygamists do.
You see, instead of just making it so their children will have a father with less time and affection to lavish on them, according to your bean counter way of looking at things the Duggars also made it so their children HAVE A MOTHER WITH FAR LESS AFFECTION AND TIME TO LAVISH ON THEM.
Thus if we are to believe your perverse and race killing logic, the worst thing parents could do is have a large number of children.
But of course there’s absolutely no evidence that coming from a really large family with parents who were distracted from lavishing attention on you by them having other children is at all harmful.
There’s no evidence at all.
It’s like the bullcrap idea that Schizophrenia was caused by mothers being “frigid”. It is the idiocy and delusion of the nurture assumption.
Reginald: “the Duggars also made it so their children HAVE A MOTHER WITH FAR LESS AFFECTION AND TIME TO LAVISH ON THEM.”
A polygamist family branch could have 18+ children also; which is is as attention-costing as the Duggar’s. Or, if they can’t, then maybe a monogamous couple would be more efficient. Whatever the case, you can not have it both ways favoring polygamy.
“Thus if we are to believe your perverse and race killing logic, the worst thing parents could do is have a large number of children.”
Monogamy is not perverse and/or race-killing.
“A polygamist family branch could have 18+ children also; which is is as attention-costing as the Duggar’s.”
Yeah, it would be. But in a highly Polygamist Country like Yemen the average Woman has about 6 children each, so I don’t think even Polygamy would turn the extreme outlier Michelle Duggar into the norm of Fertility for White Woman.
It would push the average White Woman closer to Michelle Duggar in terms of children produced per lifetime, though, which is the important thing.
“Or, if they can’t, then maybe a monogamous couple would be more efficient.”
It’s not so much that they can’t. Some of them will, and there’s no reason to thin k the reduced parental attention will harm them any more than the Duggar children have been.
It just is that you’re never going to have the average Woman in a society, no matter how Polygamous and otherwise optimized for fertility it may be, have all that many Woman producing 19 children.
It’s pushing the limits of the Human Capacity in this area, and there are undoubtedly purely gene based biological traits Michelle Duggar has which helped her to achieve what so many Women couldn’t have done no matter the circumstance.
“Monogamy is not perverse and/or race-killing.”
I wasn’t referring to Monogamy, but rather the idea that having more siblings is harmful to a child due to the alleged reduction in parental investment.
This idea has no basis in evidence, and is extremely dangerous whether our society decides to stick with Monogamy or not.
Reginald: I will agree you are correct, that the idea “having White children is bad,” is dangerous-especially when we have rivaling races with skyrocketing birthrates, a heavy presence in our countries (and miscegenating with our naive members), and increasing military power (while every White nation’s military strength is declining rapidly).
I said I wouldn’t but I can’t help myself. Sorry, Charlemagne, but White fertility is incredibly important. I don’t want Reg, or anyone else, to think I’m saying having White children is bad.
But Whites are more K-strategy (fewer children, more care) reproducers than are Middle-Easterners or Blacks, who are much more R-strategy reproducers (more children, less care.) Basically, we Whites are programmed to strive for quality over quantity. Twelve kids for the average White woman likely means her older daughters are carrying the burden of caring for the younger siblings. I knew enough Catholic families where the older daughters said, I’m not having any — I already raised kids, my brothers and sisters. So in that sense, many many siblings IS fertility-killing.
Four or five kids per White woman? Sure, that’s doable. And healthy for the kids, who get their infant/toddler nurturing needs met by having mom’s less-divided attention for the unique early years, since the children are spaced every 2-3-4 years, rather than every year. Which monogamous couples can certainly manage.
The true fertility killer for White women, such that she’s unnaturally having none or one or even only two– is the inflation-tax forcing her into the work force in order to help the husband pay the rent. Feminist cant notwithstanding, employment is incompatible with pregnancy/birth/nursing/toddler chasing.
Duggars are outliers. Maybe he’s Superman. Or maybe their reality tv show means he can be with them 18 hours a day and give all the 18 kids each enough attention. ( And he’s still got only one wife.) If Duggars believe they are doing a good job, I trust their judgment. But they are outliers.
But like the occasional school that appears to accomplish high levels of Black achievement, I’m dubious it’ll scale up.
You want more White babies? Get the anti-White wealth-redistributing-to-minorities gov’t off our backs so young White people can afford to form monogamous families. Then you’ll have the babies, and happy babies, at that. And get Gramma to go to work to financially help the young couple.
And I think there IS evidence that having many half-siblings decreases a father’s investment: In divorce cases, often the father moves on to the new wife and focuses on the new babies, and the old children feel abandoned. Maybe it’s mom’s fault, but even so many kids of divorce feel abandoned by dad.
I said I wouldn’t but I can’t help myself. Sorry, Charlemagne, but White fertility is incredibly important. I don’t want Reg, or anyone else, to think I’m saying having White children is bad.
Barb,
That’s totally alright, and I am glad you are correcting some of Reg’s misconceptions.
Too bad he cannot stop with his thread hijacking and riding his hobby horse into each and every discussion that has even the remotest hint of sex. I guess he cannot help himself — he is clinically obsessed with this issue.
Exclusive territory is more important than fertility rates.
Frank Salter in On Genetic Interests:
p. 60
pp. 149-150
Also in On Genetic Interests, Salter makes an analogy between monogamy and universal nationalism.
pp. 315-316
‘… we say “You can only have a wife well past her prime, after Men who lack your interest in the future of the Race have used her as a harlot for decades.” ‘
I cannot provide scientific proof for the following claim, but I find it persuasive.
Claim: Women who are sexually active with multiple partners before marriage are not able to form strong emotional bonds in marriage.
If that claim is true, then women who have been used as harlots for decades will be incapable of keeping households and communities together.
I suspect that the white populations of the Anglosphere will increasingly resemble the patrician classes of decadent Rome: sexual expression continue to be elevated among those who can afford it, child-rearing will continue to suffer.
This way to the demographic collapse, ladies and gentlemen.
I cannot provide scientific proof for the following claim, but I find it persuasive.
Claim: Women who are sexually active with multiple partners before marriage are not able to form strong emotional bonds in marriage.
If that claim is true, then women who have been used as harlots for decades will be incapable of keeping households and communities together.
John,
Yes, very true.
This is news to you, however???
Oxytocin, which is the principal hormone responsible for pair-bonding, especially in women, is secreted through breast-feeding and sexual intercourse.
The problem for a woman in getting a proper oxytocin response is most certainly correlated with the number of partners she has had. Especially how much casual partners, and the level of promiscuity she has engaged in her past, determines just how much she will be able to bond with the given man in her life at the moment.
“I said I wouldn’t but I can’t help myself. Sorry, Charlemagne, but White fertility is incredibly important. I don’t want Reg, or anyone else, to think I’m saying having White children is bad.”
Barb,
I know you don’t have that view. The problem is that you are promoting a doctrine that leads all too many White people to infer that they’d somehow be depriving the children they already have if they had more White children.
In other words, it makes them think that having more White children is bad.
An idea that tends to lead to this conclusion is extremely dangerous.
“Twelve kids for the average White woman likely means her older daughters are carrying the burden of caring for the younger siblings.”
No large Human population has a fertility rate so high. Only a minority of Women would have so many children.
And even if we managed Yemeni levels of fertility, only a minority of that minority would be early enough in the birth order to face a meaningful degree of sibling care burden.
“I knew enough Catholic families where the older daughters said, I’m not having any — I already raised kids, my brothers and sisters. So in that sense, many many siblings IS fertility-killing.”
This may have been a rationalization. Catholics had extremely large families for Centuries without it having a negative effect on the fertility rate of their children.
It was the general loss of religious belief in Baby Boomers Catholics, and the increasing cultural influence of Anti-Fertility Feminist memes, which caused so many Catholic Girls from a certain generation to have less children than their mothers.
It most assuredly wasn’t that helping their mother out with younger siblings turned them off of caring for children.
If anything, except with unusually contrary people, doing something more as a child tends to make you more interested in it as an adult.
This partly explains why all the great chess players were taught the game as children, and so many of them were pressured into playing it by a parent or guardian (an extreme and very interesting example of this being the famous Polgar sisters, some of the strongest female Chess Players to ever live).
“Four or five kids per White woman? Sure, that’s doable. And healthy for the kids, who get their infant/toddler nurturing needs met by having mom’s less-divided attention for the unique early years, since the children are spaced every 2-3-4 years, rather than every year.”
There’s no evidence that reduced spacing is harmful to children in any way. If it was, if it hurt a child to have a sibling born the year before, then Twins would be completely and utterly screwed!
And yet the evidence shows absolutely no negatives to be found in the adult outcomes of Twins as compared to singletons.
“The true fertility killer for White women, such that she’s unnaturally having none or one or even only two– is the inflation-tax forcing her into the work force in order to help the husband pay the rent.”
Certainly two income couples have greatly reduced fertility, and this appears to be primarily a matter of cause and effect.
The mistake we made was allowing Women to take jobs from Men, to take jobs that Men are interested in and good at.
It is very important to understand that the economic position of Men, both in terms of how much of their lives they spend unemployed and what degree of preferment they achieve, was profoundly damaged by the flooding of Women into traditionally male occupations.
So many Men who need their wives to work now, would NEVER have been put into the economic position of needing their wives to work if they didn’t have to compete with Women for jobs.
You are right that Governmental economic policies also have an effect, though.
“But like the occasional school that appears to accomplish high levels of Black achievement, I’m dubious it’ll scale up.”
That’s not a good analogy at all.
We have mountains of evidence that Blacks Students have lower achievement than Whites.
In sharp contrast, we have NO evidence in support of the proposition that children from Duggar sized White Families have lower achievement, or are worse off in any other way.
In fact, we have evidence from a Public School system FLDS children went to that at least these children of extremely large families had much HIGHER achievement than is typical for White children.
From the school years from 1997-2000 children who attended the then FLDS dominated public school in Colorado City, Arizona, were given Stanford 9 Standardized Achievement Tests in Grade 11. In the average year testing occurred they were at the 57th Percentile of Reading, the 53rd Percentile of Language, and the 61st Percentile of Mathematics.
In other words, they were above average in everything and well above average in reading and mathematics.
Now obviously we aren’t going to “scale up” what the Duggars are doing to the extent where we’d make White Women have 19 children even if they think they are not personally capable of raising that many children properly. Not all White Women are equal in their Maternal Capacity, their ability to love and care for their offspring in a sufficiently efficient and intelligent way that they can manage to have so many as Michelle Duggar has.
Even if we greatly increased White Fertility, even if we quadrupled it relative to what it is now, the only White Women who’d be having Michelle Duggar like numbers of children would be the ones selected for the quality of being able to handle raising that many children.
Once a Woman nears the breaking point of how many children she can manage raising without it having a negative effect, she can take time off from having children to let some of the ones she already has grow up.
“You want more White babies? Get the anti-White wealth-redistributing-to-minorities gov’t off our backs so young White people can afford to form monogamous families.”
You’re putting the cart before the horse. No matter what the Tea Partiers may think, we aren’t going to get the Government dependant minorities off our backs except by means of bloody war between Anti-Government Whites on one side, and the Government + Non-Whites on the other.
And what we need to do is increase White Fertility now, so they’ll be enough young White Men to guarantee victory in that conflict and to maximize the amount of American territory we can avoid ceding, for ALL TIME, to Non-Whites.
“And I think there IS evidence that having many half-siblings decreases a father’s investment: In divorce cases, often the father moves on to the new wife and focuses on the new babies, and the old children feel abandoned. Maybe it’s mom’s fault, but even so many kids of divorce feel abandoned by dad.”
While this is true, it is very important to understand that Divorce causes reduced Paternal investment via the mechanism of causing a Man’s children to live under separate roofs.
So long as all of a Man’s children are concentrated in one household, whether because he is a Polygamist or because he married a fertility Goddess from Arkansas, he’ll be able to provide them with the degree of paternal investment and male role modeling they need.
A Father’s primary duty is to be the authority and maintainer of discipline in a household, and someone who can speak to his children in such a way as to pass on valuable traditions.
A Man can maintain order and authority, and pass on traditions, to many of his children at once.
For example, I think I remember reading that Jim-Bob Duggar conducts Bible Studies with a whole bunch of his children at once, which is a great benefit to them and a much more efficient way of giving children Paternal Investment than the kind of pathetic “trying to be your child’s best friend” technique that so many emasculated White Men seem to be trying nowadays.
Children can have other children be their best friend, they don’t need a parent to fill that role. A child just needs to be assured reasonably often that it is loved and will be taken care of, and it will be happy.
I think it was to keep all of a man’s children in one household, because of the moral benefits that seem to come from this, that the founder of Islam decided to limit Men to four wives each.
Four wives can be kept in one household quite easily, but more than that would tend to result in the kinds of household breakups that may cause children to feel bitter against their too absent father, while possibly interfering with the passing on of religious tradition from Men to their sons and daughters.
It is because I’m against households being broken up that I’d prefer to have no fault divorce abolished, even in the context of legalized Polygamy greatly reducing the need to make marriage more attractive to Men.
The problem, though, is that no fault divorce is an institution with committed and extraordinarily well funded defenders, especially amongst the Lawyers who have a vastly disproportionate degree of influence over how laws are written and implemented.
“Maybe it’s mom’s fault, but even so many kids of divorce feel abandoned by dad.”
Which is understandable. Historically if a Man was alive, whether the society was Monogamous or Polygamous he would stay in the same household as his children.
Therefore a child that knew his or her father to be alive, but living in another household, would tend to feel abandoned by him.
The irony is that nowadays, thanks to Feminism and Anti-Male Alimony and Child Support Laws, a Father will so often be chased out of his children’s home through no fault of his own.
And then of course the Mother’s going to badmouth the Father to the children, which just makes the whole thing more unseemly.
We really need to reform Alimony and Child Support laws so it stops giving Women a perverse incentive to divorce their husbands.
A Woman who instigates a divorce should NEVER be given more of her Husband’s income than would be needed to maintain a modest and frugal scale of living, and certainly she should never be given more than the median income for her State.
Divorce lawyers would be less adamently opposed to this reform than they would be getting rid of no fault divorce altogether, so there’s a chance it could be done. (Though it’s still a longshot, alas.)
This mantra of men leading and women will follow is utter nonsense. Most men nowadays are seeking the approval of women which forces them to tread lightly on hot button political subjects like race and immigration.
This urge to conform to political correct and anti-racist dogma only seems to afflict white women. Not so with non-white females. You’ll see throngs of black and mestizo women at hate whitey rallies and Oprah Winfrey regularly discusses topics affecting the black community while ditzy white women sit in the audience and smile approvingly.
My own pet theory is that the liberalism of white women is chiefly due to brainwashing by churches and schools and perhaps growing up in a single parent household or with a weak and emasculated father or perhaps both. You’ll find that college educated white women are more liberal than non college educated women which dovetails with brainwashing in higher education theory. There’s also the possibility that whites have a self destruct gene encoded within their DNA which is easily switched on by various buzzwords and idealistic platitudes pleasing to our racial mentality.
This mantra of men leading and women will follow is utter nonsense. Most men nowadays are seeking the approval of women which forces them to tread lightly on hot button political subjects like race and immigration.
Mr. Dithers,
Yes, you are so right.
Most White men, ‘WN” or not, are often supplicating, subservient fools to women – and this is the prime reason they are often disliked, or at the very least, disrespected by their females, and females in general.
The term ‘White-Knighting Mangina’ does have an element of truth to it, unfortunately.
Dithers: “Most men nowadays are seeking the approval of women which forces them to tread lightly on hot button political subjects like race and immigration.”
That’s a load of horseshit. Most white men are sitting on their big fat asses watching the TV and being political correct so they can suck up to their boss. Or Tea Party FOX-Tards blathering about “Al Qaeda” and how they love Legal Immigrants as long as they are “conservative” and support “limited government.”
The most pathetic part of this so-called “pro-white” movement is hearing the bitching about women from loser men.
But I will agree with Shakespeare – Kill All the Lawyers.
That’s a load of horseshit. – VVD
To say that his point is without merit is not realistic. It’s not exactly news that women are more liberal as regards race than men. Men do tread lightly on racial subjects, in many cases, to win the approval of women. Why should it be otherwise? Modern America is a very feminised society.
The most pathetic part of this so-called “pro-white” movement is hearing the bitching about women from loser men.
The most pathetic part is that the subject of modern white men and women’s relations cannot be discussed civilly. Every time it’s brought up it degenerates into nastiness. You sound like some kind of Stormfront poster who equates any criticism of modern wymin’s behavior with hatred and resentment.
The most pathetic part is that the subject of modern white men and women’s relations cannot be discussed civilly. Every time it’s brought up it degenerates into nastiness. You sound like some kind of Stormfront poster who equates any criticism of modern wymin’s behavior with hatred and resentment.
Great point, Kasimir.