← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Jim
Thread ID: 15571 | Posts: 8 | Started: 2004-11-06
2004-11-06 21:57 | User Profile
This has probably be done before. but opinions please on the modern practice of mothers farming their children out to day-care centres, childminders and the like whilst continuing their "fulfilling" life as a wage-slave. Obviously the idea of giving your kids to someone else to look after is utterly awful, and clearly the powers that be like to encourage it if only to break up strong nuclear family units (so ethnocentric and consevative). Feminists like it because it gives women a whole new way to be miserable, and if mothers are out of work we a producing and consuming more more more!
On the other hand the policy is certainly a result of the liberal elite realising the awful dysgenic effects of their modern world, and attempting to correct that balance whilst appearing 'enlightened' at the same time. State sponsered infanticide reduces the numbers of blacks and underclass born, 'childcare' improves the numbers of high IQ whites as comparisons in birthrate between countries where it is common (Scandinavia) and where it is not (Spain, Italy) show.
Finally, coming over all Stormfront, is it sometimes a necessary evil a couple of days a week, for instance for a twentysomething couple with children too young for the state babysitting service (school), but who need the extra cash...just like my, erm, friend... ..is worried about.
2004-11-06 23:27 | User Profile
Jim,
Nothing good can be said about Scandinavia. Many have claimed 'childcare' reduces the birthrate for second children, because it lets women keep their jobs, rather than staying home take off a child during which time they often become pregnent. I might also point out the birthrate in Scandinavia is still less than replacement.
Scandinavia's sick pro-fornication policies have caused the bithrate to go down and the VD rate to go sky high and most children to be fatherless. Remember in the 1950's Scandinavia had the lowest birthrate in Europe, it has not gone up, the birthrate of rest of europe has gone down. What we need is an anti-fornication pro-marriage program. That will bring the children the nations of europe need.
And I agree with you abotion kills bad people, but I must also add "birth control" prevents good people from coming into being in the first place.
2004-11-14 00:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Faust]Jim,
Nothing good can be said about Scandinavia. Many have claimed 'childcare' reduces the birthrate for second children, because it lets women keep their jobs, rather than staying home take off a child during which time they often become pregnent. I might also point out the birthrate in Scandinavia is still less than replacement.
Scandinavia's sick pro-fornication policies have caused the bithrate to go down and the VD rate to go sky high and most children to be fatherless. Remember in the 1950's Scandinavia had the lowest birthrate in Europe, it has not gone up, the birthrate of rest of europe has gone down. What we need is an anti-fornication pro-marriage program. That will bring the children the nations of europe need.
And I agree with you abotion kills bad people, but I must also add "birth control" prevents good people from coming into being in the first place.[/QUOTE]
For all that, Scandinavia's birtrates are still nothing like as disastrously low as Spain's or Italy's, and white children from respectable families are still brought up by both parents as much as anywhere else.
Property prices and low pay mean that your everyday IQ100 working class mother has to go out to work part-time in the UK simply to pay the bills, and would need some serious financial incentive to stop. College graduates have to pay off debts and gain professional qualifications before they are financially well off. I'm 26, we've just had our first, and the financial benefits of my college lecturer wife returning to work two days a week when her generous period of paid maternity leave ends is compelling.
I'm not saying we wouldn't started a family without such things as maternity leave and her working, but it sure is a help. Of course, if (God willing) more children come along and my earning potential increases I hope she could stay at home.
I'll let you have a think and figure out the demographic group in Britain that is most likely to have a mother at home full time looking after kids is, and who are most likely to pop out more sprogs if such behaviour is incentivised.
2004-11-14 19:34 | User Profile
Yeah, daycare is one of those things that marks and contributes to the fall of the European people. Still, if someone could bring in a good chunk of change with only a couple days per week of day care, I wouldn't fault them for it... just as long as they remember to have at least three or four children of their own.
2004-11-15 14:41 | User Profile
| Still, if someone could bring in a good chunk of change with only a couple days per week of day care, I wouldn't fault them for it... just as long as they remember to have at least three or four children of their own. | |
| 11-13-04 19:30 | |
[color=black]What's the point of having kids if you are just going to turn them over to the State to raise? And when I say "the State" I mean the low-brow consumerist multi-cult that pervades all public schools and daycares. So what if you spawn some genotypic Whites if they are raised to be non-White?[/color]
[color=black]Dare care is as deleterious as abortion, imho. You end up with children who donââ¬â¢t know you, donââ¬â¢t trust you, donââ¬â¢t value your opinions, and donââ¬â¢t care to abide by your values. You end up with roommates instead of children.[/color]
[color=black]The fact of the matter is that Whites have to be pro-creative in all senses: They must bear the children and they must raise the children. They must train up the child in the way he should go so that he will not depart from the parents. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
2004-11-15 16:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Amaara]The fact of the matter is that Whites have to be pro-creative in all senses: They must bear the children and they must raise the children. They must train up the child in the way he should go so that he will not depart from the parents.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Put a pencil to your budget, tighten the belt and do what you have to do so that your wife will stay at home full-time with your children. You'll never, ever have those first five or six years of your child's life again.
2004-11-15 21:11 | User Profile
Thank you for the advice from people who lack knowledge of either my personal situation or the cost of buying a house even in provincial parts of England. Perhaps we should raise our white children on the streets or else devote all our time and resources to just the one when Mrs Jim stays at home. :tongue:
The point of my personal anecdote was to show that - for all it may go against paleo's thoughts on such matters - 'feminist' advances such as paid maternity leave, employers who are willing to be flexible about hours (the missus will work a couple of days a week 9-5 in what is esentially a professional post), and the availability of someone qualified to look after the sprog for those two days out of seven (and its a horrible compramise but the money we will save will go towards paying for a house big enough for nos 2 and 3 and...), has certainly been a help.
We'd have started a family anyway, but there are loads of couples out there who aren't RacistChristianWhiteNationalists with a "duty to breed", who are weighing up the pros and cons of starting a family they would like for the normal reasons. And unless you are falling into the welfare kept underclass (or want to live among them) it is a fact of life amongst the more average that a mother must work part time (often unsocial hours around the husband's job) to keep two kids and a home (especially by North American standards) the size of a shoebox.
Short of a complete change in the culture - which is of course needed and may happen with time - brighter whiter folks need to reproduce, which even the liberals realise. They won't admit it as such, hence incentives such as these, and why the UK and Scandanavia have a birth rate of 1.7 or so rather than 1.2.
2004-11-20 04:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE] The point of my personal anecdote was to show that - for all it may go against paleo's thoughts on such matters - 'feminist' advances such as paid maternity leave, employers who are willing to be flexible about hours (the missus will work a couple of days a week 9-5 in what is esentially a professional post), and the availability of someone qualified to look after the sprog for those two days out of seven (and its a horrible compramise but the money we will save will go towards paying for a house big enough for nos 2 and 3 and...), has certainly been a help.[/QUOTE] May I suggest that you look more deeply into the situation? It was feminism that eliminated employers paying family wages in favor of "equal pay for equal work," the most evil and family-destroying policy of feminism. It used to be that employers paid men more in the understanding that the man probably wanted his wife to stay home and raise children. Women were thought to be working to earn "pin money." Now that women and men are paid "equally," two-parent traditional families carry a much [url="http://www.taxfoundation.org/commentary/2004-11-newlondonday.html"]larger tax burden[/url]. "Paid" maternity leave is paid by YOU for someone else's spawn. Wouldn't you like it to go to your own kids? "Flex" time is absorbed by YOU so that some [url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684863030/qid=1100923064/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/102-4629978-9840939"]single-mother can pick her kids up from day care early[/url]. Government subsidized day care is also paid by YOU for the benefit of someone else, someone who doesn't share your genotype, someone who doesn't share your family structure.
Here is the kicker: [url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465090826/qid=1100923167/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-4629978-9840939?v=glance&s=books"]It will always be thus[/url]. No matter how much socialists try to level the playing field, two-income families will always earn more than single-parent families and singletons. And everyone is always competing for the same thing: white suburbia. Two-income families will always earn more than single mothers and will always be able to out-bid her for housing, quality day care, etc. The only way to achieve equality of result between married couples and single moms is to tax the married couples to death. Which is what jewish feminists are doing, in the guise of "family medical leave," "paid maternity leave," etc. It isn't about alieviating your burden; it is about increasing your burden with you convinced they are working hard to make life easier for you. Nice trick, huh?
My friend, I am sorry this is harsh, but you have to step off the merry-go-round. You are nothing but a big juicy mark for the harvest by government bloodsuckers. Working more hours, longer hours, putting your wife to work, doesn't get you any further away from the noose of being taxed like you are "rich" just because you happen to be dumb enough to be married in Brave New America.
Please don't think I don't have any sympathy for your plight. When I quit my job to stay home, we halved our income. It was and is very scary, especially with all the student loans I have. However, my daughter isn't being raised on "Dora the Explorer" and "Spongebob Squarepants." It really does come down to how much influence you want over your child. I couldn't stand knowing that she was being taught current American values, even slightly.
I will pray for you. I know how hard it is.
~~Amaara