I have been interested in the general consensus here about White Racial polygamy not religious polygamy, if you want to see thousands of beautiful White children, go into Southern Utah and Northern Arizona.

There are a few good Mormon Polygamy sites on Yahoo but if you go into christian ones you will find a few sleavy niggers thinking their being clever. The mormon religion is at its root, decidedly anti black but mistakenly pro jew.....nothings perfect but there are some good models to study.

We're going to need to reproduce and do it fast in the coming 50 or so years.

Monogamy (along with feminism) has been one of the underlying reasons for birthrate decline in the west. Polygamy is known to increase the birth rate.

Polygamy allows for the stronger men to have many children and often results in the weaker men getting little (hell, they often get very little now). It's a good eugenic practice and one hell of a motivation to succeed in life, don't you think?

Polygamy is known to increase the birth rate.

False. A woman can only become pregnant once a year (give or take a couple months). This can be accomplished through monogamy just as easily as polygamy.

False. A woman can only become pregnant once a year (give or take a couple months). This can be accomplished through monogamy just as easily as polygamy.

ceteris paribus, this would be true. the birth-rate is absolutely limited by the capacity of each female to gestate a new person. but, the world is not an experimental laboratory. it doesnt matter whether it's one man fertilizing many or many men attempting to fertilize one (androgyny) or one on one for that matter.

But, other environmental and social conditions and "free will" are the factors that prevent women from childbirth.

I would argue that we are closer to polygamy now, than we were fifty years ago, by virtue of the higher divorce rate and the consequent "serial polygamy" of having mixed families with half-blood siblings. And yet, the White birthrate has fallen.

So polygamy in itself, is not a stimulant to higher birthrate.

So polygamy in itself, is not a stimulant to higher birthrate.

Maybe not, but there's a reason why the Mormons and many Islamic nations have much higher birthrates than the west. I don't know if I could pin it down for sure, but one of the factors behind this, I would say, is Polygamy.

If we look at things the logical way that Pixi mentioned, it would make sense that Polygamy in and of itself would make no difference at all... This may not be worth anything; but its my guess that with a society tolerating polygamy would come a culture that is more friendly to fertility: again looking at places like Utah, Dubai or Qatar, all of which are modernized, wealthy places.

If we're closer to polygamy now, we don't really have a legal system that is compatible.

The hard-nosed monogamy that has been prevalent on the surface of our society for the last 150 or so years, coupled with the shock of contraception and feminism, in my opinion, is the likely cause of birth rate decline.

Maybe not, but there's a reason why the Mormons and many Islamic nations have much higher birthrates than the west. I don't know if I could pin it down for sure, but one of the factors behind this, I would say, is Polygamy.

If we look at things the logical way that Pixi mentioned, it would make sense that Polygamy in and of itself would make no difference at all... This may not be worth anything; but its my guess that with a society tolerating polygamy would come a culture that is more friendly to fertility: again looking at places like Utah, Dubai or Qatar, all of which are modernized, wealthy countries.

If we're closer to polygamy now, we don't really have a legal system that is compatible.

The hard-nosed monogamy that has been prevalent on the surface of our society for the last 150 or so years, coupled with the shock of contraception and feminism, in my opinion, is the likely cause of birth rate decline.
Even if you have polygamy, don't you think that contraception and feminism will still have the same effect of a lowered birthrate? Simply making polygamy legal isn't going to make these things disappear.

If you want to increase the birth rate, it would seem to make more sense to change the social attitudes towards feminism and childrearing. Women who value children and their role as mothers are going to want to have large families.

I honestly don't think that polygamy has anything to do with the high birth rates of Mormons and Muslims; rather, it's their family-centered values that matter.

Even if you have polygamy, don't you think that contraception and feminism will still have the same effect of a lowered birthrate?.
Simply making polygamy legal isn't going to make these things disappear.


I really don't know. It's my guess that feminism's impact would certainly be diminished simply because the competition among women for the best men would be "out in the open," instead of underneath all this moralism. I can explain until I'm blue in the face, but it probably wouldn't make any difference. Bottom line is that I don't think feminism would be as compatible with polygamy as it would be with a legally monogamous society.

As for contraception... That would be a tough one. I'd only outlaw it in an extreme emergency situation.

If you want to increase the birth rate, it would seem to make more sense to change the social attitudes towards feminism and childrearing. Women who value children and their role as mothers are going to want to have large families..

Yes. I definately agree with that... but it's my opinion that a society with accepted polygamy (obviously not EVERYONE can be polygamous!) would be more well-suited for that.

I honestly don't think that polygamy has anything to do with the high birth rates of Mormons and Muslims; rather, it's their family-centered values that matter.

Well, I agree with the family-centered values, but it's my opinion that the cart is coming before the horse, here.

A high birthrate has nothing to do with polygamy. The birthrate would even decrease. I remember a jewish doctor used his own sperm in artificial insemination with the result that all the children born had him as their father. But because the jew had some hereditatary disease a lot of them died, which wouldn't have happenend if they'd all have different fathers.

A high birthrate has nothing to do with polygamy. The birthrate would even decrease. I remember a jewish doctor used his own sperm in artificial insemination with the result that all the children born had him as their father. But because the jew had some hereditatary disease a lot of them died, which wouldn't have happenend if they'd all have different fathers.

Admittedly, that's an exception, not the rule.

Artificial insemination aside, it would normally be the most successful males who have more than one wife.

I'll give you an example of the Qatari emir. When I lived in Qatar he had 3 wives and over 30 children. (Sure, they were fat as hell, but that's because they ate fast food all the time)

We're going to need to reproduce and do it fast in the coming 50 or so years.

Monogamy (along with feminism) has been one of the underlying reasons for birthrate decline in the west. Polygamy is known to increase the birth rate.

Polygamy allows for the stronger men to have many children and often results in the weaker men getting little (hell, they often get very little now). It's a good eugenic practice and one hell of a motivation to succeed in life, don't you think?


Too often I see the focus of attention being placed upon "birth rates" as if this is the problem and the solution to it.It isn`t on either count.
The problem is a mix-raced society not the size of our race.Breeding more children will not remedy that situation.It won`t make it any worse but it won`t make it any better.
The solution is to have our own territorial imperative.Our relative size is not contingent upon that.

I agree A.L. We need to eliminate the competition for resources. Mating goes up in safe areas. We don't need to increase our numbers, so much as decrease the number of "others".
I doubt women who are putting off childbirth till they are secure, would find that security in polygamy.

I really don't know. It's my guess that feminism's impact would certainly be diminished simply because the competition among women for the best men would be "out in the open," instead of underneath all this moralism. I can explain until I'm blue in the face, but it probably wouldn't make any difference. Bottom line is that I don't think feminism would be as compatible with polygamy as it would be with a legally monogamous society.
What constitutes a man being the *best* is subjective, as different women have different criteria for their ideal mate. In a polygamous society, there would actually be less competition for males, since many women would be tied up by a few men. This really doesn't do anything to negate feminism.

As for contraception... That would be a tough one. I'd only outlaw it in an extreme emergency situation.Outlaw it from the stance of husband, or by law? This is a completely separate issue from polygamy.


Well, I agree with the family-centered values, but it's my opinion that the cart is coming before the horse, here.

It seems to me that many men (whether you fall into this category, I don't know) like the idea of polygamy because it gives them a variety of women to screw. If that is the part that entices you the most, by all means, go right ahead. But you simply cannot expect to just "up the birthrate" by having a few men available to screw multiple chicks. A man can be married to 10 women, all of whom could be career oriented, and on the pill (or have an IUD, or norplant, etc). This will do nothing for increasing the birthrate.

Women aren't going to become family oriented and desire to accept traditional roles simply because they marry a man who has multiple wives. If raising the birthrate is the main goal, then you need to change women's opinions on being a mother and homemaker.

Pixi's comments are relevant and correct. Legalizing polygamy would have no effect on the birthrate.

Look at this another way. Right now it's legal in the sense that a) there are no disabilities imposed on bastards b) there are no special rights for married couple insofar as queer unions grant same sex couples the same rights-- or at least that applies in jurisdictions where same sex unions are allowed.

It's a nice conversation topic, but what you need to do is either change women's minds, as Pixi says, or, impose a social regime which limits women's occupational choices out of home choices structurally. Whether such structural change would be accomplsihed by law or convention matters little to me.

What constitutes a man being the *best* is subjective, as different women have different criteria for their ideal mate..

I agree with that, half-heartedly. In this case, I always think of the statistic that the median woman has twice as much sex as the median man. What's going on, here? The fact is that the top 10% of men end up having about 50% of the sex with women, and that's in the legally monogamous west. (I don't have any citations for that, I heard it from somewhere reputable in my library and am speaking from my own experience) The rest are just left with what they can get. In a legally monogamous society, this gets retarted and shoved under the surface, but the fact is still there. So, yeah, it is obviously subjective, but a trend is definately there.

In a polygamous society, there would actually be less competition for males, since many women would be tied up by a few men. This really doesn't do anything to negate feminism. ..

That's right. The men would have to compete harder to spread their genes, but the potential reward would be much greater, but that would be much closer to a natural equilibrium than what we have now... it's already becoming this way...

In any case I'd consider it's effect on feminism a moot point. We'd have to specifically define what "feminism" is, but whatever. I'll agree to disagree for now because I can't be on here much longer.

It seems to me that many men (whether you fall into this category, I don't know) like the idea of polygamy because it gives them a variety of women to screw...

Not exactly. I'm just kicking around a "what-if" scenario. I certainly wouldn't say that I DON'T LIKE IT, though.

On the other side of the coin, it seems to me many women cling to the idea of monogamy with so much emotional vigor because it gives them a sense of being the fairer, more innocent gender and gives them the feelings of righteousness against those evil men who need to control and curb their hormones.

I've always speculated that at a more deep level women support monogamy in order to control men from spreading their genese elsewhere; thus having a weapon in the evolutionary arms-race of the sexes. I'm not demonizing women for this impulse; it makes sense. If a mate is going off and copulating with other women, he brings home not only a chance for disease, but divides the rescources of his time and money to other offspring which are not her's. So, if this moral impulse against polygamy is there, it makes sense.

A man can be married to 10 women, all of whom could be career oriented, and on the pill (or have an IUD, or norplant, etc). This will do nothing for increasing the birthrate. .

That's silly. While technically true, I would GUESS this scenario to be laughably rare.

I've always thought of polygamous societies as more resistant to FEMINISM, careerism and the declining birthrate which seems to follow.

We're going to need to reproduce and do it fast in the coming 50 or so years.

Monogamy (along with feminism) has been one of the underlying reasons for birthrate decline in the west. Polygamy is known to increase the birth rate.

Polygamy allows for the stronger men to have many children and often results in the weaker men getting little (hell, they often get very little now). It's a good eugenic practice and one hell of a motivation to succeed in life, don't you think?


http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=249293&postcount=34

Even if you have polygamy, don't you think that contraception and feminism will still have the same effect of a lowered birthrate? Simply making polygamy legal isn't going to make these things disappear.

Yeah, legalize polygamy in the type of society we currently live in and all you will have is men having the little harems of chicks who are on the pill, or taking a trip to the abortionist if an "accident" happens. One big happy jerry springer style orgy. Doing nothing for the birth rate. The typical younger guy today runs for the hills when he hears his girlfriend might be pregnant, and men and women do all kinds of things to ensure they can have all the fun they want without having to worry about a baby being a consequence of their fun, this mindset would not magically change with legalized polygamy. Not to even mention that a woman who is married to a guy who has other wives is probably, at some point going to have all kinds of jealousy issues and jealous women as they are, there is bound to be all kinds of issues and drama, which would certainly not lead to a very healthy environment to be raising kids.

On the other side of the coin, it seems to me many women cling to the idea of monogamy with so much emotional vigor because it gives them a sense of being the fairer, more innocent gender and gives them the feelings of righteousness against those evil men who need to control and curb their hormones.

I cling to the idea of monogamy because I want to find one guy who is going to care about, protect, have sex and children with only me and not ten other women. If that seems silly and emotional, oh well. I also think a one male/one female relationship where the male and the female actually care about each other, rather than just coming together so the male can sire as many kids as possible(a happy married couple in a monogamous relationship can have quite a few children if this was something that was important to them, as it should be) is going to create a much happier home and environment for the children.

On the other side of the coin, it seems to me many women cling to the idea of monogamy with so much emotional vigor because it gives them a sense of being the fairer, more innocent gender and gives them the feelings of righteousness against those evil men who need to control and curb their hormones.
Not all women do cling to the idea of monogamy. Communist hippy women usually are all for the "free love". For the ones who do, there may be various reasons. Some reasons may be based on religious convictions. Some reasons may be based on social conditioning. As for myself, I'm not sure why I prefer it.... all I do know is that if I ever found out another woman was having sex with my husband, I'd claw her eyes out and not think twice about it.

I've always thought of polygamous societies as more resistant to FEMINISM, careerism and the declining birthrate which seems to follow.
I haven't studied commune birth rates, so I have no idea if they're high or low. But I'd certainly say that communes are not exactly resistant to feminism.

What you've been observing in Mormons and Muslims is a correlation between polygamy and lack of feminism/careerism combined with a high birth rate. But that's all it is. Correlation does not always imply causation. I don't think any of those results are caused by polygamy itself.

Yeah, legalize polygamy in the type of society we currently live in and all you will have is men having the little harems of chicks who are on the pill, or taking a trip to the abortionist if an "accident" happens.Exactly.

Also, in reference to monogamy and a woman trying to keep a man from spreading his genes..... If this is the case, then why would polygamy result in a higher birth rate? If nothing else, I'd say it would seriously decrease it, since the women would all know that their man was sleeping with other women.

I have more to add, but that will have to wait until I get home from work.

False. A woman can only become pregnant once a year (give or take a couple months). This can be accomplished through monogamy just as easily as polygamy.

In polygamy, every woman who can, has children. In mormon societies, the church elders assign wives to the men the girls choose to show interest in. Seems a little old fashioned aside from the women choosing who will be her mate but Mormonisn never claimed to be neuvo.

In Racial Polygamy, every woman who can have children should, but not in the way that they are left alone with the child but in a union with a man.

Jealousy is always a problem, though again in mormon societies, the wives and the greater families always approve or disapprove a union, so there is the thing were the church says to the mans wives, is she okay? and they say, sure it is and the new wife comes in. It is not unheard of though that later when jealousy arises that wives are divided in individual homes in different communities and the husband spends a day at a time in each of his homes.

In cases where the initial wife is much older, the grown children run the businesses while the father/husband checks in and supervises, thus the older families provide for the younger ones, in this the european coined version of the age old practice.

In polygamy, every woman who can, has children.The most famous american polygamist, Hugh Hefner, has just one daughter.

There is a simple method to increase the birthrate: Rewards. Hitler had the right idea.

In polygamy, every woman who can, has children.
Do you have a source for this?

I once got suckered into going with one of my old roommates to check out a commune (she had lost her mind and actually thought she wanted to join). The people at the commune were nothing if not polygamous. However, not all of the women had children, or wanted children, or planned to have them. Perhaps your statement is correct in reference to Mormons and Muslims, but I don't think it can be applied to polygamy in general.

Jealousy is always a problem, though again in mormon societies, the wives and the greater families always approve or disapprove a union, so there is the thing were the church says to the mans wives, is she okay? and they say, sure it is and the new wife comes in. It is not unheard of though that later when jealousy arises that wives are divided in individual homes in different communities and the husband spends a day at a time in each of his homes.
This goes back to where I mentioned that attitudes towards monogamy may be a result of socialization. In the case of the Mormons, they are (I would suppose) taught from birth that polygamy is what to expect. If the women are led to believe that monogamy is absolutely not an option, what choice do they have, other than leave the community?

At any rate, I'm not trying to argue the morality of polygamy. I am only arguing that the legalization of polygamy is not going to directly cause an increase in the birth rate.

999 is right in that rewards are the best way to go. Hell, I've even got an idea to start with: Any woman who has 4 or more children will have her college education paid for by the government. This would likely be a huge incentive, as the women wouldn't need to worry about working for years to pay off their debts once they graduate. This way a woman will have an education to fall back on should something happen to the children's father, or if she wants to be able to work (at something better than Walmart) after her children are grown. College is a good place for a woman to find a suitable mate, and after graduation she would be able to immediately begin having children.

Do you have a source for this?

I once got suckered into going with one of my old roommates to check out a commune (she had lost her mind and actually thought she wanted to join). The people at the commune were nothing if not polygamous. However, not all of the women had children, or wanted children, or planned to have them. Perhaps your statement is correct in reference to Mormons and Muslims, but I don't think it can be applied to polygamy in general.

This goes back to where I mentioned that attitudes towards monogamy may be a result of socialization. In the case of the Mormons, they are (I would suppose) taught from birth that polygamy is what to expect. If the women are led to believe that monogamy is absolutely not an option, what choice do they have, other than leave the community?

At any rate, I'm not trying to argue the morality of polygamy. I am only arguing that the legalization of polygamy is not going to directly cause an increase in the birth rate.

999 is right in that rewards are the best way to go. Hell, I've even got an idea to start with: Any woman who has 4 or more children will have her college education paid for by the government. This would likely be a huge incentive, as the women wouldn't need to worry about working for years to pay off their debts once they graduate. This way a woman will have an education to fall back on should something happen to the children's father, or if she wants to be able to work (at something better than Walmart) after her children are grown. College is a good place for a woman to find a suitable mate, and after graduation she would be able to immediately begin having children.

Actually that quote is from my family history, Grandad had six wives and thirtynine children. The Older wives began to argue with the younger ones so Grandad being a early homesteader in this area put his youngest wives in the smallest houses with their babies having a small garden and a cow or so to tend and he put the older wives with the oldest sons on the largest properties. The oldest sons would cultivate and harvest the farms and ranches providing for the young wives households and then sell the surplus for what goods were needed. Grandad held it all together like a foreman and made that system work. This was a common practice among Mormons of that era.

I might add, current mainstream Mormons do not pactice polygamy only the renegades that soon are excommunicated. In todays neo polygamy there exist some viable groups in Salt Lake and Cenntenial Park as well as Bountiful, Canadain areas, they institue a spiritual marraige so as to make things be legal yet recently the government head hunters have gone after them convicting them because live in co habitating, non legally wed women become common law, thus providing the legal conflict. Tom Green is the best example. There are also plenty of bad ones, ones who assign child brides and do all manner of wrong, like the ruling folks from Colorado City, those are some bad ones who should be prosecuted.

The idea of rewards is nicely put, as in a political and racial sense heavenly awards should become worldy rewards.
Some may argue as I feel myself that the concept, application and transcendence of National Socialism as something both literal and spiritual.

Actually that quote is from my family history,

That's fine, but of course you can't expect your personal family history to set the rule for all other polygamist families.

Grandad had six wives and thirtynine children.

:eek:

How far apart in ages were the children? Did he keep his wives pregnant within the same general time frame, or did he have all the children he wanted with one wife, and then move on to impregnating the next?

That's fine, but of course you can't expect your personal family history to set the rule for all other polygamist families.

:eek:

How far apart in ages were the children? Did he keep his wives pregnant within the same general time frame, or did he have all the children he wanted with one wife, and then move on to impregnating the next?

LoL, nice one, but to answer your question, it was good times for Grandad until his death in his eighties, they just kept coming at different and the same times with different wives.

I have to go back to work now, you would not believe my Christmas list, Ho ho ho

..............
999 is right in that rewards are the best way to go. Hell, I've even got an idea to start with: Any woman who has 4 or more children will have her college education paid for by the government. This would likely be a huge incentive, as the women wouldn't need to worry about working for years to pay off their debts once they graduate. This way a woman will have an education to fall back on should something happen to the children's father, or if she wants to be able to work (at something better than Walmart) after her children are grown. College is a good place for a woman to find a suitable mate, and after graduation she would be able to immediately begin having children.

I like this idea but I would modify in this respect. She has to have the kids first then go to college.

Women who've not had kids often goof around through college. My wife was decent student, but when she went back for grad school after a couple kids, she was completely serious and determined. She got far better grades and more out of it.

Now, the other reason I would suggest this, is that given the nature of academia, most women get "feminist indoctrination" at college and so it would be helpful if they had the kids first because many women who have attended college simply have a negative attitude towards family life altogether. Is that my imagination or what?

Communities and families that practice Polygamy do have higher birth rates, and at first glace it might give you the impression that Polygamy is the leading factor, however it isn’t. The main factor for the birthrate in polygamist communities and societies in general is pretty simple to understand; the average age at first conception among females is the biggest factor. Polygamist and fundamentalists generally marry younger girls, and these young women have babies a lot younger then woman in “normal” western societies. Actually the average age of conception for American females is getting close to 24 and 25 years of age in some areas. It is true that normal females can only have one baby per given year, however the younger a woman is when she has these babies, the greater the birth rate. Actually age determines the “doubling” factor for most population calculations and estimates. Researchers use it in their formulas because it gives an accurate prediction of future population.

If a 14 year old girl marries a polygamist and has a baby at 15 years of age, this woman will have a 10 year old child by the time a normal female has her first child at the age of 25. When the older woman’s child finally reaches 10 years of age the younger woman could already have grandchildren. The doubling factor is based on age of first conception, not polygamy.

Polygamy isn’t without its benefits though. If the most successful men have more wives and children they pass on more beneficial genes then average or less desirable men. I define successful in monetary terms, because often times the most good looking and fit men have more money and more success then ugly men who are poor. This is eugenics, and I believe more fit men should have more babies.

Through my studies of human mating practices I’ve come to the conclusion that undesirable traits are being glorified in our society, and thus we are creating a negatively slanted natural selection process towards males who are less fit, less civilized, and generally less intelligent then other males in their communities. Undesirables are having children at a younger age, more children, and thus spreading their derelict genes more often then desirable males. Nature however, isn't without irony. Nature probably "created" STDs to balance out the uncontrolled mating of undesirables, and undesirables are most likely going to have more "reckless" sex, thus killing most of them off.

Genetics are what matters, and anyone that say otherwise is already at a disadvantage. In fact genetics even determine your sexual preference, so homosexuals and blood traitors are people with genetic deformities.

Recently a doctor conducted an unethical experiment on a child who was born a male, so right at birth the doctor preformed a sex change operation to “prove” that he could take a normal, healthy male and make him a girl. Well the child grew up maladapted, eventually had a sex change back to male, and when she/he found out about the experiment he went on national news and shortly after killed himself.

Homosexuality use to be in the DSM as a disorder, and then they took it out because of liberal pressure to remove it. It is a disorder of bad genes. Homosexuals want to condemn religion, and rely on liberal propaganda to glorify themselves. Well, if you deny religion then you're obviously relying on science which ironically says that YOU are a maladapted deformity on the ass of society.

I like this idea but I would modify in this respect. She has to have the kids first then go to college.
The reason I had stated college before the children was so that the woman would have received an education that would allow her to obtain a well paying job, should she end up (due to divorce/death/illness/etc) being the sole provider for the children. I am certainly not trying to suggest that a woman should not depend on her husband, but I do think that every woman should be able to be self-reliant if necessary.

Women who've not had kids often goof around through college. My wife was decent student, but when she went back for grad school after a couple kids, she was completely serious and determined. She got far better grades and more out of it.
Of course, there would have to be stipulations. It would be silly to just let the women goof off at the expense of the government. There could be certain approved majors, and a minimum GPA. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a 3.0 as a minimum GPA. If she cannot maintain that, then she is likely either not serious about school or not mature enough (or perhaps smart enough) to handle it. If the woman's GPA fell below the minimum, then she wouldn't be allowed to continue school until she'd had her children (and hopefully matured as needed). The woman would need to graduate within 4 years of beginning college, unless she took time out to have children.

Now, the other reason I would suggest this, is that given the nature of academia, most women get "feminist indoctrination" at college and so it would be helpful if they had the kids first because many women who have attended college simply have a negative attitude towards family life altogether. Is that my imagination or what?
You're absolutely correct. However, I envisioned the plan as being brought about after we'd kicked the jews out, and when feminist indoctrination would absolutely not be tolerated. I can't imagine the jews would ever let such a plan be enacted, since it would undo what they've worked so long to accomplish. I don't think that women would end up with a negative attitude towards family life if they were attending college during a time when the role of mother and wife was seen as the most respected and desirable role.

I think it would actually be nice to combine the skills taught in the old "finishing schools" with the material taught in contemporary academics. Useless mandatory classes like *African American studies* could be replaced with child development and advanced home economics classes, for women of all majors. All women should leave college with the ability to cook, perform basic maintenance on all household appliances, and make/repair clothing for themselves, their husband, and their children.

Well before the modern welfare state, here is how it worked. If a woman's husband died and she could not support the family, it was the job of the grandparents on both sides to support that family. Usually that took the form of mom selling the homestead and moving in with one family or the other and then going to work with the grandparents providing child care.

If you check your own family histories out you will likely stub your toe on this situation. Also, if the kids are old enough, they can work and help keep the household afloat.

Life is work. Play is frosting on the cake. The cake however, is being healthy and leading a decent life where you bear and support and maintain a family, man and woman together. Today, work is a different kind of affair, which is physically less taxing, but the hours remain long and the pay is not that great compared to the relative living standards. So, people are not satisfied by work especially because they are distant from management and ownership. Belloc, Chesterton, and the other English Roman Catholics well understood this trend as it existed fifty years ago and introduced the idea of "distributism" to identify as an ideal the notion of small landholdings and privately owned small business as better than monopoly capitalism or what has come to be known as "globalism."

So economics is related to these childbearing issues as many people have noted.

As AE implied, we are fooling ourselves if we think we aren't in a polygamous culture now. A high divorce rate + serial monogamy + lots of adultery = polygamy by another name (or no name, I guess). Dr. Michel Odent pointed this out in one of his books.

I frequently have occasion to meet people with "mixed families." Usually, these are men who had kids with a first wife, got divorced early, and went on to have kids with a second.

If you think that fighting with one wife is tough, try being the man who has to fight with 2. When you have kids together they never really go away. And, if they do, usually they take the kids with them-- meaning, the first wife alienates the kids from their birth father utterly.

But if even if that doesnt happen-- that second wife still will have daggers in her eyes for the first. And she will make sure that there she and her brood are the favored ones.

Men who start on a second family after a first divorce with children, I find are often salesmen or types whose personalities are marked by resilience, flexibility, and evident charm for women.

I frequently have occasion to meet people with "mixed families." Usually, these are men who had kids with a first wife, got divorced early, and went on to have kids with a second.

If you think that fighting with one wife is tough, try being the man who has to fight with 2. When you have kids together they never really go away. And, if they do, usually they take the kids with them-- meaning, the first wife alienates the kids from their birth father utterly.

But if even if that doesnt happen-- that second wife still will have daggers in her eyes for the first. And she will make sure that there she and her brood are the favored ones.

Men who start on a second family after a first divorce with children, I find are often salesmen or types whose personalities are marked by resilience, flexibility, and evident charm for women.


This is true, and I've seen it a lot with clients when I handled family law. I never have understood how they would want to complicate their and their children's lives like that. If for some reason I ever divorced my wife, I would never have new kids. I wouldn't want my kids feeling they had to compete with some half-siblings. For that matter I would also not get remarried. The point of marriage is to have a family, and I've already done that.

I would say the fundamental purposes of marriage are twofold, John-- procreative and unitive purposes. Having a family, offspring, is the procreative purpose-- and the unitive purpose is the companionship, friendship, and love, pleasure and support shared between husband and wife.

In this particular, I think it's evident that the basic Roman Catholic teaching is right on the mark.

The procreative purpose is not the sole purpose. For folks who have infertility problems or marry late in life, they still have the unitive purpose, and it's a good one.

I would say the fundamental purposes of marriage are twofold, John-- procreative and unitive purposes. Having a family, offspring, is the procreative purpose-- and the unitive purpose is the companionship, friendship, and love, pleasure and support shared between husband and wife.

In this particular, I think it's evident that the basic Roman Catholic teaching is right on the mark.

The procreative purpose is not the sole purpose. For folks who have infertility problems or marry late in life, they still have the unitive purpose, and it's a good one.


This is true, though I personally find that the procreative purpose is far and away the most important in my life. I was happy as a clam living alone as a single person, but I wanted to procreate and believe that the only healthy way to do so is in a family setting. I couldn't imagine ever wanting to "replace" my wife if we were to divorce or she were to pass away, any more than I could or would want to "replace" my children. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I have been interested in the general consensus here about White Racial polygamy not religious polygamy, if you want to see thousands of beautiful White children, go into Southern Utah and Northern Arizona.

There are a few good Mormon Polygamy sites on Yahoo but if you go into christian ones you will find a few sleavy niggers thinking their being clever. The mormon religion is at its root, decidedly anti black but mistakenly pro jew.....nothings perfect but there are some good models to study.

Thanks for the thread Traveller.

I have no particular bone to pick about polygamy. I'm married to an ex-Mormon and so have had a chance to get their take on it from the inside, so to speak. Polygamy is not right for me, but I would not prohibit it to anyone who chooses it.

You're exactly right about all of those beautiful White people in Utah as I can attest to from my own visits, but this is changing and I'm afraid that the anti black Mormon teachings are being rapidly eroded. The mainline Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints now endorses interracial marriage. I know this, once again from the inside.

My wife's nephew is engaged to marry a nigger latrina from Panama. They will be married, sealed, in a Temple ceremony. At one time, there was no way in hell a Mormon could be sealed to a nigger in a Temple ceremony. To be sealed in a Temple is to be bound together throughout all eternity. :rolleyes: Well, it seems the Church had another one of their convenvient "revelations" and changed their collective mind. (They had a similar revelation concerning polygamy, you know.) When my wife confronted her sister and her mother about it, the first and really only responce they had was that the Church endorsed it and that makes it alright. The Church wants to be tolerant and inclusive and so should we.

My wife sent the wedding invitation and the photo of the abomination back to her sister.

As far as we are concerned, her nephew is dead.

I have posted this before, Its an Idea, a damn good one, However I think they should be more strict & have Higher standards to whom they "sell sperm to" Worthy White woman..ONLY.



Pologomy.. Creates risks of Inbreeding & Linebreeding down the line.

Its also a "lifestyle"



http://www.scandinaviancryobank.com/media/1266d6f8-7cb1-4adb-ab5d-278cee4cb142-Spreading%20Scandinavian%20Genes,%20Without%20Viking%20Boats%20-%20NY%20Times%20093004.pd





Nordic genes for would-be moms
Scandinavian sperm bank is operating a distribution branch in Ballard

The Vikings are invading Seattle.

Scandinavian Cryobank, one of the largest sperm banks in the world, has opened a distribution branch in Seattle, site of its first U.S. operation, for the bulk import of sperm samples from Norway, Sweden and Denmark.


P-I
Peter Bower of Scandinavian Cryobank holds a vial containing imported sperm, which is stored in liquid nitrogen.
"Seattle was an obvious choice because of the Scandinavian background of the population here," said Peter Bower, director of Seattle operations, who is half-Danish himself and chose Seattle because he had lived here previously.

Also, until the cryobank opened its doors last November, Seattle had not had a freestanding, commercial sperm bank.

Swedish Medical Center operates a non-profit local sperm bank as part of its reproductive technology laboratories.

Before the arrival of Scandinavian Cryobank, women who didn't want to use a local bank would usually request sperm from California, which is home to several large commercial banks, said Mary Forster, director of the Swedish lab.

Swedish has had several patients use Scandinavian sperm, both since it has been available locally, and prior to that by having it shipped from Denmark.

Now patients increasingly use the Internet to order sperm, she said.

The sperm bank sells directly to female patients, but only if they are clients of a fertility clinic, or have a doctor's permission.

The bank won't sell to a woman who is not being cared for by a doctor who approves of the procedure, Bower said. The sperm is shipped all over the world.

The market for donor sperm is worth between $50 million and $100 million a year, according to Scandinavian Cryobank.

Although having a sperm bank devoted to one ethnicity is unusual, patients typically choose the physical characteristics of the donor from donor profiles at other banks, Forster said. Donors are screened for genetic disease, mental health issues and some physical traits, such as height. Swedish, for example, does not accept donors under 5 feet 8 inches.

LOL!

I can see a lot of partnerless men getting even less chance to get laid in a polygamous society. It's women who ultimately decide with whom they shall mate with. So the best looking, richest, strongest, alpha males will get the harems. The losers will get masterbation. LOL!

LOL!

I can see a lot of partnerless men getting even less chance to get laid in a polygamous society. It's women who ultimately decide with whom they shall mate with. So the best looking, richest, strongest, alpha males will get the harems. The losers will get masterbation. LOL!

Well, just as there are loser men, there are loser women. Just because a woman can reproduce doesn't necessarily mean that she would produce genetically fit offspring. So, the loser men could always get with the loser women. They needn't all be condemned to a lifetime of masturbation. ;)

LOL!

I can see a lot of partnerless men getting even less chance to get laid in a polygamous society. It's women who ultimately decide with whom they shall mate with. So the best looking, richest, strongest, alpha males will get the harems. The losers will get masterbation. LOL!

Problems;
1. I see a lot of women being available if the race war becomes a reality (many many men will be killed for aiding and siding with the enemy).
2. A bunch of angry white guys with guns who have just been through a war, putting their life on the line (the losers as you call them), might not take kindly to some cocksucker telling them that they get no ------ while he is --------- a gaggle of the best, and that the losers(them) will just have to go masturbate.
3. I feel any young white women who look good, and don't have disease even if they had race mixed, and who can keep their mouth shut, will not be executed, but rather auctioned off, or given to the greatest warriors as spoils of war. The reason they will keep their mouth shut is because women are smart enough to know that a man who has killed dozens of other men will probably not tolerate her breathing if she says something ------- stupid like how she liked black cock/ how he is worthless, especially when the new system of law is in place.

I do though believe in eugenics. The best men and women genetically would be placed in close proximity to each other (schools), the women would be taught that having children is their most important job, and nature would take it's course.

People on the right side of the fight who are unfortunately unattractive and possess genetic weaknesses would be given a lump sum of money to restrict their births. Restriction based on rewards would work better than restrictions based on punishment, and some children should be produced, as we do not know who might be produced from those mergings, and we might get a man of genius or of great honor and courage, as well as women of great beauty.

Well, just as there are loser men, there are loser women. Just because a woman can reproduce doesn't necessarily mean that she would produce genetically fit offspring. So, the loser men could always get with the loser women. They needn't all be condemned to a lifetime of masturbation. ;)


She's Right

Well, just as there are loser men, there are loser women. Just because a woman can reproduce doesn't necessarily mean that she would produce genetically fit offspring.
If I said it people be all over my ass. Its a shame the US doesnt Have the standards mentioned in the cryobank ad, Prescreening.
Like I said before, retards can breed, But should they?
The "loser" men & woman can bang their brains out (And do)But they shouldnt reproduce!!