tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5224413093689973556.post7667669937661173146..comments2024-03-01T19:44:02.041-08:00Comments on The Road Less Traveled: MiseryUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5224413093689973556.post-78534862610116915982009-10-03T05:17:07.651-07:002009-10-03T05:17:07.651-07:00Regarding women, some truth:
http://www.the-spearh...Regarding women, some truth:<br />http://www.the-spearhead.com/<br />http://roissy.wordpress.com/<br />Lots of good stuff there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5224413093689973556.post-12785070929739165292009-09-29T14:31:16.836-07:002009-09-29T14:31:16.836-07:00The next question is whether it's necessary to...The next question is whether it's necessary to deprive people of the freedom to control their sexual lives. I would argue this is emphatically necessary. A below replacement birthrate is a death sentence on any society, just mathematically, and this low birth rate has been going on now for nearly 60 years. Not only that, but let us call it the 'nihilism' rate, has been skyrocketing ever since the sexual revolution. People are less happy, more prone to drug use, more suicidal, and have more mental illnesses than ever before. People were allowed the freedom to choose, the experiment was done, and the results are in. Not only are we physically being annihilated from the earth, but the survivors are the most wretched refuse of a society we have ever seen. Just look at pictures of British night life for yourself, the living casualties of this out of control freedom.<br /><br />If it were possible for people to voluntarily marry or not marry while maintaining a healthy, happy, and fertile society, then it's always better to let people be free than control them. But we have learned through a bitter lesson these last few decades, that this is not the case. Sexual liberation is as destructive as legalizing murder or theft, society simply falls apart, the center cannot hold.<br /><br />A third path where we use cultural and economic incentives to encourage people to be chaste, virtuous, and marry young, by rewarding them and them alone with money and a high status in all media, by all politicians, and within friends and family, MIGHT be sufficient without compulsory action. But I have too little faith in human nature, after watching what I have seen of the world today, to believe even that is enough. Another alternative would be to start all marriages off as compulsory for the first few generations of a new country, simply to cleanse the poison of our previous culture out of society, and then try to use less coercive actions to achieve the same thing in the future. But without the iron rod of force, there is no way anyone would marry, have children, and abandon their sexual liberation they are so used to today.<br /><br />Congratulations on your marriage and four children. :).Diamedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17157418049723887419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5224413093689973556.post-61555536854887225862009-09-29T14:30:52.568-07:002009-09-29T14:30:52.568-07:00It's true that the age of 20 is somewhat arbit...It's true that the age of 20 is somewhat arbitrary. It could be set at 22, or 25. But there is a cost and a benefit for every date set.<br /><br />If people wait until they are 25 to marry, it is virtually impossible that they would be chaste during that entire time. It isn't even reasonable to waste so many good years without any heartfelt relationship. If they aren't chaste before they marry, a new demon is unleashed, in that people quickly learn that sex, love, and relationships are interchangeable. They can get the same thrill from practically anyone who comes along, and thus losing their current bond is just an opportunity to gain a new one.<br /><br />This is true of both boys and girls, multiple sexual relationships cheapens love and makes your boyfriend or girlfriend an interchangeable part. At that point the odds of a stable marriage emerging from an ash heap of previous failed relationships, all just as loving and sexual as the marriage itself, is virtually zero.<br /><br />Pre-marital relationships and sex teaches the wrong lesson, it is best if you marry your first love, and simply work through the problems that arise from it. There is a reason why in the past, all monogamous marriages were predicated on the partners being virgins (unless they were widows/widowers). Across all space and time, this was the norm. If you want to date a lot of people before you choose someone to marry, to gain 'emotional maturity' or what have you, that's still possible within the age 20 time frame. After all, girls start dating as young as 14.<br /><br />There are more problems with marrying later. Rather than maturing or becoming more virtuous, people tend to grow corrupt and more licentious as they age. Without the steadying hand of marriage and without the watchful eyes of parents, most people see their 20's as an age of hedonism without any interest in the Good. Teenagers who hadn't so much as kissed before go to college and quickly become bisexual drug using sado-masochist cheating harlots who will vigorously argue that there isn't anything wrong with what they are doing and it's all a part of their self-expression or self-development. For every person who benefits from marrying later, there is a soul that's lost forever to honor and virtue through no one intervening in time.<br /><br />I also feel that people are at their best in the context of a family. Either as a child, a sibling, a spouse, or a parent. When people are completely cut loose from human relationships, they tend to be unhappy, but also extremely selfish and irresponsible. By keeping them connected throughout their lives to a larger whole, they can never forget their duty to others, and there will always be someone there for them. Allowing a huge window of time like 18-25 to go by without any connection to any family may be too long for people to willingly yoke themselves with the matrimonial, social duties it is so necessary they have.<br /><br />Basically, it is less painful to lose a freedom you never had, than to gain it and then lose it again. If people live as sexual and emotional free agents after leaving home but before getting married, they will resent losing this 'right' far more than if they marry upon leaving their parent's home (the traditional norm.)Diamedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17157418049723887419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5224413093689973556.post-90544282683823555182009-09-29T12:49:21.223-07:002009-09-29T12:49:21.223-07:00Consider:
The women in my family are late bloomer...Consider:<br /><br />The women in my family are late bloomers. I have a hunch it's a Scandinavian trait. NONE of us were physically/emotionally mature at 20. We WERE at 25. Consider: older parents often make better parents, due to emotional stability.<br />Consider: My grandmother (in the early 1920s) married at age 30. And she had 6 kids, the last one at age 42.<br />Consider: My mother married at age 25 in the 1940s. She had 5 kids, me last at age 40.<br />I married at 25. I had 4 kids, last one at 39. So all us late bloomers had great total lifetime fertilities, and NO Down's syndrome anywhere. -- and all of us, to my knowledge, rightfully wearing white on our wedding days. But younger than 25, we just were not yet adults.<br />My point? I dispute that a law REQUIRING marriage at age 20 is necessary -- or, even, necessarily, a good idea. <br /><br />BUT, I agree that your citizen's dividend ENABLING early marriage and child bearing would be a huge encouragement to those Whites whose bodies and minds are ready for reproduction in late teen years and would be a huge boon to White fertility, and may very well be all that's needed. Let's do it, and make the dividend available ONLY to married couples, which would be an inducement and reward for doing the right thing.Shakinginmyshoeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894026694173571noreply@blogger.com