A coincidence? I think not!

[Gregorios]

Have you noticed the correspondence between the decline of Christianity (in both the USA and Europe) and the decline of traditional family values? Do they really correspond, or does it just happen to be a coincidence?
Have you noticed the correspondence between the decline of Christianity (in both the USA and Europe) and the decline of fertility rate in white families? Do they really correspond, or does it just happen to be a coincidence?
Have you noticed the correspondence between the decline of Christianity (in both the USA and Europe) and the rise of Multiculturalism, "White Guilt", Non-White Immigration, Homosexuality, Feminism and Cultural Marxism? Do they really correspond, or does it just happen to be a coincidence?

http://how-to-do-it.net/how-to/wp-content/uploads/question-mark.jpg

I did. And I hope I'm not the only one.

32Zza_8qdkg
6VnUH_CPulc
FX1YdIkT1os

[Aces High]

Traditional families never existed,they were invented in the 60's by admen to sell more sofas/chevrolets/cornflakes.

[Gregorios]

Traditional families never existed,they were invented in the 60's by admen to sell more sofas/chevrolets/cornflakes.

By "traditional families" I mean families where people had like 6-8 children, instead of the modern-day 1-2-3.
You know... Lack of contraception, lack of abortion...

6VnUH_CPulc
FX1YdIkT1os

[BeerBaron]

By "traditional families" I mean families where people had like 6-8 children, instead of the modern-day 1-2-3.

Ya thats what happens when countries living standards go up, as well as when feminism, and all these other lib things take place. That coupled with a decline in purchasing power and destruction of the middle class makes having more than 1-2 children economic suicide.

Why do religious people try to use this lame example as some sort of justification for their religious beliefs?

[Gregorios]

Ya thats what happens when countries living standards go up, as well as when feminism, and all these other lib things take place. That coupled with a decline in purchasing power and destruction of the middle class makes having more than 1-2 children economic suicide.

Feminism is also anti-religious, so there is a little bit of a correspondence afterall!
Yes, you are right. But what can we do about it?


Why do religious people try to use this lame example as some sort of justification for their religious beliefs?

Whoa, whoa, just calm down.
I didn't state anything yet, I just asked a question.

[Aces High]

People used to have big families because for one they were mostly dependent on agriculture so needed the extra manpower and two because out of say ten children,one would die in childbirth,one would die of meningitis,one would die by some accident,two would be killed in a war,one would be handicaped in some way leaving four to do all the work.
Thats how it was in the UK anyway and i imagine the US as well.

[BeerBaron]

Whoa, whoa, just calm down.
I didn't state anything yet, I just asked a question.

In the title you answer your own question with a statement.

Aces is right about families back then, my families were in agriculture and during that times period each side had over 6 children each.

[Gregorios]

People used to have big families because for one they were mostly dependent on agriculture so needed the extra manpower and two because out of say ten children,one would die in childbirth,one would die of meningitis,one would die by some accident,two would be killed in a war,one would be handicaped in some way leaving four to do all the work.
Thats how it was in the UK anyway and i imagine the US as well.

Yes.
The average European settler in America was much much poorer than the average American of modern-days, yet, an average European settler in America had like 10 children.
And the decline of infant mortality - along with the "lack of wars" (are the ****ng kidding me? What is in Afghanistan then?) - should be no excuse for Europeans and White Americans not to have children.
If you ask me, they are simply too selfish to have children. They are way too materialistic, and their priorities are luxury cars, huge houses, expensive clothes, football, silicone, videogames, smartphone.... instead of patriotism, religion and family.



In the title you answer your own question with a statement.

No, that's not answer. That's my opinion, that's what I think.
But I need some more professional people too to tell me if it's really correspondence, or just coincidence.

[Aces High]

"lack of wars" (are the ****ng kidding me? What is in Afghanistan then?)

Some seedy police action.

60'000 British soldiers were killed on the first morning of the battle of the Somme during the first world war....(including my great grandfather)

60'000 in one morning of a war that lasted four years.....just one day of one war.....in the old days they had wars,now we have conflicts and police actions where medical help is not far away.

[Gregorios]

60'000 in one morning of a war that lasted four years.....just one day of one war.....in the old days they had wars,now we have conflicts and police actions where medical help is not far away.

We have nuclear weapons today.
A full-scale war would be absolute devastation to the whole Earth and environment.

MJUeae_qE6A

[BeerBaron]

No, that's not answer. That's my opinion, that's what I think.
But I need some more professional people too to tell me if it's really correspondence, or just coincidence.

You can indeed draw parallels, like you are doing. However, doing so is only a small, perhaps the smallest, piece of the puzzle. It all plays into account, the biggest factor, imo, is womens lib and women entering the workforce. Of course, in modern times for most people this is necessary so it does not stand alone. But women are putting off having children until they are into their 30's now, and that is when they lose lots of fertility. So economic reasons are the driving force, and womens lib is its vessel. If that makes sense.

[Gregorios]

You can indeed draw parallels, like you are doing. However, doing so is only a small, perhaps the smallest, piece of the puzzle. It all plays into account, the biggest factor, imo, is womens lib and women entering the workforce. Of course, in modern times for most people this is necessary so it does not stand alone. But women are putting off having children until they are into their 30's now, and that is when they lose lots of fertility. So economic reasons are the driving force, and womens lib is its vessel. If that makes sense.

Women libs would have never even gained power in the first place, if our governments were run by religious zealots. I know, it sounds crazy, but if we were all extremely religious, there would be neither liberalism, neither feminism.
Or would be?
The economic reasons are still there. And we have to do something about it.
Oh, and forget what I said about religion and liberalism... Just limit the talk to the economics...

[Aces High]

We have nuclear weapons today.
A full-scale war would be absolute devastation to the whole Earth and environmental.


Makes no difference to what i said earlier.People didnt have large families and live in some sort of perpetual eden making hay and singing songs then spend their evenings dancing round the may pole and drinking ale whilst the kiddies had a bag of humbugs to share.
You seem to think there existed a time in the past that was idylic where people had the right balance of a sense of family,religion,work,play etc.....you are living in a fucking pipe dream son.....go read some history.

The history tells us of war,hunger,strife,disease,murder,oppresion,and where women were used as child beares and nothing else.

[Gregorios]

Makes no difference to what i said earlier.People didnt have large families and live in some sort of perpetual eden making hay and singing songs then spend their evenings dancing round the may pole and drinking ale whilst the kiddies had a bag of humbugs to share.
You seem to think there existed a time in the past that was idylic where people had the right balance of a sense of family,religion,work,play etc.....you are living in a fucking pipe dream son.....go read some history.

Sure, there weren't high standards of life.
Yes, there was hunger, war, disease and oppression.
But at least we weren't endangered by extinction. At least we weren't endangered by becoming a minority in our own country by the end of the century.
At least we still had pride in what we are, and didn't buy into the liberalist bullshit.


The history tells us of war,hunger,strife,disease,murder,oppresion,and where women were used as child beares and nothing else.

War is natural. Hate is part of human nature.
As for oppression... Might is right - that's the law of nature.
Yes, women were used as child bearers and nothing else.
Yes, there was starvation, disease, war and oppression.
But at least we still had pride in what we are, and didn't have to fear being endangered by becoming a minority in our own country.

[BeerBaron]

Women libs would have never even gained power in the first place, if our governments were run by religious zealots. I know, it sounds crazy, but if we were all extremely religious, there would be neither liberalism, neither feminism.
Or would be?
The economic reasons are still there. And we have to do something about it.
Oh, and forget what I said about religion and liberalism... Just limit the talk to the economics...

Well the economic aspect of it is from doubling the workforce and lowering wages. Since the 70's wages among working class people have fallen roughly 35%, some of this is due to technological advances and mechanized labor, outsourcing, and destruction of unions and the middle class. What was a middle class in say the 50's a single bread earner could support a family of 6 children without any aid and still have a house and car. Nowadays that same person, working the same job, will be paycheck to paycheck and buy everything on credit and never save a dime.

[Gregorios]

Well the economic aspect of it is from doubling the workforce and lowering wages. Since the 70's wages among working class people have fallen roughly 35%, some of this is due to technological advances and mechanized labor, outsourcing, lower purchasing power and destruction of unions and the middle class. What was a middle class in say the 50's a single bread earner could support a family of 6 children without any aid and still have a house and car. Nowadays that same person, working the same job, will be paycheck to paycheck and buy everything on credit and never save a dime.

Yes indeed.
However, you forgot to mention Credential inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credential_inflation) and Educational devaluation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_devaluation).


For example, a high school degree once sufficed for entrance into a middle-class occupational field; now, a college degree is practically required.

At the time, high school diplomas attested to middle-class respectability, and for many years even provided access to managerial level jobs. More recently, however, the high school diploma barely qualifies the graduate for manual or menial service work

To have enough to money to even feed 1-2 children, you need a good job.
To have a good job, you need a lot of education.
To have a lot of education, you need to spend a lot of years you could have spent having children.
It's a dead end, really..

[Boudica]

By "traditional families" I mean families where people had like 6-8 children, instead of the modern-day 1-2-3.
You know... Lack of contraception, lack of abortion...



Today things are much more liberalized and different. Now a days it is seen as pretty wild to have 6-8 children, times have changed, plus times are hard. If a man and a woman had 6-8 children now there would be problems of sorts. For example, money.. The economy is shit right now first off. The income would be coming from one source (the man) since the woman is going to watch the 8 children. The average person in America makes less then $50,000 a year. $50,000 a year for food & necessities (for 10 people) + rent/mortgage, car payments, insurance for 10 people, and house bills= practically living in poverty.

At this time, it is best for people to only have the amount of children that they are financially able to support, if people have children that they are not able to feed and house properly the child suffers, this is no good.

[BeerBaron]

Yes indeed.
However, you forgot to mention Credential inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credential_inflation) and Educational devaluation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_devaluation).


Those fall into the broad category that I used, destruction of the middle class. Which entire books can, and have been written on. There is only so much detail I am willing to put into posts.

Though Aces is right, and the past is far too often romanticized.

[BeerBaron]

The average person in America makes less then $50,000 a year. $50,000 a year for food & necessities (for 10 people) + rent/mortgage, car payments, insurance for 10 people, and house bills= practically living in poverty.


:eek: I don't know how you would raise one child let alone 10 on that small of an income.

[Aces High]

To have enough to money to even feed 1-2 children, you need a good job.
To have a good job, you need a lot of education.
To have a lot of education, you need to spend a lot of years you could have spent having children.
It's a dead end, really..

My grandparents came from large families and they had sweet fuck all,shared clothes and never knew where the next meal was coming from....yet were as happy as pigs in shit.

To have a good job you need to be smart,not have a good education.;)....i have an excellent job and left school with no qualifications.

Theres no dead end......make of your life what you want without any outside influence.

[Gregorios]

My grandparents came from large families and they had sweet fuck all,shared clothes and never knew where the next meal was coming from....yet were as happy as pigs in shit.

The standards of living weren't as high as today back in those days, so it was possible.
Besides.
People in those days were real people, not consumers. They were happy to be what they are. They weren't consumers like they are today.
My grandparents were also lower-class, and they also came from large families.


To have a good job you need to be smart,not have a good education.;)....i have an excellent job and left school with no qualifications.

What is your job? :D
I think you are missing my point. Yeah, be smart...
But most people are not smart.
That's why democracy will never work. The majority aren't smart. The majority - the crowd - are stupid as fuck, and can be easily manipulated. They are like sheep.
The smart ones are the ones who are rich, you are right...


Theres no dead end......make of your life what you want without any outside influence.

Tell that to most Americans, and see the results.... :rolleyes:
Not everyone can be what they want. Some want to be a programmer or a businessman, but can only become a farmer, miner or factory worker... You know...

[Boudica]

You know.. I wonder wtf Mexicans, etc do about this.. After all they have no education, they more then likely mow lawns for a living, yet have 3984893359938 kids. I mean I know welfare and food stamps are part of it, but damn..

[Gregorios]

You know.. I wonder wtf Mexicans, etc do about this.. After all they have no education, they more then likely mow lawns for a living, yet have 3984893359938 kids. I mean I know welfare and food stamps are part of it, but damn..

The government heavily supports minorities.
You should read this (http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/National_socialism,_liberalism,_marxism).

Liberalism praises diversity and supports minorities, it tries to disaggregate the nation into elementar parts, rather than to unite it.

Liberalism is materialistic, it tolerates religion, but does not support a state religion. It supports religious diversity, and wherever possible, it tries to disorganize christian faith.

Liberalism does not give any support to the members of the nation, in opposite, it is minority-centric, and aimes, that members of the majority give most of the result of their work to unwanted aliens for immigration and dwelling. Besides of that it gives money to cultural degeneration and wars for alien purposes.

[Aces High]

But most people are not smart.
That's why democracy will never work.

On the contrary,thats why this facade of democracy works because the majority are fucking idiots.

My advicxe to you is stop worrying about the big picture and cut out a life for yourself.

As they say in the British army "Keep your pecker hard and your powder dry and the world will turn".;)

[Canute]

By "traditional families" I mean families where people had like 6-8 children, instead of the modern-day 1-2-3.
You know... Lack of contraception, lack of abortion...

I would partially attribute this (in the US) to the fact that technology has improved and that there are less farmers. Not lack of contraception or abortion. In this case, better technology means there is less of a need for 6-8 children.

[Bridie]

Yes, there is a correlation between secularism and low fertility rates. (Backed up by statistics.) Although it's far from being the whole story.



Ya thats what happens when countries living standards go upThat's not true. The issue isn't living standards, but rather, lifestyle.



Feminism is also anti-religious, so there is a little bit of a correspondence afterall!
Feminism is not anti-religious as such, it's anti-women, anti-men and anti-children.



People used to have big families because for one they were mostly dependent on agriculture so needed the extra manpower and two because out of say ten children,one would die in childbirth,one would die of meningitis,one would die by some accident,two would be killed in a war,one would be handicaped in some way leaving four to do all the work.
Thats how it was in the UK anyway and i imagine the US as well.Dependance on agriculture wasn't the only reason for large families in eras past. In fact, after the industrial revolution, family sizes actually increased due to a lower infant mortality rate (increased pre-natal and anti-natal healthcare coincided with the industrial revolution).

It wasn't until the beginning of the 20th century that fertility levels began to drop, and even then, average fertility rates were still well above replacement level. Post WW2 saw the highest fertility rates of the 20th century, but they soon began to recede again, more dramatically than before, with the availability of "the pill" to the general public. However, it wasn't until the 1970's that fertility rates actually dropped below replacement level, remaining there (and worsening) ever since.

Arguably, low fertility rates directly coincide with a societal shift in the dominant value system of the population involved. From material wealth being valued over family, to children being devalued as a burden and an obstacle to achieving a lifestyle (that people have been brainwashed into thinking is necessary for success, social prestige and happiness) where they were once valued as an asset to their family and their community and an investment in the future.

Low fertility rates are a result of deliberate social engineering. Part of that has involved the demotion of traditional religions.

[Óttar]

When women have more control over their reproduction, they tend not to have many children. It is a manly thing that wants to create a large tribe to carry on the family name and conquer the neighbors. The world is overpopulated as it is. We are on a planet with too many people and too few resources. The problem is the Muslims and poor populations popping out 8 children a pop. There should be population control measures.

[Bridie]

When women have more control over their reproduction, they tend not to have many children. It is a manly thing that wants to create a large tribe to carry on the family name and conquer the neighbors. What a load of rubbish.

[Mercury]

Have you noticed the correspondence between the decline of Christianity (in both the USA and Europe) and the decline of traditional family values?

Traditional family values is just a Conservative talking point. There was always homosexuality in America, and in all of Humanity. There was rampant polygamy out west 'back in da day.' In the 1920's whites flocked to black night clubs and listened to Jazz and Blues. (Not saying I don't like Jazz or anything, just saying how it is). So we're not the first generation of liberal whites.

[Comte Arnau]

What is selfish -and stupid- is having many more children than you can afford. It shouldn't only be considered immoral, it should also be punished by law. :D

[Gregorios]

What is selfish -and stupid- is having many more children than you can afford. It shouldn't only be considered immoral, it should also be punished by law. :D

For non-whites only.
For whites, families who make a lot of children should be rewarded.

[Comte Arnau]

For non-whites only.
For whites, families who make a lot of children should be rewarded.

If whites can't afford it, I find it equally stupid. I frankly will never understand those couples who can't make their ends meet but have more than five children. Now, if you have enough money, that's different, you can have twenty or fourty and build a town.

[Gregorios]

If whites can't afford it, I find it equally stupid. I frankly will never understand those couples who can't make their ends meet but have more than five children. Now, if you have enough money, that's different, you can have twenty or fourty and build a town.


6VnUH_CPulc

[Dead Eye]

Two things the Marxists want for Europe and North America is the end of family values and to empty the churches,which we can all see has been done already.

Indeed it is not a coincidence.