Is there a dependence on the number of children in the family and its well-being?

a reply to: Redrgon

That would be fear of what he does not understand and can only see from afar.

It's the same reason he threatens us with Russian invasion and nuclear annihilation from time to time.

Party line as insane as it sounds.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
Wonderful. I read the comments.
I realized that Western society has absolutely no future. No future. Because the future is not hamburgers, Teslas and bank accounts. The future of society is not economics, politics, or even ideology. The future is CHILDREN. If you have children, your society and families have a future. No children - you will be swallowed up by those who have children. The main thing is fertility. And they will replace you, occupying your homes, lands, assets and jobs, peoples not related to you in culture, faith, traditions and morals. And absolutely alien. You are in agony and on the verge of extinction. You are the last, or at best the penultimate, generation of the Western world. You will die out and leave, although now you consider yourself the chosen ones. This is fog, illusion, simulacrum. Degeneration is in your minds.
Do you want to survive in this cruel world? Wake up!

There are about 7 billion people on this rock. And it's projected to grow...... a lot! People also migrate. I'm pretty sure, things are all good, at least for the next hundred years or so. It will give them plenty of time to perfect babies in a bag....or something like that. Fertility is decreasing, I believe it's a planned thing by TPTB.

But maybe this will calm your nerves.

According to the United Nations, the world's population is projected to reach 8.5 billion in 2030, 9.7 billion in 2050, and 10.4 billion by 2100. Worldometer estimates that the world's population will reach 8,118,835,999 in 2024, 8,191,988,453 in 2025, 8,264,364,509 in 2026, and 8,335,977,671 in 2027.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: RussianTroll

Kids are insanely expensive.

I can hardly manage to support two of them whilst also paying the rent and keep the lights on.

Just the way the world spun.

Needs must and has to be done.

In this day of age though we dont own slaves like both Josiah and Benjamin Franklin did. Which probably helped manage the likes of 17 additional children never mind a lot of other things.

Got to call that a win really in my book.

Progress has its cost after all.

Do you not have any kids or people who depend on you RT?

Kids are insanely expensive because two reasons: it's unethical to make kids earn their keep and develop strong financial skills, they should instead play video games and vape all day (vaping is also unethical but contributes to delinquency creating the illusion of underprivileged youth) and the government has devised an economic fingertrap to justify micromanaging children welfare which is actually just supplanting parental discretion and authority.

My two cents.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
Wonderful. I read the comments.
I realized that Western society has absolutely no future. No future. Because the future is not hamburgers, Teslas and bank accounts. The future of society is not economics, politics, or even ideology. The future is CHILDREN. If you have children, your society and families have a future. No children - you will be swallowed up by those who have children. The main thing is fertility. And they will replace you, occupying your homes, lands, assets and jobs, peoples not related to you in culture, faith, traditions and morals. And absolutely alien. You are in agony and on the verge of extinction. You are the last, or at best the penultimate, generation of the Western world. You will die out and leave, although now you consider yourself the chosen ones. This is fog, illusion, simulacrum. Degeneration is in your minds.
Do you want to survive in this cruel world? Wake up!

Never a truer word spoken.
The invaders here have two ,three or four kids all under five years old in tow.
The indigenous are too busy watching Eurovision song contest with a Deliveroo takeaway made by an invader to procreate.
If you try telling them that their future is Islamic Britain they look at you with the gormless look on their face.Utterly clueless,dangerous even.

a reply to: TzarChasm

My two cents would have to be dont let them play video games and vape all day, or vape at all for that matter.

I mean that would be the very epitome of bad parenting TzarChasm.

Also, kids should be at school during the day aside from the weekend.

As to kids earning their keep, most people make their kids do tasks and chores around the house which kind of equates to such and teaches them that you dont get something for nothing.

I dont see that changing anytime soon to be honest.

I have a heap of kids. Well I have 3 of my own and another on the way. And 2 others in my care. 18, 15, 13, 3, 2 and the incoming is due July 18th. We're not rich but we're comfortable. Nice house I worked my ass off to have built away from cities; can't even tell there's a house there through the woods (and there's a LOT of house) with a decent amount of land surrounding. Aside from my 18 year old who manages a pet and grooming store and I don't take money from, mine is the only income. I hate to be THAT guy but... It's really not hard if you're willing to devote yourself to the well-being of your kids.

I own 2 small businesses now, both automotive-related. I work part time as a machinist for an internationally known shipping company. I work per diem as a medical transporter/delivery man. If it's a slow day I do Walmart shop and delivery.

Is it tiring? Hell yes it is. I work 5 days a week 10-12 hours a day and usually a 6th day on call or from 6:30-11am. Every last bit of free time I have goes to my family. If there's something that needs to be done, I find a way to incorporate my kids and make it fun. I may well have the only 3 year old that knows how to change oil in every vehicle I own in existence, haha.

Either way my point is simple. If you want to have multiple children, you stop giving a sh!t about yourself and make sure you raise the best human beings you can. If someone like me can go from what my life was 20 years ago to not worrying that there was a birth control slip up and "hey, another little boy!" then I'd have to guess bare minimum 60% of people that pump out kids and then need assistance are just lazy and selfish.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Redrgon

That would be fear of what he does not understand and can only see from afar.

It's the same reason he threatens us with Russian invasion and nuclear annihilation from time to time.

Party line as insane as it sounds.

I find it hilarious that a claim is made the western societies are going to vanish.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: RussianTroll

Kids are insanely expensive.

I can hardly manage to support two of them whilst also paying the rent and keep the lights on.

Just the way the world spun.

Needs must and has to be done.

In this day of age though we dont own slaves like both Josiah and Benjamin Franklin did. Which probably helped manage the likes of 17 additional children never mind a lot of other things.

Got to call that a win really in my book.

Progress has its cost after all.

Do you not have any kids or people who depend on you RT?

Sure, and you're right.
Too difficult to raise kids especially with this cost of living but most people manage it when they have one or two kids.

Having many kids it's a recipe for disaster imo. Impossible to provide for them and for yourself.

a reply to: Redrgon

I would not worry too much Redrgon.

The West is not going quietly anywhere, especially into the night, anytime soon.

Western societies will experience transformations, but complete disappearance is improbable.

They have endured through significant historical events and adapted to various challenges over the centuries.

Change is inevitable but i dont see our demise on the horizon anytime soon no matter what some people claim.

a reply to: RussianTroll

So what's your suggestion? Breeding like stray cats? If such is your fancy, then go for it. Others might not like the idea and "saving the Western society" is not a sufficient motivation for having children.

And why "Western" only? Russia's demographics is underwhelming too. Time to think about a proper foreplay. Nothing can turn on a Slavic guy more than "our duty to the Party" whispered into his ear. Now you're gonna conquer the world with screaming brats. Wow! Guess we are f**ked. Pun intended.

a reply to: Redrgon

It is geared that way now or so it seems.

I mean bang gone are the days where one parent could go out to work and support a family.

Whilst mother stayed home and took care of the kids and house.

The world simply does not spin that way any longer and it has not done since the beginning of the 80s by my guess.

Having too many kids is indeed a recipe for disaster unless of course, you can pay for them.

In which case each to their own i suppose.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
and why should my tax money pay for someone else to have bunches of kids? That's not fair. It's THEIR responsibility and if they can't afford to feed them, then they shouldn't breed.

^ This comment IS the conspiracy against having children.

Short-term, a lack of children does boost profits.
You have the increased labor pool of woman working full-time (which drives down wages and increases profits)

More tax money can be spent on business investments instead of schools.

Long-term the lack of children destroys society both socially and economically.

China is now dealing with this from their strict one child policy.

So to answer FlyersFan question. We help pay to have children for the same reason we have roads, fire departments, police.

It benefits society in the long-term.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I get your core moral principals don't include an obligation to help children. I can't really convince you otherwise but here's a video that talks about the $ part of it.

originally posted by: Daughter2v2

originally posted by: FlyersFan
and why should my tax money pay for someone else to have bunches of kids? That's not fair. It's THEIR responsibility and if they can't afford to feed them, then they shouldn't breed.

^ This comment IS the conspiracy against having children.

Short-term, a lack of children does boost profits.
You have the increased labor pool of woman working full-time (which drives down wages and increases profits)

More tax money can be spent on business investments instead of schools.

Long-term the lack of children destroys society both socially and economically.

China is now dealing with this from their strict one child policy.

So to answer FlyersFan question. We help pay to have children for the same reason we have roads, fire departments, police.

It benefits society in the long-term.

You said the lack of children does boosts profits in the short term but you didn't specify who is getting these profits.

a reply to: Redrgon

Since the 1950's most increased profits have been passed along as corporate profits instead of wages.

Prior to the 60's, both sides used to share in profits (wages would go up and earnings would tooo)

originally posted by: RussianTrollThe future is CHILDREN. If you have children, your society and families have a future. No children - you will be swallowed up by those who have children. The main thing is fertility. And they will replace you, occupying your homes, lands, assets and jobs, peoples not related to you in culture, faith, traditions and morals. And absolutely alien. You are in agony and on the verge of extinction. You are the last, or at best the penultimate, generation of the Western world. You will die out and leave, although now you consider yourself the chosen ones. This is fog, illusion, simulacrum. Degeneration is in your minds.
Do you want to survive in this cruel world? Wake up!

Is it moral to keep having kids you can't take care of? Is it moral to have to invade other nations for space?

What if you saved some of the money you're spending on rearing militarized children, training and arming them by not having more kids than you have space for?

What if the few children you had were then healthy, safe, well fed, well educated, well policed, productive and lived within their means because there was enough money and space?

a reply to: Magnivea2

My respect and low bow to you and your family.

a reply to: Redrgon

Do you know what revolution the Rockefellers made by financing the feminist movement in the USA?
The tax base has doubled.

a reply to: RussianTroll

I think it may be more accurate to say "the feminist movement" in the US has somewhat deeper roots than the Rockefeller's contributions, and shaped by the efforts of countless individuals and organisations over decades.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
Hello ATS!

Now the general trend in the West, according to the dominant “agenda”, is a reduction in the number of children in families. Moreover, this is explained and instilled as a necessity, since it is impossible to improve the well-being of a family and the quality of life if there are a large number of children in it. That is, personal comfort and wealth are incompatible with large families. But has this always been the case, and what was the situation with such “dependence” before?

Let's delve into US history. Benjamin Franklin's father, Josiah Franklin, was the youngest son of a poor English family. In 1685 he was forced to flee religious persecution to New England, to the city of Boston, which later became the capital of Massachusetts. He had 17 children: 7 children from his first wife and 10 children from his second. The three oldest children, as I understand it, remained in England, and the youngest 14 children grew up, reached adulthood and started their own families.

Before leaving, Josiah Franklin worked as a dyer, but there was no great need for dyers on another continent, so he took up making candles and making soap. In his free time, he painted or played the violin; he was also a good mechanic and, in general, knew how to work with his hands: he knew the basics of several crafts.

All his children studied, while Benjamin Franklin, as a smart guy who learned to read early, studied grammar, arithmetic and writing. His father was going to send him to the candle making business, but Benjamin showed such a clear distaste for this occupation that Josiah eventually sent him to study as a printer, despite the fact that Benjamin’s older brother, James, had already become a printer.

Josiah Franklin lived to be 89 years old without any illness until his death, and his second wife lived to be 85 years old. Their marriage lasted more than half a century. They did not receive any benefits from the state: on the contrary, they paid taxes and donated part of their income to church needs.

Please note: Josiah Franklin raised 17 children, being a poor man, in a wild and undeveloped country where there was neither minimally developed medicine nor technologies that made life easier. All his children grew up to be worthy and educated people, and one of his sons - the same Benjamin Franklin - became a scientist, became involved in politics and eventually founded the United States of America.

Similar large families today can be routinely observed in Amish families, who try to live exactly according to the technologies of those times - without electricity and other frills, but with horses.

The life of a modern person is much more comfortable: we have washing machines, cars, diapers, and numerous benefits from the state. But the modern Western “agenda” says that it is absolutely impossible to have more than three children in the modern world, unless you are a millionaire, since with the birth of the fourth child the family inevitably becomes poor, after which children deprived of proper care grow up to be semi-literate Mowglis, capable only of robbing passers-by and carry stolen engines from elevators to metal collection points...

Please explain this paradox to me. Why did traditional families calmly manage and manage 17 children, while modern families believe that children are insanely expensive, so that it is wiser for middle-income spouses to limit themselves to a cat or a dog?

Thank you.

Give me a farm and I’ll easily keep 17 children busy 😂👍