Dissident approach to child rearing
Children in post-industrialisation societies are raised in a manner that is far removed from our ancestral ways of life. This has for long been a Schelling point for any kind of dissidence. I've found discussion of the atrocity of Rockefeller schooling and it's current year mutations to be quite common on the left and the right. However, childhood starts earlier, and these first years are arguably more important for development than those spent in school, where peers are the most influential environmental factor, rather than parents or teachers.

I would like to point out a few behaviours of our modern (western) societies that I find to be counterproductive to the production of a healthy, intelligent, autonomous child, and will propose solutions. They are, roughly in order of introduction into the child's life: baby formula, diapers, prams, screens, safetyism. 

Baby formula probably needs no big explanation, it's clearly better for children to be raised on their mother's milk. I find it important to mention because you might find yourself in a situation where your wife cannot produce her own milk, and in that case I would propose to find a donor for real mother's milk instead of resorting to formula. 

Diapers are seen as an absolute necessity for child rearing, but they are completely optional. It will not be more work to raise the child without them, and they have many drawbacks that can thus be removed. For the child, the diaper is an obstacle to movement, and it will achieve milestones in motor development faster without them. This also means more muscular development, which is generally beneficial. For the parents, diapers are an expense that can weigh heavy on your budget. 

Prams (and other movement restrictors like cages, leashes) are simply ways to retard your child. If your child cannot walk, the mother should carry it (fathers as well, will be more common the older the toddler becomes). As soon as your child can walk, it should walk as often as possible. If you find this slows your movement, calculate more time - rather than strapping your kid into a glorified wheelchair. This is maybe my biggest gripe, when I see children who are old enough to run put into a pram, I weep for humanity.

Screens, again, are obviously bad, probably needs no explanation. Introduce late in childhood, keep to minimum. 

Safetyism here summarises a multitude of needless intrusions upon the child's desire to explore. It often is the task of the father to keep the mother from being overbearing in this regard. Let your children hurt themselves, put themselves into danger, hurt each other, use violence, use swear words, etc. Use your common sense to protect them from pointless lasting damage, while accepting the price (usually cleaning a mess) for the long-term benefit of robust children. 

As a concluding suggestion, I would like to say that vetting your future wife for agreement with your ideas on child rearing is probably the single most important compatibility check you can perfom. Otherwise, you will resent her for fucking up your kids, I hope that is clear. 

Let me know where you disagree, or what else you would include in this list!
(09-22-2022, 04:52 AM)Hamamelis Wrote: As a concluding suggestion, I would like to say that vetting your future wife for agreement with your ideas on child rearing is probably the single most important compatibility check you can perfom. Otherwise, you will resent her for fucking up your kids, I hope that is clear. 

At this point of history a regular man will be lucky to find any candidate to be suitable for a mother, and being picky is mostly out of the picture. It is due to how the modern society works, what women are and as well what men are. Dwelling on the details here is probably unnecessary, it has been talked to death already.

What is often left out of the retarded ad-personam social media exchanges is how overburdened the modern man is. Let us take an average man, with average Western salary and let's assume that he already has a decent prospect of marriage and family life before him. According to a quick search, the average European salaries range between 2000 to 3000 euro per month, while the estimated cost to raise a child until "adulthood" are around 250 000 euro. The cost is calculated for the child reaching 18 years of life, which means absolutely nothing today, so this amount should in practice be increased, or even doubled in some cases. But still, let's stay at the basic estimate. For the ease of calculation, at the salary of 2500 euro per month it would take 100 months to earn this amount of money, and only that, not including costs of personal living and other necessary expenses. This is 8 years of the man's life with change, again making an assumption that he will be able to work constantly without obstacles along the way. Modern man reaches productive years after finishing college, which in Europe is usually at 24 or 25 years old, depending on the career. This means, making other assumptions for simplicity (finding a job that pays average right off the bat), that the man will be ready to establish a family at 32 or 33 years old, have his costs covered and be able to continue to make a living until his retirement. My calculations in this regard are not far from the truth, since the average age of the modern father is 30 with change.

(You might say that my example is unrealistic and unlifelike, and you'll be right. The example is fairly idealistic and excludes a lot of things such as securing a place to live; rarely you'll find someone able to accumulate that much money, and most will just start their family and hope for the best. It's meant to be a thought experiment - do your own research and find out the average age and income 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, and make a comparison.)

To maintain his salary and to remain competitive in the market, the man will likely be forced to work overtime; let's assume that he has an average of 9 work hours per day, five days a week. Adding one more hour for commute (30m in, 30m out, also an optimistic scenario) means he'll likely leave home at 7am and be back at 5pm. Assuming that our average man is physically fit and energetic, he'll be able to commit perhaps two hours to maintain his family affairs on weekdays after satisfying his basic needs and before bedtime. Of course, there are still the weekends, but these might still have to be spent on non-familial activities such as house maintenance, groceries, extra-curricular for kids, and so on. To elucidate it further, an average man, out of 168 hours of the week might be able to offer, at best, 30 hours to his family (5x2h in weekdays and very optimistic 2x10h in the weekends), which is circa 18% of the time available.

The point of this entire post is that the "average" man, politically ambivalent, masculine, physically and mentally strong, is simply unable to countermand the influence that the modern world and media have on his family. Even if we assume an ideal situation that his wife doesn't have to work and is there for his kids, she is still very vulnerable to the media, the internet, her group of friends, her extended family and society sensu largo. She will watch television, she will use facebook and be in contact with the insane people that use it, she will remain in touch with her female friends and absorb their opinions and experiences. Without delving into the particulars too much, many of these influences will be very detrimental. These 30 hours that the tired man has to offer after coming back home are not enough, even if he is painfully aware of these bad influences and has a sincere desire to reverse them. His wife will still be in contact with her friends and the consensus machine of social media. His children will still be exposed to their peers and the consensus machine of modern schooling and insanity of the teachers.

If the man trips and falls along the way: loses his job, mistakenly allows his child to be hurt on his watch, steps out of line too much and reveals his "power level", the machine will grind him to paste. He will be blamed for everything, by his wife, her friends, the society. The examples are many. You know that most of the divorces are started by women. Jonathan Pentland's case comes to mind first thing. He was an average man, a strong man, and the machine set its sights on him.

Call me a blackpilled faggot, but I simply cannot see the possibility of raising children today. Of course, you can HAVE them, your progeny can be brought to this world and maintained until adulthood with considerable expense and effort, but actually raising them, inculcating the values and principles, reverting the influences of modernity, is beyond the ability of the average man. The amish exist, as do the hillbillies or the local equivalents of them, but we can agree that they are very far from the optimal conditions one would seek for his own. It's sad, and many of the readers will accuse me of discouraging others, being a fed, helping the zog, but the entire purpose of this is establishing objective facts of today, nothing more.

I know it is very possible and likely there is a way out, but I simply cannot see it now.
I don't think applying the right parameters to raise your kids properly is such an impossible task. We've all met the average man described above and frankly he isn't even trying to exercise authority over his family. Boomers abdicated that role after being raised on TV themselves (not realizing or caring that TV in their day still broadcast a semblance of white Christian values). Subsequent generations have completely lost touch with the goals of fatherhood, but I dare say anyone collaborating to solve this question already has much of what will be needed.

Getting one's wife on board, though daunting, is a skill that has always been required of men and therefore must be possible. Even though the legal environment has never been more hostile to fathers, it isn't the dominant and authoritative men who are getting divorce-cucked by their wives. It's always rich playboys, loser alcoholics, or respect wammen betalords who fall prey to this because they're the ones relying on the legal construct to define their marriage in the first place.

I've never heard of a Brethren farmer getting his land clawed apart by Jew divorce lawyers, and I doubt that any man who actively and righteously steers his family each day would suffer that fate either.

The chief problem in my eyes is both long-term and almost totally out of the hands of any individual of modest means, and that is finding a high-quality pool of social peers and mates for your heirs. I can say from personal experience that my parents did a pretty good job raising my but I spiralled downward for about a decade trying to fit in with normie culture, and it's incumbent upon me to prevent my future son from making the same mistake. There used to be social functions to serve this purpose but I think it would require significant wealth and community influence to jumpstart them. And most churches are either geriatric, tiny, or already pozzed, so I don't even consider that a reliable solution.
First guest, these assumptions about the cost of child rearing are wrong in my estimation. For whatever reason, the cost is greatly inflated. After some initial costs associated with pregnancy and birth, which highly depend on your individual arrangement and outcomes (giving birth at home v. hospital, difficult pregnancy v. uncomplicated, etc), having children is cheap for a long time, which under normal circumstances means you will earn more when your children cost more.
I would also add here that interventions to raise fertility rate which address financial stability have only short term effects if any.
The point is well taken however that circumstances are not great to produce children. Do you want to submit to that is the question. You are also needlessly pessimistic about the influence of society on women - at least some of the desire to found a family should be congruent to your desire to control your own domain. This is certainly still achievable today!

Second guest, I concur and would be interested in hearing propositions on how to navigate this chief problem.
"viriculture dot com archives"
"614 pages of light reading"
(10-03-2022, 09:55 AM)Svevlad Wrote: "viriculture dot com archives"
(10-03-2022, 06:37 PM)BillyONare Wrote: link?

(10-03-2022, 07:58 PM)Chud Wrote:
(10-03-2022, 06:37 PM)BillyONare Wrote: link?


Quick rundown? This is really meandering. Can't you just have bullet point instructions on how to make your children based, virtueswise?
(09-23-2022, 10:41 AM)Hamamelis Wrote: Second guest, I concur and would be interested in hearing propositions on how to navigate this chief problem.

I wish I could offer anything remotely actionable for the average guy in our generation, but in lieu of that I'll pontificate on some general ideas toward solving the offspring courtship problem. How to make any of this happen is utterly beyond me at this point in my life (for reference I'm in my mid/late 20's, paltry income, childless, not married yet), but we can still let our minds float up into the aether and apprehend a couple of important principles:

1. Paternal supervision and veto. The fact that girls are wholly unqualified to make decisions requires zero elaboration. No man should ever have the remotest opportunity to access your daughter alone, from the cradle until the day you walk her down the aisle and deliver her to one who has earned your approval. The topology of social life must passively reinforce this boundary without compromise (e.g. no going out late at night for little Ms. Amarnite).

At the same time, virginity itself serves a higher purpose than putting your daughter on dry ice until the stars wink out. If you go so far overboard as to dissuade eligible young men away from any hope of making a proper entrée, then your daughter will first grow to resent you and then become a massive whore no later than the law permits her emancipation. You must cleave the proper boundary, but also convey to her and to potential suitors alike that although one side of it is totally forbidden, the other side will reward a man of virtue.

As a woman she has next to no agency, and she'll be aware of that fact if you're doing your job as patriarch. And most of the guys she encounters will only be trying to get under her skirts (you weren't going to let her wear pants, were you...?). But just because she's a girl doesn't mean you also have to act like one on her behalf, it's not necessarily sufficient to wait around for an honorable young lad to discover protocol on his own. Remember, these guys will literally be Generation Beta and if we didn't inherit the proper channels, they won't even have the faintest concept of it. So it might be a good idea for the man in charge to proactively scope out some good options for his daughter, and subtly let them know she's for sale to a good home. Shake hands with their fathers, grease the gears a bit, etc. One would prefer the suitor to take total initiative, but in the environment he'll grow up in I can't say I really blame him, and you're pre-screening him for other desirable attributes anyway.

Also, much of this applies more or less inversely to boys, accounting for the distinct yet overlapping natures of chastity vs. virginity. A boy shouldn't be let loose on the whorehouses, but his struggle is very different and he will need higher-level guidance more so than direct chaperonage. 

2. Public social functions. Not the general public of course, but some community which is selective yet ideally broader than a club. Consider the purpose of yorebegone society balls, galas, debuts, etc. which were explicitly a way for men of status to pair off their of-age daughters in a controlled setting. The opulance is beside the point, even a monthly picnic would do. The bottom line is that these functions provide a legitimate venue for courtship unto mating, but integrated with regular social life so as not to become a cesspool of desperation. They should be organized on a semi-regular basis for attendance by young men and women and their families of all ages.

What I am NOT proposing is any kind of autistic virginity ball or father-daughter ceremony. That stuff misses the point, should all go without saying anyway, is cringe and frigid, and doesn't get the girl one micron closer to being owned by her future husband. It's all purely reactionary in the most impotent sense. I am also not proposing prom, or a singles club, or speed dating, or any other kind of singularly formal or assortative format. The courtship venue must support general socialization in order to attract critical mass of attendees and cushion the most vulnerable interactions a young person will have.

What I am talking about cannot be designed on paper and built on thin air in modernist fashion. That would essentially be tantamount to assembling a whole community out of scratch. But with a lot of money, a lot of dedication, an existing network, and an effective riff-raff exclusion mechanism, it would be a high-leverage local institution.

3. The right to a speedy wedding. Again, sexual morality is a trade-off. If you want your sons to secure beautiful eugenic brides, if you want to keep your daughters out of Babylon, you have to help remove obstacles that stop them striking while the iron is hot. Late marriage, tertiary education for women, protracted engagements to plan for expensive receptions, all of these are impractical and completely unnecessary penalties against sexual morality.

Your great-great-great grandfather got married to a virgin next to a covered wagon when he was 19, you get to fail a hormonal marshmallow test over and over for multiple decades while the girls' body counts and baggage only pile up higher. Your daughter's marriage should enter your radar at the onset of menses, and historically courtship and betrothal combined don't need to last more than like a year or two between "hello" and "I do".

No doubt some of these ideas might come off as laughably old-fashioned, even within our own circles. Alternatively, you can recognize them as highly advanced civilizational LosTech that the boomers threw in the trash so they could party like Hugh Hefner. I wish I could be more prescriptive but that's all I got for now.
The bar is so low. Most will institute chronic, delayed soy death onto their children from day one. An entire caste of millions of hiveminded, goyslopped FUPA men and women with pallid, damp skin, negative canthal tilts, and drooping, fleshy, porcine mouths.

In my personal life, I know of an infant, born premature to an extended family member - an older, haggard woman who smokes - who is fed strictly PUFA formula, and breakfast cereal grain. What potential good outcome in this child has been totally suppressed due to its mother's negligence and laziness? The child is sickly, weak - dead-eyed, and retarded. Could the effects of a no doubt tumultuous pregnancy have been made up for, if only proper nutrition was implemented from the beginning?

Adequate nutrition in utero, as well as during early infancy, is key: this could be considered the "preliminary" stage, where a baseline is established that gives way to desirable characteristics later down the line. I believe in the work of Dr. Weston A. Price, and his foundation, serving as a guide on how to feed your child, and WHY avoidance of processed grains, seed oils, et cetera. is integral to creating healthy children.

As for everything else, "edumacation", et cetera. I think early kindergarten exposure to "woke" is not good, not for fear of having a tranny convert child, but the general "dulling of the edge" that occurs in public schooling. The lessons on "how to be" - those that set the course for slave morality, appeals to the spic-nig cycle - this is what I would be concerned about. Homeschooling is often offered up as a remedy to this, but social ostracization is a real concern, and you will thus have to force interaction with contemporaneous parents, which may be scarce, and much of the time, might even OVERSOCIALIZE in their fear to conform to expectations. Never mind the lukewarm, Christian traditionalists you will encounter in such a sphere, and the type of clean, wholesome living they expect for their child: this is NOT what you should aspire to for your young!

I can say more on this, but I will leave it alone for now.
(10-07-2022, 10:35 AM)Guest Wrote: The bar is so low. Most will institute chronic, delayed soy death onto their children from day one.

I like this term. "Chronic delayed soy death". Weston Price is really good. His book anyway. I also agree on schooling that content isn't so much the problem unless a child gets explicitly trooned or whatever. It's more of a medium is the message problem. John Holt correctly identified schools as soul-death well before ideology was a notable element at work simply because of how classrooms and schoolwork are designed and presented.
On training your kids mentally and physically

It is easy and simple to make your kids mentally, physically, and socially elite. For homeschooling you can use the ACT/SAT as a guideline for general education [see Anthony's post above. The medium is the problem but the content is fine. If you can't get a great SAT score than you SUCK as a human and are retarded. Many conservatives think school is bad and useless therefor what school teaches is bad and useless but that stuff is necessary to not be a subhuman mongrel retard]. It's a fairly good measure for general elementary education, i.e. the basics of being a functional human being. Just do a linear progression so that they will hit a perfect score by age 18. Age 9 they get 50% of the questions right, age 14 75% of the questions, etc. Those tests are actually stupid easy. I was worried that my IQ and skills were dropping since I was a teenager so I took a look at these standardized tests and they are way easier than I remember (or maybe they are simplifying them for nogs?). They only seem hard when you are in high school because you are stressed by spending so much time in school.

For physical strength you can also do more or less a linear progression e.g. goal of benching 225 by age 18.

These things are very easy and require very little time investment but they *do* take years so encourage your kids to train at this stuff. Very easy and consumes little time but will make your kids ELITE by a very young age which sets them up to excel financially, socially, and sexually.

Encourage your sons to do useful and fun white guy stuff like baseball, hockey, and boy scouts. Boy scouts have been getting watered down and are recruiting homosexuals and women so they are not as good as they used to be, but still might be good. The Eagle Scouts I know are great guys and the guys I would want most on my team in a SHTF situation due to being more inclined to camping, fishing, hunting, and basic survival skills. There might be conservative/christian boy scout clones that are good now. In most places in America your kids can be homeschooled and still enroll in sports.

Some would say "your kids need to know a second language and be able to play a musical instrument!" but those things seem like a waste of time to me. You need a good amount of free time to become an intelligent and thoughtful person. Making your kids learn every "important" thing and hobby like skateboarding, piano, sunday school, juggling, German, running a lemonade stand, chess, werkin a jerb to lern werk ethikz, whathaveyou will just make them miserable or a striver. Stick to RIGOROUS activities that reap a great reward* e.g. baseball, hockey, lifting, sprinting, boy scouts, computer science.

Definitely teach them computer science. Again pretty easy and not too time consuming but takes years so it's best to start a young age.

Do peaceful parenting, set your kids up for getting laid, making money, being fit (this is so easy that it actually makes me mad thinking about how my parents didn't do this), and the survival of their bodies and genes. Use your rational mind to figure out which activites are and are not important towards this goal and encourage your kids to do it. Do not push them to have any particular political, religious, or controversial beliefs.

*you might have some fantasy about you or your kids becoming a beautiful piano player or whatever and making girls swoon, but literally no one gives a fuck if you are mediocre or just good at a musical instrument. It is a useless skill unless you are at an ELITE level which will consume your entire life to get to. Contrast them with things like serious sports and STEM education where there is a linear relationship between how much effort you put in and how great your rewards are in terms of having a stronger more beautiful body, impressing the ladies, making money, being intelligent, etc. Being a mediocre saxophone player will just waste thousands of hours of your life but being a mediocre hockey player will be more fun than most soypeople have in their entire shitty lives and might net you a 10/10 teenage girlfriend who might be your soulmate.
(10-07-2022, 10:35 AM)Guest Wrote: ...

Adequate nutrition in utero, as well as during early infancy, is key: this could be considered the "preliminary" stage, where a baseline is established that gives way to desirable characteristics later down the line. I believe in the work of Dr. Weston A. Price, and his foundation, serving as a guide on how to feed your child, and WHY avoidance of processed grains, seed oils, et cetera. is integral to creating healthy children.


I have read Prices' work, and find it mostly inapplicable to our current situation. I think it holds very important lessons, on anthropology, medicine, nutrition, but it's lacking in terms of carry-over to living in an industrialised country. I certainly apply the ideas of "hard foods" to form jaw bones, teeth, of avoidance of industrially processed foods and of eating organ meats. However, Prices' central insight seems to have been that food used to be much more nutritious, and that industrial agriculture destroys that nutritional value. That is important, but doesn't help me feed myself or my children.

In any case, if you want to contribute more specific list of how to feed small children optimally, I would be interested in your ideas.
I think marrying right is the important piece. All the diets and sports and screen bans in the world aren't going to be of any use if your children don't have a good mother. Clearly an "ex" whore is unlikely to be a good mother, as is a woman with libtard political views. Abortion is a good acid test: if a normie woman is not at least slightly repulsed at the thought of killing her own child she probably won't be a good mother. She should also be willing and happy to accept that her primary job will be at home. This doesn't have to be dogmatic, if she has some easy WFH job that's fine, but there should rarely be a good reason for your wife to work full-time after you have kids.
I have thought more about this today while driving... BAP talks about this in his book, and I believe he is ramping up coverage of television/movies on the podcast in preparation for a breach into Hollywood... American culture is influenced first and foremost by the media that is consumed by the population at large: this, I believe. How many of us, even, were entirely swayed to this side of the discourse - horizons broadened - through exposure to funny Internet posts/meme images on niche forums? "Redpilling" often starts because you are WON over by dissident HUMOR. Now, imagine the normie, who has little to no exposure to such things, never once feels compelled to challenge "I <3 NIGGER" rhetoric in schools, television, movies, etc. because no such refutation occurs in any of their multimedia consumption! The solution he offers at the end of BAM is just so: infiltrate the institutions that the people at large immerse themselves in, to escape the stultifying, sclerotic day-to-day drab of modern, industrialized life. This is how you win people over! As such, I am convinced that the media you allow your child to consume has just as much, if not more, bearing on how they behave in society.

Women - your wife - might be your ultimate foil in all of this, as she is concerned with conformity, and "adjustment" above all else: the well-roundedness, and overall edge, takes a backseat to its ability to "fit in"; but, then again, if she has any type of respect for you, she will at the very least be willing to compromise on diet/media/etc.

(10-09-2022, 12:45 PM)Hamamelis Wrote:
(10-07-2022, 10:35 AM)Guest Wrote: ...

Adequate nutrition in utero, as well as during early infancy, is key: this could be considered the "preliminary" stage, where a baseline is established that gives way to desirable characteristics later down the line. I believe in the work of Dr. Weston A. Price, and his foundation, serving as a guide on how to feed your child, and WHY avoidance of processed grains, seed oils, et cetera. is integral to creating healthy children.
Nutrition = flavor: did you know that? The better quality the soil the plant grows in, the better quality the produce! I have tasted incredible botanical pleasures, grown in rich, black earth, amongst companion plants, and complex microbial and mycelial ecosystems/networks! A squash soup, with low ingredient input, that had incredibly complex, mushroom-umami flavor, simply because of the quality of the soil. A true delight.

Indeed, these conditions are hard to meet, even when you grow your own produce. Impossible, maybe, for the layman kitchen gardener. The time and commitment required for such high quality fruit + vegetables is too much of a burden, I think, for most people.

That said, while meat has potential issues, there is no denying the nutritional quantity far surpasses even the highest-quality plant matter. You no doubt know about the virtues of RAW MILK, and certainly, if you are in the USA, it is not a food item you should be leaving on the table: babies can be fed strictly on this, if the mother, for whatever reason, is unable to lactate. Various offal - heart, liver, kidney, even brain - are treated as WASTE products by butchers, and can be purchased for next-to-nothing, or even given away for free! Chicken liver, made into a pâté with butter, is a smooth, easy-to-digest food for young children still teething. Duck rillettes, too. Making a chicken stock out of talons, necks, wings, etc. on high heat will create warm, collagenous liquid at a bargain, that will satisfy anyone - baby included. To feed optimally requires cooking knowledge, and a bit of ingenuity, but it can be done, even today, for less cost than you might expect. AVOID GRAIN - PUFA. HOW MANY MORE MILLIONS OF CHILDREN MUST SUFFER FROM SHRUNKEN SKULL, CROOKED TEETH - BRACES - MYOPIA, AND RETARDATION? DO NOT BUY TABLET FOR CHILD UNDER AGE OF TEN/ELEVEN... MAYBE TWELVE... PARENTAL CONTROL ON ALL DEVICES: EXERCISE GREAT CAUTION! DO NOT TURN ON "BABY GONZORELLA" FOR TODDLER. I AM BAP?

(10-09-2022, 06:37 PM)Guest Wrote: snip
Addendum: tough, chewy foods for jaw development can also be facilitated by animal meats... dry jerkies, salt-cures, raw fat, and even just cooked cuts of beef, pork, or venison are enough, I think. Vegetables lack any real nutritional merit, in my opinion, and serve only as flavor agents for various dishes! They have a place in the kitchen, to be sure, but they can be ignored in the case of babby daily intake... fruit is yummy snakk and vegetables can be introduced later once "diversifying" becomes concern...
(10-09-2022, 06:37 PM)Guest Wrote: fruit is yummy snakk

I kill you, nigger.
Toddlers love beef jerky and it clearly helps their teeth develop, a really good snack to have around. Same goes for dried fruit. Yummy snack indeed. Good input Guest, I like what you said about offal - cheap, nutritious, tasty.

As far as produce from healthy soil goes, I think having a vegetable garden to teach about plants, food provenance, pesticides etc would be ideal anyway, but that's costly. German Schrebergärten or Russian Dacha are more affordable options, but also not for everyone.
Because genetics are the largest determinant of life outcomes, the largest part of child rearing happens before your child is born. The first half of this part happens when your genetics are determined during fertilization. The second part happens during mate selection when you choose who you will reproduce with. If you reproduced with a 107 IQ public school teacher extrovert libfem, it's already over for the child. It has bad genes and a divorce rapist mother that will likely not permit anything other than seed oils and public school. If, on the other hand, you've reproduced with someone much like yourself: high IQ, disagreeable, introverted, and based, you may move onto the less important "child rearing proper", because your child has the genes to be based and high IQ.

Enough has been said on child rearing proper in this thread. It's common sense -- don't immerse your 2 year old in liberal propaganda, seed oils, and longhouses. Teach them to be a man etc. Educate them, redpill them, etc. Redpilling children works because a lot of people just don't have time to understand reality -- when it's taught to you you have no excuse, and its intrinsically persuasive because it's obviously right.

One thing I will emphasize though is don't be a retarded asshole to your child. A ton of parents fail at this for some reason. Somehow it got normalized to have one set of rules for their child, and one for themselves. Unless there is an irrefutable scientific reason to do this, don't do it, because everyone innately detects and hates hypocrites, and it's clear you just want to dominate your child.
(10-20-2022, 07:22 PM)AryanGenius1488 Wrote: ... genetics are the largest determinant of life outcomes ... 

... to have one set of rules for their child, and one for themselves ...

I agree, genetics most important, get a hot, smart, and brave wife. That should be priority #1 for your children. I also agree, you should have good genes yourself or not procreate otherwise, but who's going to listen to that. I further agree that a lot has been said about child rearing, but the point of this thread as laid out in the OP was to discuss the period between 0-4 years, which is generally under-discussed compared to later stages.

Re: treating your children decently, I see this, too, but it seems to be more of a bugman problem to me. I would generalise this to: treat children and adults the same, while keeping the individual cognitive status in mind.

Quick Reply
Type your reply to this message here.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)