Dissident approach to child rearing
#21
There's a common trope among RWers which I don't really get and can't help but think BAP or someone once said it and it's just been mindlessly parroted since.
'I don't want a RW wife, I want a liberal.' ... Why? If we’re talking about ideal scenarios…

'Something must be wrong with a woman to be RW.' Possibly, that's not necessarily bad - the world is rotten and nonconformity with it is a virtue. The avg woman has a lot wrong with her anyway. Many RW egirls may be making up for their past of whoredom but I don’t think being conservative-minded necessarily implies that any more than being the opposite.
I suppose deviation from the norm is a masculine trait but if she's otherwise feminine (which will be more likely) so what? I remember dumb broads tweeting about how men wanting women to be both submissive and RW is a contradiction - Ladies, the whole point is submission to just your husband, not everyone on the planet.
'If you're alpha enough she won't care and just end up agreeing with you.' Well, good luck. Even if this is a reality, I'd feel much more comfortable with someone I can trust not to poz my children while I'm away.
Yes a nice conservative woman is hard to find but a lib woman who won't negatively affect your children is even rarer. Besides the only difference between these two unicorns is one has ideological motivations for raising their children right, sounds slightly better to me.
Perhaps they imagine in bed she will be screaming “YES!! FOR HITLER!! AND THE RACE!! CUM IN ME!!!!” and be intimidated. Hah hah.

What do you think? I must be missing something. Anyway, it doesn’t matter bros. I’ll probably die alone, sexless with no shieldmaiden.
#22
(10-22-2022, 12:19 PM)Oldblood Wrote: There's a common trope among RWers which I don't really get and can't help but think BAP or someone once said it and it's just been mindlessly parroted since.
'I don't want a RW wife, I want a liberal.' ... Why? If we’re talking about ideal scenarios…

'Something must be wrong with a woman to be RW.' Possibly, that's not necessarily bad - the world is rotten and nonconformity with it is a virtue. The avg woman has a lot wrong with her anyway. Many RW egirls may be making up for their past of whoredom but I don’t think being conservative-minded necessarily implies that any more than being the opposite.
I suppose deviation from the norm is a masculine trait but if she's otherwise feminine (which will be more likely) so what? I remember dumb broads tweeting about how men wanting women to be both submissive and RW is a contradiction - Ladies, the whole point is submission to just your husband, not everyone on the planet.
'If you're alpha enough she won't care and just end up agreeing with you.'  Well, good luck. Even if this is a reality, I'd feel much more comfortable with someone I can trust not to poz my children while I'm away.
Yes a nice conservative woman is hard to find but a lib woman who won't negatively affect your children is even rarer. Besides the only difference between these two unicorns is one has ideological motivations for raising their children right, sounds slightly better to me.
Perhaps they imagine in bed she will be screaming “YES!! FOR HITLER!! AND THE RACE!! CUM IN ME!!!!” and be intimidated. Hah hah.

What do you think? I must be missing something. Anyway, it doesn’t matter bros. I’ll probably die alone, sexless with no shieldmaiden.

I think the issue is that a "RW girl" has an overdeveloped social consciousness. What you want isn't "liberal". What you want is as blank a slate as possible. Some people likely say "liberal" when they mean this because these ideas which we call "liberal" are so dominant that they almost feel like a human default.
#23
(10-22-2022, 06:44 PM)anthony Wrote:
(10-22-2022, 12:19 PM)Oldblood Wrote: There's a common trope among RWers which I don't really get and can't help but think BAP or someone once said it and it's just been mindlessly parroted since.
'I don't want a RW wife, I want a liberal.' ... Why? If we’re talking about ideal scenarios…

'Something must be wrong with a woman to be RW.' Possibly, that's not necessarily bad - the world is rotten and nonconformity with it is a virtue. The avg woman has a lot wrong with her anyway. Many RW egirls may be making up for their past of whoredom but I don’t think being conservative-minded necessarily implies that any more than being the opposite.
I suppose deviation from the norm is a masculine trait but if she's otherwise feminine (which will be more likely) so what? I remember dumb broads tweeting about how men wanting women to be both submissive and RW is a contradiction - Ladies, the whole point is submission to just your husband, not everyone on the planet.
'If you're alpha enough she won't care and just end up agreeing with you.'  Well, good luck. Even if this is a reality, I'd feel much more comfortable with someone I can trust not to poz my children while I'm away.
Yes a nice conservative woman is hard to find but a lib woman who won't negatively affect your children is even rarer. Besides the only difference between these two unicorns is one has ideological motivations for raising their children right, sounds slightly better to me.
Perhaps they imagine in bed she will be screaming “YES!! FOR HITLER!! AND THE RACE!! CUM IN ME!!!!” and be intimidated. Hah hah.

What do you think? I must be missing something. Anyway, it doesn’t matter bros. I’ll probably die alone, sexless with no shieldmaiden.

I think the issue is that a "RW girl" has an overdeveloped social consciousness. What you want isn't "liberal". What you want is as blank a slate as possible. Some people likely say "liberal" when they mean this because these ideas which we call "liberal" are so dominant that they almost feel like a human default.

As I have stated many times before, you need to find a girl who is apolitical but also not 'normie'. You need to get the 'weird' girl who hasn't been pozzed. What being 'weird' really means is an indicator for real thinking. A women who truly thinks is one who is rational, one who will actually accept the truth rather than just go with social convention.

Of course, in an ideal world this wouldn't be necessary (although women like this are still better, but that's just my opinion) and every girl would be automatically 'right wing', but we do not live in a perfect world.
#24
But why does she need to be apolitical? Is it not just easier for everyone if you're both on the same page (more or less)?
I think the benefit of that outweighs whatever problems an 'overdeveloped social consciousness' would present.
#25
(10-23-2022, 10:47 AM)Oldblood Wrote: But why does she need to be apolitical? Is it not just easier for everyone if you're both on the same page (more or less)?
I think the benefit of that outweighs whatever problems an 'overdeveloped social consciousness' would present.

let me rephrase what i meant. i mean 'apolitical' in the very strict sense of the world: one who does not engage actively in politics. yes you should have a "right wing girl" per se but not a "RIGHT WING girl". You don't want a girl who is actively into politics, unless you seriously mesh well. Of course I may be wrong, I'm just clarifying my point.
#26
Out of the city, homeschool. (I didn't read the thread btw)
#27
(10-28-2022, 04:34 AM)dairydeity Wrote: Out of the city

This part strikes me as a rather bad idea in most cases.
#28
(10-28-2022, 04:52 AM)anthony Wrote:
(10-28-2022, 04:34 AM)dairydeity Wrote: Out of the city

This part strikes me as a rather bad idea in most cases.

I don't mean it in a Greerite vs Lumberjack style way. If you think about the child and only the child, I think rural beats city every time. (No exhaust fumes, open space, no niggers, and so on)
There are other consequences external to the child rearing of course
#29
(10-28-2022, 06:30 AM)dairydeity Wrote:
(10-28-2022, 04:52 AM)anthony Wrote:
(10-28-2022, 04:34 AM)dairydeity Wrote: Out of the city

This part strikes me as a rather bad idea in most cases.

I don't mean it in a Greerite vs Lumberjack style way. If you think about the child and only the child, I think rural beats city every time. (No exhaust fumes, open space, no niggers, and so on)
There are other consequences external to the child rearing of course

The answer's in your post. We can't cite many actual positives for this, just distance from a few particular bad things.
#30
(10-28-2022, 06:34 AM)anthony Wrote:
(10-28-2022, 06:30 AM)dairydeity Wrote:
(10-28-2022, 04:52 AM)anthony Wrote:
(10-28-2022, 04:34 AM)dairydeity Wrote: Out of the city

This part strikes me as a rather bad idea in most cases.

I don't mean it in a Greerite vs Lumberjack style way. If you think about the child and only the child, I think rural beats city every time. (No exhaust fumes, open space, no niggers, and so on)
There are other consequences external to the child rearing of course

The answer's in your post. We can't cite many actual positives for this, just distance from a few particular bad things.

I'd say physical distance from bad things is about as important as physical distance to good things in the case of a developing child.
Sending your child to pre-school ran by some tranny freak, filled with little nignog toddlers makes its early life basically a complete coinflip, you have little influence over a child like thats path
#31
(10-28-2022, 06:54 AM)dairydeity Wrote: I'd say physical distance from bad things is about as important as physical distance to good things in the case of a developing child.
Sending your child to pre-school ran by some tranny freak, filled with little nignog toddlers makes its early life basically a complete coinflip, you have little influence over a child like thats path

I didn't grow up in a city. Still went to a weird kindergarten, my peers were still feral morons, etc.
#32
Suburbs?
#33
(10-28-2022, 06:54 AM)dairydeity Wrote: I'd say physical distance from bad things is about as important as physical distance to good things in the case of a developing child.
Sending your child to pre-school ran by some tranny freak, filled with little nignog toddlers makes its early life basically a complete coinflip, you have little influence over a child like thats path

If you provide your child with a bit of knowledge he will know to identify tranny freaks as freaks, if you distance him from the things he's bound up to interact with later in life he won't know how to deal with them and, moreover trannies and nogs are bound to keep popping up as you have ceded them the cities. Moving to the countryside doesn't fix the problems on a large scale but it does make it so for you that you're not bothered by the problems, however the point is moot if your kids will move out to the city for a job and you will have failed to teach them what to be prepared for. I grew up in a place with no trannies and no niggers and school was just as ineffective; the critique can be summarised as school as it is now doesn't effectively teach its subjects, regardless of what the subjects themselves are.
#34
(10-28-2022, 06:54 AM)dairydeity Wrote:
(10-28-2022, 06:34 AM)anthony Wrote:
(10-28-2022, 06:30 AM)dairydeity Wrote:
(10-28-2022, 04:52 AM)anthony Wrote:
(10-28-2022, 04:34 AM)dairydeity Wrote: Out of the city

This part strikes me as a rather bad idea in most cases.

I don't mean it in a Greerite vs Lumberjack style way. If you think about the child and only the child, I think rural beats city every time. (No exhaust fumes, open space, no niggers, and so on)
There are other consequences external to the child rearing of course

The answer's in your post. We can't cite many actual positives for this, just distance from a few particular bad things.

I'd say physical distance from bad things is about as important as physical distance to good things in the case of a developing child.
Sending your child to pre-school ran by some tranny freak, filled with little nignog toddlers makes its early life basically a complete coinflip, you have little influence over a child like thats path

I don't think sending my child to a rural town where the largest employers are methheaddery and alcoholism would be better over putting them in a nice White suburb without globohomo.
From my experience in staying in the regions from time to time in on holidays here in Australia, the regions aren't noticeably more 'conservative' than the cities. Just more White.
I assume it is a different experience in America.
#35
(10-28-2022, 08:07 AM)BillyONare Wrote: Suburbs?

I feel like I have to specify. Outer suburbs, which aren't really suburbs at all. I grew up surrounded by empty space with absolutely everything being a necessary car-trip away. I know an older guy who moved here from Europe as a teenager. Said he pretty much instantly got depressed. It's hell. Relationship with space gets completely destroyed. Basically life in a pod with shuttle-expeditions to designated activity zones. Nothing interesting around, absolutely nothing at all around that's within your power to get to. So just sit in your pod and be called a bad person by your parents for not going outside.
#36
3 best insights so far:

1) Raw cow's milk can feed a child of any age, even in early infancy.
2) Treat your children the same as you treat adults -- they're both mere humans at different knowledge levels.
--> 2.1) Hypocrisy is innately detectable, so just quit being a waffly faggot bc everyone from strangers to your wife to your 6-month-old can tell that you're a waffly faggot.
3) This comment on female-obtaining:
>"As I have stated many times before, you need to find a girl who is apolitical but also not 'normie'. You need to get the 'weird' girl who hasn't been pozzed. What being 'weird' really means is an indicator for real thinking. A women who truly thinks is one who is rational, one who will actually accept the truth rather than just go with social convention."
#37
Quote: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



No they absolutely cannot, you are going to kill your child. Formula based on raw milk can provide sustenance if you insist but without additives non-human milk will malnourish your child. Please do not try to min/max your child's stats like an RPG based off the advice of maladjusted and childless internet anons. I am begging you.

Milk is pasteurized because it becomes contaminated by the filth that necessarily occurs in animal husbandry. You cannot escape this by buying overpriced dairy from a smallholder. There's shit everywhere and cows emit pus and blood from the utters regularly. Even if this weren't the case: stored milk (especially the kind without refrigeration) is a petri dish for bacteria. You might know this if you've ever eaten cheese. Some of the bacteria which thrives in milk is very bad for you. This bacteria is even more harmful for small children.

You are not going to IQ max your future children by giving them salmonella. You might give them a septic infection. This will kill your child. You're not to build a strong baby by giving them e. Coli, you may give them permanent renal damage. This will kill your child just in time to avoid having the pay for Driver's Ed.

And for God's sake don't let your child shit all over the place to save money on diapers. Most new parents collect government benefits, it's fine. You don't have to tell anyone. Your kids going to play around in that shit and it's not going to be good(see above).
#38
^ kek
#39
He's in hysterics (or joking) but he's directionally correct, the right milk for a human child is human milk.
Raw animal products have unique dangers, many if not all highly exagerated by reddit Americans, but dangers nonetheless. This is neglectible for an intelligent, adult Amarnite who can do the most basic type of research into production methods, endemic area of parasites etc.; because an error or stochastic accident will not harm him more than a bout of food poisoning, at worst.

Babies are not as robust, and you should be more careful. Breastfeed as long as possible, but give them food from an early age, have mother prechew it. Don't choose dumb foods: there is no reason to give a risky food like raw pork to a baby. Choose foods with interesting flavours or consistencies over nutritional value. Stimulating your baby and creating an interesting environment is much more important than nutrition, which can by solely provided by the mother.

An example of risks: parents are discouraged from giving their babies honey, for fear of causing botulisms. There are 3350 cases of botulism (from any source) in babies (<52 weeks of age) globally, and 140 million new births, every year. This gives a rate of 0.02% for all babies. Botulism could kill a baby, but when caught is usually not lethal. It could lead to permanent brain damage however.

The question then is: is it Faustian to give your baby honey when there is no upside (over just giving mother's milk)? You could just wait 12 months to paleo-diet your child and be rid of the (admittedly miniscule) risks.
A weird case where the lindy option leads to cindy offspring.

Show Content
#40
(11-11-2022, 05:28 AM)Hamamelis Wrote: He's in hysterics (or joking) but he's directionally correct, the right milk for a human child is human milk.

I'm surprised this has to be said. It's like questioning whether a plant needs water rather than gobbledygook chemicals or whether it's better to have heterosexual sex or sodomy.


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Human Verification
Please tick the checkbox that you see below. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)