Having large families in times of crisis/instability is BAD. Not a sin, mind, but something you want to consider very carefully before going against God’s advice to not marry (ref. 1 Corinthians 7). It’s quite possible that the swiftly declining birth rate among whites today will prove to be God’s final kindness to the human race.
But hey, everybody needs a hobby.
With this for a backdrop, let’s dig into a an op-ed from WND trading contemptuous barbs with liberals.
THE CONTEMPT FOR ‘BREEDERS’: Exclusive: Patrice Lewis urges progressives not to have children … to save the country
Right off the bat, we see this is going to be a two-way street of contempt. Fun! But Lewis is too busy humblebragging about huge, happy families to recognize the danger of Progs not having kids.
We had some friends over for dinner a few weeks ago. They brought with them their 3.5 youngest kids. Three were already born; the youngest was still in the oven.
This deeply religious family is expecting their eighth child in August, and we hope they top out at a dozen. Why? Because I don’t think I’ve ever met a more “perfect” family.
I mean seriously, this couple puts most peoples’ parenting skills to shame. In their quiet, modest way, they have produced a brood of some of the most charming, polite, well-educated and contented children we’ve ever met. Packed into a 1,600-square-foot house, the kids share bedrooms, toys, adventures, love, friendship, work, prayer and meals. The boys swarm around their father and engage in engine repair, construction projects and livestock care. The girls help with the youngest children and generally do traditionally feminine activities (they’ve won county fair awards for their exquisite sewing skills). Needless to say, the children are homeschooled.
This actually sounds bad. Having watched the entire Protestant Church sit down and stop breathing with barely a complaint, your appearance of success means less than nothing to me. It means you’re hiding something.
A pastoral scene like this is not the way to communicate faith in Christ because it’s based upon ignorance, habit and too often, the belief that keeping kids too busy to do evil is the same thing as teaching them virtue. The father’s leadership in a rural family may go unquestioned for many years but inevitably, his kids will be exposed to evil and make the unfortunate discovery that evil is fun and rewarding. That’s a benefit of growing up in the city: your kids cannot remain ignorant of evil so instead of sheltering them as your Daddy hormones demand, you teach them to recognize and resist it.
Remember Peter Singer? A tenured college professor who openly advocated eugenics via infanticide. I approved of his tenure. Exposing college kids to True Evil under controlled circumstances was an excellent way to teach moral fortitude. Me growing up, my parents pointed out evil and trouble, what it looked like, how to respond to it and so on. It wasn’t a sermon or class. They worked with the opportunities my normal, urban life provided.
I doubt such ‘learning opportunities’ are common on rural farms because those people took up that life specifically because they aren’t common. But my advice is hard to follow because the damage comes early along with the morality. I myself have seen friends and family decide against God from a young age. Drugs, gangs, frivorce & all its victims and so on. Those farmkids missed out.
I am surrounded by “breeders.” Here in the rural heartland of America, families are sometimes breathtakingly large – we’re talking 12 kids and sometimes more. … Large families aren’t for everyone; but for those who have them, they seem to have a special gift for calmness, patience and efficiency that would leave any CEO in awe.
I’m glad she admits large families aren’t for everyone. Most breeders are happy to snub all childless not just the antinatalists. Less glad that she think 12 kids is a comparable achievement to a highly successful career. You gonna lay off some children when the next recession hits?
Even many feminists dislike the term. “It’s possibly one of the less attractive aspects of radical feminism,” notes a radical lesbian feminist (who is also a mother).
That unnamed lesbian is a child molester. No point in reporting her, though. Note she isn’t disagreeing with the antinatalist position described by the author; she’s just saying it’s a “less attractive aspect”. Lewis is not showing awareness of sodomy’s implications when she cites this monster for support.
[Lesbian continues]”To apply such a term to fellow sisters, a term that reduces them down to their reproductive capabilities is, without argument, pretty offensive and dehumanizing. Not only that, but it flies in the face of what I perceive to be feminism. A love for your sisters shouldn’t manifest itself in offensive terms such as that. A commitment to make the world safer and more supportive for women does not include a sneering disparagement of their choices or circumstances.”
This is a running debate among feminists. Is a woman getting pregnant rape or empowerment?
The world is not “safer and more supportive for women” when entire generations die. Isn’t it better to have loving close-knit families who will contribute to society, than to kill off our native children and resort to importing violent, radical people (ironically, who breed like rabbits among multiple wives) whose children grow up to oppress women (at best) or become terrorists (at worst)?
When pressed to verbalize their objection to large families (or children in general), many progressives fall back on the “It’s bad for the environment” argument, though they’re curiously silent about the huge number of children the aforementioned immigrants have. More and more progressives are electing to remain childless or forgo biological children”
Now THIS is an excellent observation. All these antinatalists are in fact, more than happy to import breeders from every Third World hellpit they can find and directly subsidize their babymaking. It’s not about the environment. It’s not about the “planetary carrying capacity”. It’s not about potential food shortages or maximizing one’s self-fulfillment or whatever.
It’s the top-down, politically motivated genocide of Christian America. These feminists don’t want their own people to have kids because they want America to die out and be replaced with voodoo Belizian Honduro-Hindus.
Well, I guess that solves the “is getting pregnant rape or empowerment” debate. It’s anti-globalism and therefore doubleplusungood. I mean, rape.
…these morally educated children produced and nurtured by upright, intact and traditional families could well turn the tide back to the values that made America the shining city on the hill.
Again, moral education without testing is questionable. The druggie who kicked the habit is much more moral and upright than a homeschooled prodigy from the middle of nowhere. Intact, traditional families did not make America great; all nations that survived for any length of time had intact families.
You want to make families big again, get shaggy. You want to make America great again, follow Christ and suffer for Him. Suffering and big families don’t mix well.
So, liberals, I stand with you on this: Don’t have children. It may be the best way you can save the Earth – or at least America.
This would work if evil was a genetic condition. Alas. Feminists have never recruited by reproduction, not today and not in the days of Baal worship. They recruit by taking your children away from you to be violated and destroyed. Lewis apparently doesn’t know this.
That’s why having kids these days is a bad idea. You cannot outbreed evil. You cannot keep a family safe with ignorance, distance and farm chores. To be blunt, you cannot keep a family safe, period, when evil is ascendant. Those rural farms might be the last to go but they will go, too.
Lewis herself showed dangerous ignorance of evil by citing that lesbian. Me being a California urbanite, I know full well the consequences of sodomy. Suffice to say, you’re better off recriminalizing homosexuality than having lots of kids.