costs

[April]

Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes

I
Also, I am ok with letting 1 year olds learn to sit in their play-yards for a while and play with their toys and books instead of being constantly entertained. You got stuff to do when you're at home, for example cooking or laundry or other chores, and unfortunately life does not always wait for you to finish entertaining your tot's insatiable desire for interaction. If you pick them up every five minutes they will expect it and you will get nothing done if for example you have to watch them all day. You know this is true ladies and I have done my fair share of "daddy duty" etc.

The truth is though that we gain most of our knowledge of the world and our brain grows the most between the age of birth and three years old. Those years are the most precious so those are the years when the laundry and dishes can wait and the baby should get the most attention.

[Stronza]

Right on, April.

It is not a matter of making yourself sick hovering over/constantly entertaining (AE's words) your babies/small children on the one hand OR taking Alex's boot-camp mentality.

You just have to see these little beings for what they are: they are born with a need to not be alone. They do not need constant interaction (AE's words) of an active sort. They just need: (1) to be around someone (usually Mama, or some other family member/friend they know). (2) They need to feel a warm body against their own when mere babies. This is not some sort of jewish propaganda; these are facts based on mammal biology. (3) They need to be around people living their normal daily lives, working at tasks or doing hobbies - not centre of attention but close by, feeling that they are part of the action in some small way. This is how humans become part of a community. Not by verbal preaching, "You are a white/jew/black/Chinese and you are part of the white/jew/black/chinese race, and you must do what Our People do" - but, rather, by the children being in the midst of it all, quietly enjoying it all and soaking it up effortlessly, from Day One.

Yes, AE, general rules of the sort you mention are a good idea. But rules are also for breaking from time to time, as necessary. Rigidity is the worst thing imaginable, in most human situations, and especially where babies/small children are concerned, because they cannot articulate their needs verbally, and it is a terrible thing to just assume they are "spoiled".

[Itz_molecular]

Originally Posted by April Gaede

The truth is though that we gain most of our knowledge of the world and our brain grows the most between the age of birth and three years old.

That is the gospel , should be carved in granite !

Childs character is solidifying up to about age 5 , also a critical phase.

[Itz_molecular]

Originally Posted by Stronza

But unfortunately we were just a small, nuclear family with nobody around to help in any meaningful way.

This is one major reason that we need an all white society ! So children can have safe communities and plenty of people that like kids . Just imagine how difficult it is for a single mom , living in a 'diverse' neighborhood .

[Cthulhu]

There is a lot of wisdom in Stronza.

[Antiochus Epiphanes]

I'm sure you ladies have wonderful children and they will turn out well.

I'm just going to ask a question here. Americans are fat, lazy, self-indulgent, with poor attention spans, and utterly lacking in self discipline.

Is it possible that this starts with ultra-permissive attitudes early in life?

I see no harm with children who have been weened from the breast, learning that there are set times to eat called "meals" and "snacks" and not being allowed to much cheerios constantly inbetweentimes.

I see no harm in letting a tot play with his toys in a play- yard for a reasonable duration of play-time each day without a) constantly sitting there "interacting" with him or her or b) teaching the kid to start loving televitz via the captivating but overused "Baby Bach" videos.

I see no harm in giving firm and consistent age-appropriate discipline starting pretty much when they are weaned. Both my kids were weaned from the breast around a year, so in their first year they got all that good lovin stuff. But with weaning comes some very simple lessons in behavior and best they learn early on that parents are AUTHORITY.

---------------

[Antiochus Epiphanes]

Here is another thing to think about. If you keep on having kids-- like, not just a pair but a series-- like 4 or 5-- early on, you will be able to give the young ones much attention, but as you get older, and have less time per child, the slack can be taken up by increased efficiency and effectiveness gained through experience, and also by older siblings. My older siblings helped take care of me a lot and a few of my friends who have 5 kid families, the older kids do quite a bit to help with the babies. So, having a big meaning 4-5 member family does not necessarily rule out the "high investment parenting."

[Cthulhu]

I think you are carrying around a misconception in your head Antiochus Epiphanes. Forgive me if I am wrong, but with your salutation to the women and then the question followed by examples of neglect, it seems to me you are not properly engaging their points.

Neglect is different from trying to form a proper bond with your children. We do not want to promote alienation that only creates problems further down the line like rebellion. Lines of permissible conduct must be drawn but there are means and methods that show, not hostility, but concern.

Some children can be naturally inclined to be mischievious so believe me the occasional smack doesn't bother me, but to be effective it must be used sparingly and hopefully the displeasure of the parent(s) will be more cause of concern to the child than the actual physical pain.

How can children come to value freedom if they are not allowed to experiment with boundaries? And if they do not learn to value freedom as much as order what is the price? But of course you cannot have one without the other. You can not experiment with boundaries if none are given. Now I'm just babbling, but it did seem you were being unfair to the ladies.

[Stronza]

I'm sure you ladies have wonderful children and they will turn out well.

"Turn out well?" No such thing, in my opinion. There is no terminal point where we can step back and say, ah, look, they're all complete and finished. It's a crappy and sappy cliche, but it really is the journey. And the wrong path can always be just around the corner. But I know what you mean, and it is nice of you to say that we have wonderful children.

I'm just going to ask a question here. Americans are fat, lazy, self-indulgent, with poor attention spans, and utterly lacking in self discipline.

Is it possible that this starts with ultra-permissive attitudes early in life?

Maybe; maybe not. There are all kinds of factors, including unknown ones. The purpose of raising children as April & I have described is that, in the immediate term, it reduces the baby's stress. In the long run, it reduces the parents' stress. This is by no means the only factor. I think that the dreadful, drug-loaded, birthing procedures, and horrid, unnatural diets play a role in producing a bad attitude in children, and later in their teenage and adult years. Neurology is the basis of psychology.

I see no harm with children who have been weened from the breast, learning that there are set times to eat called "meals" and "snacks" and not being allowed to much cheerios constantly inbetweentimes.

Agreed!

I see no harm in letting a tot play with his toys in a play- yard for a reasonable duration of play-time each day without a) constantly sitting there "interacting" with him or her or b) teaching the kid to start loving televitz via the captivating but overused "Baby Bach" videos.

Agreed again, ol' chap. I tried to describe that you could allow the children to be around adults, and older brothers & sisters, though, without constantly "interacting" with them, hovering over them, or making yourself pissed off trying to entertain them. Adults shouldn't have to do that all day. But I guess I explained my point of view poorly.

One of the main problems is the nuclear family as it is structured nowadays. Too much pressure on the mother to do everything. In more traditional societies, of virtually all colors and races, there was always others there in the household itself or nearby.

I see no harm in giving firm and consistent age-appropriate discipline starting pretty much when they are weaned. Both my kids were weaned from the breast around a year, so in their first year they got all that good lovin stuff. But with weaning comes some very simple lessons in behavior and best they learn early on that parents are AUTHORITY.

Recognition of the parents' authority, it seems to me, is not a simple matter of what techniques you use to show that yer the BOSS, by god, but, rather, by how they see US behave at all times. I think they are judging whether or not you really are worth respecting, but it's all happening unconsciously.

[Itz_molecular]

Originally Posted by Stronza

One of the main problems is the nuclear family as it is structured nowadays. Too much pressure on the mother to do everything. In more traditional societies, of virtually all colors and races, there was always others there in the household itself or nearby.

So , So very true . I think the 'nuclear' family is a farce . I believe the extended family is essential , uncles , aunts , cousins , grandparents etc. Children need lots of relatives around , that is a full social fabric to support a childs development .

[Cthulhu]

Looks all right to me Stronza, tho' those extra 'e's always throw me. Anyway no need to thank me for stating the obvious. I enjoy your posts very much.

[Briseis]

hey April,
yeah I see it here too, I'm also in CA , bay area, its a dumb style, it makes even average weight girls look dumpy. Its part of the fag fashion/jew media vulgarity as "cool". Midwest and East coast people are usually "behind" us fashion wise (lucky them). Its a hippie look, Im pretty sure. If we dressed like that in high school, we would be sent home , with parent conference to follow- .. I despise ghetto "hooker fashion" teens and preteens looking like "Bratz dolls". Cheers to you April, your girls are beautiful, and they dont need any of that sleaze to feel good about themselves.

[Hate Dept.]

Originally Posted by Steve B

Coming from a 5-10, 165 pounder, do doubt.

I would imagine he's right. I was a hair under ten pounds and I was 23 inches long, but now although six foot I'm pretty skinny.

[Itz_molecular]

Originally Posted by Steve B

Coming from a 5-10, 165 pounder, do doubt.

If you're going to try 'remote viewing' as a career , don't give up your day job

[Itz_molecular]

Originally Posted by Stronza

Camille runs on breathlessly about how spine-tingling an experience it is for her to listen to Orthodox rabbis and scholars endlessly debate tiny little points, you know, the "pilpel", they call it, making angels dance on the head of a pin.

I can't read this , my eyes must be crossing . Can anyone seriously say such a thing ? Can anyone be such a tard , that convoluted babbling would impress them ? Are they dissembling or being facetious ?

[Itz_molecular]

Originally Posted by Stronza

Ah. I just found it, on Page 232 of Sex, Art and American culture:

"There is nothing more thrilling than listening to two New York rabbis aggressively debate each other on a radio talk show. The intellectual vigor of Talmudic disputation puts the theory wing of American academe to shame. It is no coincidence that my mentors have always been Jews. We have right here on native soil a superb high-energy model of subtle inquiry [sic], humanistic compassion and profound learning. It was from jews ...that I learned how to analyze politics, law, business and medicine, how to decipher the power dynamics of family relationships, and how to plan pragmatic strategies of social activism. The Jews know there IS a story in history, for they have suffered it." etc.etc. yawn, drool, snore...

And, friends, that is just the beginning. Camille wets her pants at the mere thought of her hebrew brethren, throughout this book.

Look in the index under "Jews" in Paglia's book and there are more entries than any other name or word.

Guess this thread has gotten waylaid.

I have never heard of this author , I am so blessed !

Just another jew babbling endlessly , damn people are just a flood of empty words without any real meaning , only deceit . They devalue words by their excessive use . All the valuable trees that have been wasted to carry the ink of their jibberish, sheez .

Thanks for explaining this to me

[Itz_molecular]

Originally Posted by Stronza

Guess this thread has gotten waylaid.

Back on point , I don't think alex is considering how costs of raising a child will escalate as the years go by . Right now , he is under ideal circumstances . As the years pass , cheap clothes won't suffice , daughter will want to keep in fashion , have a car etc .

[April]

Originally Posted by Itz_molecular

Back on point , I don't think alex is considering how costs of raising a child will escalate as the years go by . Right now , he is under ideal circumstances . As the years pass , cheap clothes won't suffice , daughter will want to keep in fashion , have a car etc .

As a mother of teenage girls.........oh how true this statement is.........

[VikingWarrior]

Originally Posted by April Gaede

Alex,

The garage sale/ thrift store clothing approach works only to a certain age.

You can get great little used outfits for your child until they reach about 4 years old. I have some of the most cute outfits for Dresden that I bought for only about a dollar. Scroll about halfway down the page to see Dresden's watermelon dress as an example.
http://dresdenfans.blogspot.com/2005...s_archive.html

The problem is that at about 4 years old the clothes that you find at most thrift stores and garage sales is so worn out or stained that you cannot use it. My girls will still find the odd outfit at a thrift store but for the most part they want new clothes when they get to be teenagers. I suggest telling your wife to learn to sew NOW so that when Heidi gets to be 8 or 9 she is able to construct some nice little dresses for her.It is not necessarily more economical but it will at least give you clothes that dont look like they belong on Erika Gliebe, which is what most of the stuff in the stores looks like.

Also, about that freedom fund. I would sure stay away from anything like paper and a bank. Silver would be my suggestion, in one ounce rounds.

You can never be to rich, too thin or have too many ...... .books. The local libraries regularly sell older books for next to nothing. There is nothing that will encourage your child to read as much as wonderful books all over the house. I picked up about 50 nice big picture books ( with white stories and characters) for about $10 at the library. And really, when it comes to learning, if you can read you are halfway there. Encourage your kid to read and read and if they read well they will be a success or at least have the tools to be a success if they want. Also, if they end up in prison like so many White Patriots they will be able to entertain themselves.....

Gosh April - Dresden is a cutie :cheers:

[Itz_molecular]

Originally Posted by VikingWarrior

Gosh April - Dresden is a cutie :cheers:

All of America should have children like that !