The Child-Oriented Strategy

The “West” marinates today in a sewer of perversity and a more nuclear family. I wish to argue why even non-Christians should reject this culture. In summation: It leads to children of lesser quality who are less healthy and fewer in number.

In Europe, I’ve frequently seen young activists call for more sex! Freeing sexual inhibitions will surely lead to more children, even if accidental! I question the true motives of such “activists”.

Sexual experimentation leads to lower quality mates who might even be from a foreign ethnic group. In CS Lewis’s brilliant Space Trilogy, one of the protagonists, Jane Studdock, loses her ideal mate because she accepted a lower quality male. The same phenomenon is essentially taking place in our perverse culture today: Lower standards. Pairs don’t bother to even marry before producing children, and there is frequent divorce. Too many fathers only support their children at the command of a court, and then only financially. The purpose of marriage is for the children. It is ideal for children to be raised by both a father and mother, which is why “gay marriage” is such a threat, even to non-Christians.

As we age, our bodies decay. We outwardly become less attractive, especially when living sedentary lives. From a biological perspective, we become less fertile and less likely to produce genetically healthy children. It’s natural then after reaching one’s 40s, or at least 50s and 60s, to live more through one’s children, who should already be born. Instead, we spend on plastic surgery to make ourselves outwardly appear younger. Such is unnatural. Sex is not meant to be the centre of one’s life, and there are other worthy pursuits. Perhaps we would see a richer and livelier culture if content with the memories of sex in youth.

Fewer children are born today partly due to the cost. We not only must support children but also save for our expensive healthcare in old age. Three points here:

1. Parents should help their children with financially early on, so that grandchildren will be affordable at earlier date, hopefully many of them! Too often young parents lack the finances for even basic pre-natal care, which is important. Historically, teenage mothers were not all that uncommon.

2. The elderly should accept old age and spend less where necessary. Grandparents should live through their grandchildren. If finding religion in old age, money should be donated to grandchildren or great-grandchildren, not to charities. Only the unusually wealthy should donate large amounts outside the family.

3. If we cannot afford large families due to our (as a society) expensive housing and unnaturally low wages, perhaps we should relearn the skillset of a peasantry, construct our own housing. A peasant of the past could build a small cob house with a fireplace, and the Amish of today build their own wooden houses. Part of the expense of housing is the need for living away from crime. If we lived with extended families or near kin and friends, this would be less the case.

A passivhaus standard would allow for less expensive living as well. Also, houses should be built for endurance, to be passed down.

Partly we have two conflicting strategies: The modern nomadic approach of moving to where there is job demand vs. The rooted approach of living in an area among kin and friends, perhaps even living in a house built by an ancestor. There are positives to each strategy. The nomadic approach would likely bring in much more money so that costs become less of a concern.

In conclusion, traditional Christian culture often grants a survival advantage to those who practice it. The Christian rejection of perversity is no exception. Separately, aging is a part of life and should be accepted. The extended family is preferable to the nuclear, and it’s more important to produce many children and grandchildren than to cure excessively expensive ailments in old age.

15 thoughts on “The Child-Oriented Strategy

  1. weavercht Post author

    I have no need or desire for money from my own relatives… I’m older than the target recipients though.

    Too much support could weaken a child, but helping with the expenses of buying a house shouldn’t weaken him too much. The idea is to get parents started with child rearing earlier. More of us might live to see our great-grandchildren under such practices, assuming a major health problem doesn’t arise.

    Technology continues to advance, but it’s costly to implement the procedures needed to keep an aged body going.

    Like

    Reply
  2. hawthornecht

    W;

    I went with putting down roots in the region I was born into. Pa came from a nomadic family when the rooted method was no longer capable of providing the level of income that had become accustomed, and frankly, he’s a bit of a nomad if settling down in his later years.

    “save for our expensive healthcare in old age.”

    That’s why the cult of being “healthy” is suspicious. A good Celtic Man should go hard, and hope to die in his sleep–or quickly anyway. Far too many good men have one foot in and one foot out and end up–having expensive healthcare needs in old age and do cause a lot of pain, distress, and anguish with those that love or admire them. The guy who doesn’t use tobacco or drink much, but is 60-100 pounds over weight is extremely at odds with a proper life strategy and makes a mockery of being an American.

    Don’t middle it. Great Grandpa, who loved his Great Grandson, was a good Anglo-Celtic Man–hard drinker, hard cigar smoker, loved bacon…died in his sleep, age 92 in the house he bought in the 19-teens.

    Like

    Reply
  3. weavercht Post author

    If you exercise, you can eat all the bacon you want. Excess carbs, especially sugars (eg. soft drinks) seems more the culprit. Bacon has bad fat, because the pig is raised on corn. A different diet might produce “good fat”. I want to say the extremely pricey free-range pork raised on acorns has “good fat”. I know grass-fed beef, all beef used to be grass-fed, is today considered healthy.

    The old “unhealthy” diets of the past were in some cases healthier than the junk eaten today. Americans used to eat a lot of meat and protein, and today it’s discovered that high-protein is healthy. Fat isn’t so bad as sugar and carbs. I don’t mean to say all carbs are bad, just excess.

    My grandfather didn’t eat health food. He lived to his 90s. He exercised religiously, did smoke (I think) but quit.

    Like

    Reply
  4. weavercht Post author

    You’re probably right about it being Celtic to live hard. I don’t really have issue with “living hard” if a person can manage it. None of us are perfect.

    I like the Greek saying, “meden agan” though (nothing in excess). It works well for me.

    The health nuts risk vanity if they get in perfect shape. It’s good to keep one’s body reasonably healthy though.

    Like

    Reply
  5. roho

    People ate what they wanted with no issues for centuries. Enter the “Special Interest Donor”……..The AMA is the strongest wage control industry in the world, and perhaps the most corrupt? (Which is why the man that cures cancer will be killed before he announces his cure and put’s millions out of work.)…….Listen to your body. I believe pork is more healthy than beef, wild game better than factory foods, and butter better than margarine.

    We are a society without real work, as Wall Street has shipped it all to foreign labor. This is the “New America” farm bill.

    Like

    Reply
  6. weavercht Post author

    Roho,

    the fat quality is strongly influenced by the diet of the animal. Corn produces bad fat.

    Costs continue to be cut, and the animals most Americans eat are unhealthy. It’s relevant.

    Pork fat is on the outside of the meat, as I recall. So it would simply have less fat in the meat.

    Beef fat is in the meat. Fat itself isn’t unhealthy. It’s bad fat, and of course excess, that creates problems.

    My interest is eating well gives me energy and focus. It makes me stronger and more productive in the now. I don’t much want to die senile in my 90s.

    Like

    Reply
    1. weavercht Post author

      Science is corrupted by money. It’s good to be wary.

      I believe there is something to the unhealthy fat (excess Omega-6) claims. Factory farms make profit at the animals’ and consumers’ expense.

      Btw, locally grown blueberries are reputedly a “superfruit”. I’m doubtful how healthy they are over other produce, but they grow into enormous bushes without any trouble.

      Like

      Reply
  7. hawthornecht

    Eat well to produce a proper looking body–but don’t eat well to live a long life–live long enough to be a Grandfather of course, but lets not overdue things beyond that. Lots of confusion in there.

    Like

    Reply
  8. roho

    We in America pay the most in health care, yet get the least in care?………I don’t have time to produce sites?……………….HEALTH CARE is a JOKE, and we pay more to maintain the AMA’s Wage Standard!

    Like

    Reply
    1. weavercht Post author

      I asked my dad about it, because now even dentist pay is rising.

      He said there are many new medical schools now. The problem is in part growth in patients and in part the increased specialisation of medicine. As a result of specialisation, individuals now tend to visit more doctors, rather than having just one who did most everything.

      Regardless, as you say, more doctors should in theory decrease the demand.

      Like

      Reply
      1. weavercht Post author

        My intent in this rant/post is to argue that we shouldn’t sacrifice children for healthcare.

        It’d be easiest of course to cut out the plastic surgery Americans get. I know the whales who allow themselves to weigh 300 lbs become very difficult to treat and develop major health problems. Obesity is part of the problem. Age too is a major issue: It becomes costly to keep 90+ year olds going.

        Anyway I suppose it’d be more productive to look to those who work in the field for solutions. Obamacare is a disaster regardless.

        Part of the issue might simply be the tendency to want to save oneself or one’s loved one at any cost. The actual procedures and equipment cost money, and those who develop truly beneficial advancements do deserve profit for a few years. The cost of a surgery doesn’t just go to doctors, and they do many high-stress, high-skill cases. A hospital or doctor’s office can lose a lot of money on an operation if it isn’t paid in full. There are costs.

        I expect some degree of positive reform is possible, to lower costs in some manner.

        Like

  9. roho

    W…………A nice experiment in the medical field is to choose your own specialist, while allowing your primary doctor to assume that you are going to see his alumni brother?……………It makes for great expressions, and encourages more honesty from the specialist.

    I once had a Univ of Tenn endodontist explain why he refused to do a root canal recommended by a Univ of Alabama general dentist……………..LOL!……..It’s mostly a referral racket.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s