A media service of European Americans United

Main Menu

  • Home
  • Forum
  • About Us
  • Search
  • Action Alerts
  • Free Podcasts
  • Stories by Author
  • New Online Store
  • Archives
  • Categories
  • Links

  • Frank Roman
  • John Young
  • Garden Blog

  • User Menu

  • Register
  • Login
  • Logout
  • Submit News

  • Email This Page

    Syndication Feeds

  • Handheld/PDA
  • XML News Feeds
  • View Sidebar
  • Mozilla Sidebar

  • 13

    How to Have More White Babies Part III
    Audio; Posted on: 2009-02-26 20:14:30 [ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]
    by John Young

    audio here

    Too many of our people hold a skewed value system that focuses on the appearance of material wealth, even if it must be had at the expense of crushing debts that take away all options and enslave them to jobs they hate. This sort of value system serves to artificially raise the cost of living much higher than it needs to be, thereby forcing far too many of our people -- and a disproportionate portion of our very best and brightest who gravitate to the best paying jobs -- into a cycle where they never feel secure enough to have kids.

    Welcome to Western Voices, I'm John Young of European Americans United.

    During the past two Western Voices podcasts we have explored the major causes of low natality of European Americans in a fair amount of detail. We have explored the economic factors including tax policy, cost of living and employment arrangements. We have also explored the pivotal role played by radical feminism and various issues related to communication and work-sharing between the sexes. In listening to all of this, you likely found confirmation for a lot of things you already knew; but not a lot of cause for hope. This is understandable because, added all together the barriers can seem insurmountable. But let me tell you right now that they are not.

    There is a difference between the metaphysically given, and the man-made. The metaphysically given include such things as the law of gravity or the heritability of intelligence. We can't change these things, so we have to work within the framework they establish. As Francis Bacon observed, “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”

    One of the dirty tricks used by the Masters of Deceit running this society is they deliberately conflate these two concepts so that, to us, many very changeable man-made situations appear to be as unchangeable as the forces of nature. But, let me assure you, that while the necessary changes may be difficult, they ARE within the realm of the possible. If you are listening to me, you already know that the forces of dissolution currently running our society are Masters of Deceit, so you won't let them get you down.

    The problems that underlie our low birth rates are broad in that they affect practically every aspect of our lives, and deep in that they permeate even into the deepest conscious thought of our people. Rooting out these problems won't be easy, and they may seem invulnerable to assault. But, like any other problem, if we break it up in pieces, we can find the solutions.

    So today I'm going to talk about solutions, and for each problem we have discussed in the first two podcasts in this series, we'll talk about two types of solutions: solutions that you can implement in your personal life right now without any cooperation or permission from anyone else, and solutions that focus on the political realm where cooperation as a group is essential. We're going to start with issues pertaining to economics and taxation, and move on through the rest. The solutions we'll be discussing today aren't intended to be complete; but rather to give you a good place to start. None of these solutions are sexy or dramatic; but they are the kind of things that if we work hard at them will ultimately reverse our situation.

    So let's look at the over-taxation of families. You may recall that taxation of families with children has ballooned 300% compared with other segments of the population. This obviously makes raising children far more difficult, and disproportionately affects groups – such as European-Americans – who have adopted a high-investment parenting strategy.

    At the personal level, all that can be done about taxation is to be vigilant about the income tax by using software or a good tax professional that will help you find every last legal deduction. Another thing you can do is refrain from paying taxes that are essentially voluntary such as state lottery tickets and excise taxes.

    The income tax, to a certain extent, is certainly a tax on income. But it is also a test of knowledge pertaining to the tax code. Nobody who isn't in that field will have matters down pat, but quite a few software packages – such as Turbo Tax – will help you maximize your legal deductions and even plan for you to reduce your taxes over the following year. A solid CPA can help there as well. What I am encouraging, then, is that you use either professionals or software so that you aren't accidentally paying more taxes than are required. In other words, pay the government every penny to which they are legally entitled, but not one penny more.

    You might also consider looking very carefully at “what-if” scenarios using tax software. Remember what the Heritage Foundation discovered: “Among married-couple families where both the husband and wife are employed, two-thirds of the wife's earnings go to pay for increased federal taxes; only one-third goes to supporting the family.” (1)

    In the modern era, given the differential in education between men and women, it may well be that the husband is the one who is working so that 2/3rds of his income goes for increased taxation; so use good software to look at both scenarios. Either way, if 2/3rds of a spouse's income is going for increased taxes, in all likelihood the remaining 1/3rd isn't benefiting the family much either – it is going for daycare, commuting expenses, car payments for extra vehicles, extra car insurance costs, gas, wardrobes for work and so forth.

    It makes sense to throw away all of your assumptions, sit down with a good tax package that allows you to work out “what if” scenarios, a calculator and an open mind. You should also take into account that, in families with two parents working outside the home, they tend to spend extra money that wouldn't otherwise be spent on convenience foods, coffee while driving and so forth. When you sit down and really account for everything, you may be surprised to discover that, in many families, it is actually a net LOSS in terms of money to have both spouses working outside the home.

    If yours is one of those families where this turns out to be the case, you should make plans to bring home whichever spouse needs to come home. It makes absolutely no sense to have one member of a family working full time to pay for the bastard factories in Newark to stay home with their kids while ours are stuck in multiracial daycare centers.

    And, let me tell you, there are two very good reasons why you don't want your kids in daycare centers unless absolutely necessary.

    The first has to do with what Dr. Kevin MacDonald has called the Human Kinds module. It turns out that a big aspect of having kids who grow up to have strong implicit inhibitions to inter-racial marriage is the racial environment in which they are raised for their first 3-5 years. If that environment is mono-racial, the children will grow up with at least implicit mechanisms for maintaining our genetic heritage intact. But if their environment for the first 3-5 years is multiracial, this critical psychological module that implicitly protects us becomes disabled.(2) Considering that a prerequisite for the state licensing of a daycare center is compliance with all sorts of multi-culti CRAP, putting a European-American child in one should absolutely be avoided if at all possible. Setting up a child for all of the heartbreak and personal disasters that can result from interracial romantic entanglements is a bad idea; and knowingly doing so is genocidal and child abuse.

    The second reason to avoid daycare centers was revealed in 2007, when the National Institutes of Health issued a report on the longest, largest and most comprehensive study ever conducted that compared the differences between children raised by a full-time parent and children raised in daycare. The study established that:

    “The longer children had spent in day care centers before kindergarten, researchers had found, the more likely their sixth-grade teachers were to report 'problem behavior,' such as getting into fights, arguing or being disobedient.” Furthermore, higher levels of aggression and defiance were reported as early as kindergarten. For purposes of the study, daycare was defined as “care by anyone other than the child’s mother who was regularly scheduled for at least 10 hours per week.” (emphasis added)(3)

    This shouldn't be surprising. European-derived people have developed, over thousands of years, a high-investment parenting strategy. This was developed for thousands of years before money or careers even existed, so high-investment is not about money or career development, it is about time; our children need our time to reach their potential.(4)

    So these are two very powerful reasons – in addition to saving on taxes -- why, if you discover that one spouse working is actually costing you money or just barely breaking even, you should bring that spouse home. I will give you some other reasons later, but I want to continue on this topic of taxation.

    So, at a personal level, you can control your taxation by using a tax professional or excellent software so you don't overpay your taxes; and by carefully accounting for all the costs associated with having two spouses working outside the home.

    But we can only do so much at a personal level. Many times, the math works out such that both parents need to be outside the home. And, after all, the government ultimately has rules mandating that we pay a certain amount of taxes. To deal with these rules, it is necessary to mount campaigns that include phone calls, petitions, letters and faxes to our members of Congress asking for these rules to be changed.

    So what tax rules need to be changed?

    The first, and by far the simplest, solution for the over-taxation of families is to lobby Congress to increase the personal exemption for children. Back in 1948, the personal exemption allowed for children effectively shielded 68% of a four-person family's income from taxation. As a result, in 1950, the average family of four only paid 2% of its income in taxes. The dollar-value of that exemption hasn't kept pace with inflation, so that now less than 20% of a comparable family's income is shielded, and they now pay many times what they once did.(5)

    So -- how much of an exemption should we demand? It is here that a website called Shadow Stats becomes useful. You see, the so-called CPI or Consumer Price Index that our government uses to describe inflation is a classic BIG LIE. Important items such as the cost of fuel, food, and housing aren't even included. Certainly, the cost of taxes isn't included. Our government lies about this for two reasons. First, because if the truth were known about inflation major changes would be required in the federal reserve system. Second, because under-reporting inflation disguises the true cost of living so that disabled veterans and elderly folks on social security can be SCREWED out of about half of what they would otherwise legitimately have coming to them.(6) So instead of looking at bogus Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers, we'll instead turn to Walter J. Williams' more realistic inflation calculator.

    Using this calculator, $600 in 1948 equates to roughly $10,000 in today's money. So that is what we demand from our Congressmen: instead of an inadequate $3,500 exemption per child, we need, want and demand a $10,000 exemption per child. This would have an enormous effect on our birth rate. One authority puts the matter quite plainly when she says: "The primary result is that the personal exemption has a positive and significant effect on the national birthrate, and this result is robust to a variety of specifications."(7) In short, the single policy change that would have the most immediate and dramatic effect on white birth rates would be an increase in the personal exemption. This merits a call to your Congressman.

    Obviously, this would be no small matter as it would involve convincing government to shift the burden of taxation from young families to other segments of the population who will not be pleased. We live in a society that has become quite atomized in which each person seems to ask “What's in it for ME” without regard for any sort of greater good. In addition, the multi-ethnic nature of the country has increased alienation(8) while decreasing altruism(9). Moreover, we are heading into a period of resource scarcity with the looming specter of Peak Oil that some experts predict will result in a massive die-off of human population measured in the BILLIONS. While I disagree with these more pessimistic projections, there is no doubt that government leaders, though remaining silent about the issue, are quite concerned.

    So this would be a difficult task, though far from impossible. This is, on the surface, a racially-neutral issue that can lend itself well to public activism, petitioning, letter-writing campaigns and so forth. It's the sort of issue where we can get otherwise timid people involved, and really go to town. So look forward, in the not too distant future, to campaign materials that our members and chapters can use to push this issue forward.

    The second tax policy worth considering is "The Fair Tax." The Fair Tax abolishes the income tax, and replaces it with a national consumption tax of 22% from which a certain portion of spending per person is exempt. The "ins and outs" of this proposal are too complex for me to go into in this podcast, so you can go to www.fairtax.org to learn more about this proposal. EAU officially endorses the Fair Tax as a practical step toward reducing government bureaucracy, reducing persecution of citizens, increasing the accountability of government and increasing the freedom of our people. It would also have enormous benefits by putting American products on a level playing field with foreign competitors, thereby raising living standards. The Fair Tax is far from perfect, but fits in well with our strategy of incrementalism. Most importantly, it is truly an achievable objective given that there are over 90 members of the current congress who are officially on the record as supporting the proposal. It could pay BIG dividends to drop a letter in the mail to your Congressman asking him to support the Fair Tax. Again, this is the sort of racially-neutral issue where we can mobilize otherwise timid people.

    So this covers taxation, but what about economic pressures and work environments? And how can we make sure our children have proper care without resorting to institutional daycare environments inspired by USSR collectivist indoctrination?(10) Because most Americans didn't pay much attention to what went on in the USSR, we are blissfully ignorant of the fact that entire Soviet-inspired institutions have been completely implemented in the United States right under our noses. As described in one Marxist tome: “.....one of the first actions of the Institute for the Protection of Motherhood and Childhood was to found factory nurseries for the pre-kindergarten child -- places where the mother could leave her children on the way to work in the morning and receive them back again in the evening.”(11) Honestly, now, you didn't really think it was a coincidence that both the Communist Party USA and the National Organization for Women called for publicly funded child-care, did you? You don't think it is a coincidence that daycare is tax-deductible but private school is not?

    Our families need to find ways to remain economically viable and stable without sacrificing having children altogether or turning them over to the miscegenation and indoctrination factories we call “daycare.”

    So let's look at how we can decrease our expenses and increase our income.

    The European-American Victory Garden I described in March is one example that can effectively reduce a family's cost of living by thousands of dollars a year if done properly. That's why we've appointed Rob Winfield to head our re-localization of agriculture project which will be helping white families get their gardens going. We've already started a blog relating to this subject and look forward to a cooperative effort between our members who know a lot about gardening and our members who could use a hand.

    There are, in addition, probably 100 other ways you can cut expenses. One excellent book on this topic is "How to Survive Without a Salary" by Charles Long. While the author's techniques are unlikely to REALLY let you get by without a salary, they will most certainly help you decrease your cost of living. The key, in the author's subtitle, is "learning how to live the conserver lifestyle." I would describe the concept somewhat differently. We need to learn, and then teach others, how to replace consumerism with conservation and producerism. Everything you make for yourself, is money in the bank. Some folks are really good at preserving food while others are good at sewing clothes or mechanical things. This is where EAU's members-only website comes in. Maybe another EAU member makes musical instruments and you make draperies. Work out a trade. By doing this, you will live a lifestyle generally requiring a much higher level of income, and in this way you may be able to afford children.

    Especially when it comes to items like cribs, baby clothes and so forth, you should also consider signing up for the FreeCycle group nearest you. FreeCycle is an exchange group in which members give away things they no longer need to other members as a way of reducing costs and keeping good stuff out of landfills. Creative use of resources like this can make a huge dent in the $204,000 cost of raising a child. If you have progeny approaching college age, you should also pick up a copy of EAU's Guide to Completing your College Degree. This book shows how your kids can complete fully accredited degrees at a fraction of the cost of traditional methods.

    Then there is another factor, and that factor is where you choose to live. Extended families, which I will talk about next, are so valuable to child-rearing efforts that if you have a solid extended family network, you probably shouldn't move even if doing so will substantially decrease your cost of living. But if you do NOT have such a network, changing locations is something you should strongly consider. Luckily, our federal government has given us a very handy measure of the comparative cost of living between various locales in the form of the GSA Domestic Per Diem rates. These are the rates that the federal government extends to its employees when they are engaged in government business. You can find these rates on a convenient government website. Simply compare the so-called "Max per Diem" rates between localities, and the one with the lowest per diem rates generally has the lower cost of living. For example, the Max Per Diem for Boston is $284, whereas the Max Per Diem for Oakridge, Tennessee is $118. After this, you should do more research to make sure the demographics, employment and housing options are suitable. The idea is that by moving to an area with a lower cost of living, your odds of being able to have kids are greatly increased. Steve Sailer's research supports the trend that white couple have more children in areas where the cost of living is lower.

    If your extended family is strong so that moving is unwise, you can use it to your advantage. The most obvious place where it can work to your advantage is with child care arrangements.

    While I was researching the topic of extended-family child care, I was shocked to learn that, according to a 1999 study conducted by the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Latino and African-American mothers who work are substantially more likely to use blood kin for child care than European-American mothers.(12) The reason for this, according to the study, is that the extended families of European-Americans have become less economically interdependent over the past few decades. In other words, while in past times our extended families have all "pitched in" to help each other successfully raise children, that helping behavior has become attenuated. This situation needs to be reversed, and it is up to European-American families who want to have children to take the lead in re-establishing these family ties of mutual helpfulness. You need to think really hard about this when it comes time to chase a career all over the country.

    Let me re-state this another way because it is very important. For thousands of years our Folk have developed interdependence within extended families in order to shield the family from economic difficulties and increase the likelihood of the survival of our young. High investment parenting wasn't just the prerogative of the biological parents, but of their blood-kin as well. This way, if a parent was sick or died the children still made it. In the past two generations, this practice has gone by the wayside as we have opted to become portable workers for corporate employers. As a result, our extended family ties have suffered dramatically – more-so for European-Americans than for any other ethnic group. It is time to rebuild those family ties because they lower expenses and increase the economic resilience of the kin-group, making it more economically viable to raise children.

    Corporations want everyone to own their own chainsaw, they don't want us borrowing our brother in law's. They want our brother-in-law to own his own lawn tractor rather than borrowing ours. But with a dynamic extended family, each nuclear family doesn't have to individually bear all of those expenses – they can be shared. This makes everyone better off. And if such economic interdependence already exists, it is much easier to depend upon grandparents, uncles or aunts to provide child care than if altruism alone were the motivator.

    Think about this, and think about it hard. Carefully consider what you can do to help bring your extended family together for the mutual benefit of all.

    There is one more factor that bears mentioning regarding the cost of living, and that is expectations. Everybody knows someone who has to buy a new car every three years or who eats beans in order to afford a four bedroom house with a three car garage for the purpose of appearances. European-Americans are extremely sensitive to appearances of social status, because over the past hundred years -- and over the past 50 especially -- we have been groomed by a corporate news media to equate a person's value NOT with virtue, but with material success. In this respect, we are largely guilty of holding the CEO of Lehman Brothers, who walked away with tens of millions of dollars while the employees who trusted him lost their jobs, in higher regard than we do a social worker who has dedicated her life to saving kids from child abuse.

    Too many of our people hold a skewed value system that focuses on the appearance of material wealth, even if it must be had at the expense of crushing debts that take away all options and enslave them to jobs they hate. This sort of value system serves to artificially raise the cost of living much higher than it needs to be, thereby forcing far too many of our people -- and a disproportionate portion of our very best and brightest who gravitate to the best paying jobs -- into a cycle where they never feel secure enough to have kids. Remember from the first podcast in this series that feelings of economic insecurity are a primary motivator for forgoing parenthood among our Folk.

    Consider the comparison between the family incomes of families of various races that Steve Sailer uncovered. In Manhattan, the median income of Hispanic families with toddlers was $25,000. For blacks it was $31,000. For Asians it was $66,000. And for whites it was a staggering $284,000.(13) Because the incomes for Hispanics and Blacks are low enough to qualify for government-provided housing, comparing ourselves to those populations isn't terribly useful. But it should tell you something important about the mindset we have bought into in terms of our economic expectations and priorities if Asian households are perfectly comfortable bringing children into the world on one-quarter the level of income of white households. I'm not saying we need to be like Asians – because even the way our eyes interface with our brains is different. What I am saying, instead, is that we need to ask ourselves some hard questions and pose them to our friends and relatives.
    We need to sit down and think hard about what we really want out of life, and what is really important to us. Is impressing somebody we don't even know with a flashy car, fancy clothes or a big house really so important to us that we'd happily die alone and unloved in our old age in order to accomplish it? We need to bring some perspective to our thinking -- and then we need to spread that perspective further among our people.

    But there is another aspect of this that we also need to keep in mind. Dr. Frank Salter's work on genetic distance has demonstrated conclusively that there ARE certain things that a person can do that are potentially more valuable than having kids. For example, for every illegal alien we keep out of this country, it is the genetic equivalent of having a baby. While the genetic impact is most obvious at such a level, there are many among us who are driven to pursue a cure for cancer, hunting down child molesters and many other things whose ultimate positive value for our folk is inestimable. People who make such choices -- whether they are men or women -- ought not be the subject of harsh judgments.

    And, I should also add, that there are men among our folk that women just don't find attractive, and women who haven't been found marriageable by suitable men. There are adults among our people who were sexually abused as children, or raped as teenagers, and whose resultant mindset tragically removes them from parenthood. And there are those among our people who have genetic issues and have voluntarily chosen to avoid having children in order to avoid afflicting those issues upon unsuspecting babies.

    My point here is that while we spread the word among our people of a better value system that assigns status to virtue rather than products, we cannot sit in harsh judgment of people we do not know and who are childless. There have always been people among our folk who were childless, and quite a few of them, I should point out, have left us with something worthwhile in spite of that. Queen Elizabeth the First and George Washington come to mind. But what we need to stop is the childlessness that stems from warped value-systems.

    We can also attack the problems associated with cost-of-living at the public policy level. In this arena, a number of factors hold sway, including our sick and twisted Federal Reserve system. For all practical purposes, for now, we can't touch it. It's a political third-rail. We need to understand it in order to understand the big picture, but changing it right now is a political non-starter. But what we CAN do with reasonable prospects for success, is keep the heat on our Congressional representatives to hold the line on immigration of both the legal and illegal variety. Importation of cheap labor not only serves to lower our wages and living standards, but it serves as a safety valve to protect business from the pernicious effects of the Federal Reserve System. So by holding the line on immigration, we keep our living standards from falling in the near-term while hastening the day when abolishing the Federal Reserve System (or at least subjecting it to dramatic reforms) is politically feasible. So we need to keep up the pressure on immigration.

    The other factor affecting our declining standard of living is the practice of off-shoring. Billionaire Wilbur Ross stated the matter so clearly even a politician could understand it:

    "Look at all the engineers China is graduating. If China marries its massive labor force to technology, things will be very bleak for this country. In industry after industry, wages are starting to get cut back, fringe benefits are getting cut back—look at the poor airline industry—we’re in danger of exporting our standard of living and importing our unemployment . . . You can’t have much of an economy if people are just flipping hamburgers, trading stocks, and suing each other . . . Are our grandchildren going to dive for coins from cruise ships in the East River?”

    We need to put pressure on our politicians to stop off-shoring and incentivize the rebuilding of American industry. Anyone who thinks this country can have a long-term future when everything we buy is made somewhere else is suffering from delusions.

    So our public policy priorities have to be holding the line on immigration of both the legal AND illegal varieties while bringing pressure to bear for legislation that will stop off-shoring so we can re-build our own national manufacturing base.

    Along with dealing with taxation and expenses, we also need to figure out ways to raise our family income, keep it more secure, and reform workplaces so their scheduling and requirements are more conducive to raising children.

    On the subject of income, I need to make an important distinction. As I pointed out in part II of this series, income doesn't translate into political influence. The only two things that translate into political influence are wealth and time. Time is had by a married couple spending less time, in aggregate, making other people rich; and wealth is had by increasing the gap between income and expenses so that more of that income is retained to become wealth. We have already covered the expense side of that equation, so the other end is increasing income.

    The first thing we need to do in order to raise our income is decrease the educational deficiency of our young men who are avoiding college in record numbers. This problem was well-described in the previous podcast in this series. We also have to, whenever possible, keep our young people away from colleges that are filling their minds with a pernicious victim mentalities and distrust, WITHOUT harming their educational achievement. Both our men AND our women need to be educated to the highest levels they can attain while avoiding, as far as possible, the fascistic indoctrination and thought control prevalent in public schools and colleges today. Higher educational attainments usually provide not just greater employability and higher salary, but increased leverage to demand family-friendly accommodations along with greater job security.

    EAU has undertaken two projects to address these issues.

    The first is a comprehensive home-school curriculum that can either be used in place of public schools or as a supplement to make sure our kids are reaching their goals. We have already completed the elementary school portion of the curriculum, and we have a skilled educational professional working on the intermediate school portion. If you are an EAU member, you can get our curriculum for free just for the asking. If you are a non-member, you can get it as a CD or a download from our web store for a nominal fee.

    The second project is our book "EAU's Guide to Completing Your College Degree." as of the time of this podcast, we are out of stock of paper copies due to unexpectedly high demand, but you can download it directly from the publisher onto your PC for only $6.25. This book will show you how you can get your kids a fully accredited and rigorous college education for a fraction of the cost of sending them to a so-called "party school." The book also shows you how this can be accomplished with, in many cases, your child never having to sit in a classroom in front of a raving Marxist nut who will give your kid an undeservedly low grade for daring to think independently.

    But along with increasing our educational attainment. as I have talked about in greater detail in some previous podcasts, we need to start turning our homes into something economically productive rather than just very expensive hotels. In accounting terms, we want them to become profit centers rather than cost centers -- and that means starting a home business even if only part-time.

    You may recall that I recommended earlier that, if one working spouse was actually costing the family money in order to work outside the home, that spouse be brought home. That doesn't mean that whatever spouse comes home should just stare at the walls and dust the end tables. Obviously, in-person child-rearing is a top priority, as well as gardening, food preservation, home schooling and other tasks that reduce expenses and form the character of our children. But, just as our ancestors worked at home while raising their kids, WE can do that as well. So whatever spouse is at home needs to start a home business.

    One thing that EAU has done to help make that easier in certain circumstances is we have created a flexible development platform called the EAUduino that can be used as the basis for any number of products and inventions. Obviously, the EAUduino is not suitable for every potential home business – but it can be a start for some people. Start thinking now about what you can do with your skills that can create value for which others are willing to pay.

    We also need to start investing in the ownership of the means of production. As I mentioned earlier, income does not equate to influence and power. Rather, ownership of the means of production is wealth, influence and power. Of course, if you turn your home into a profit center, you are already halfway there. You can also, with some training, start a nice stock portfolio with very little money these days.

    AND, as discussed in our Statement of Ethics, whenever we are in a position to do so, we need to provide opportunities to our own people on the basis of their merits so we can create the proverbial "rising tide that lifts all boats." So if you are a hiring manager, you need to keep this in mind.

    Unfortunately, for the foreseeable future, most of our people will be employees rather than owners; and as I discussed in the first podcast in this series, the workplace is overall rather hostile to child-rearing efforts and in some cases actively discourages the practice.

    But not all workplaces are like that. Seek employment with firms who advertise family-friendly policies whenever possible. Smart Moms Online has a list of family-friendly companies that, in spite of the name, merits examination by fathers as well. Family-friendly policies don't apply to just one sex.

    Another approach we all need to take is to make sure our qualifications are the best they can be. We need to utilize educational benefits whenever possible, acquire certifications in any fields where they are relevant and so forth. By doing this, we maximize our value to employers and thereby augment our bargaining position when it comes time to ask for flexible hours and other family-friendly accommodations.

    If you happen to be a member of a union, you can ask your union representatives to ask for family-friendly policies during the next round of contract negotiations.

    A final method worth considering in this regard is starting your own company, possibly in cooperation with other parents who seek the same flexibility. My sister, wanting to stay home with her kids, landed a gig teaching martial arts as an independent contractor at the local community college in the evenings and at a senior center every-other weekend. She made more money for her family working just 15 hours a week than she had previously made when working 40 hours for someone else.

    Probably the most complicated issue we need to address is radical feminism, because it affects everything from elementary school education through divorce rates. Because most of the victories of radical feminism have been legislative, the opportunities to combat it in our personal lives are limited. Single men probably can have the greatest impact in this regard by screening potential mates for anti-male, victim-status or hyper-materialistic attitudes; and actively rejecting such women by telling them that you will be seeking a mate who doesn't hate men or see them simply as a wallet or fashion accessory.

    Women can help as well by finding ways to draw distinctions between reasonable women who simply seek fair-treatment and equal pay for equal work, and women who use such issues as cover for more pernicious agendas. Publicly expressing scorn for flimsy harassment claims, or for women who have obtained restraining orders fraudulently can discourage others from taking those paths. The handful of nasty and deceptive women out there who misuse our legal system to destroy innocent men have effectively generated a marriage and reproductive strike by men, and this will continue so long as decent women refuse to speak up loudly against them and socially isolate them.

    There are also an increasing number of women whose prospects for personal fulfillment through relationships have been seriously damaged by feminism. This takes many forms, ranging from the woman who has difficulty getting a man to agree to have children because of his unspoken fears to a second wife who has to deal with endless psychological warfare played through the court system against her new husband. Wives are being damaged by husbands being falsely accused of sexual harassment, and women in general have seen more and more men become sufficiently distrustful that forming a productive romantic relationship is nearly impossible, or it may take years for the man to build up a sufficient comfort level – years while the biological clock is ticking.

    A lot of these women -- decent, intelligent, trustworthy and hard-working women who deserve a fulfilling relationship with a good man -- have had enough; and they are starting to fight back and reclaim feminism from the Marxists and return fairness to marriage. They have formed organizations that I'll be referencing later in the podcast, and you can join your efforts to theirs.

    As I mentioned earlier most of the successes of radical feminism have come in legislatures and in courts, mostly the former. Thus, feminism must be fought through initiatives at that level, but also through media exposure and education to garner the necessary public support for those initiatives.

    Women like Wendy McElroy of IFeminists, Dianna Thompson of The American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Kathleen Parker and Christina Hoff-Summers are pushing hard for the return of fairness to our divorce laws, both in writing and in practice. If you are a woman concerned about radical feminism and its negative consequences for our people, then you need to contact organizations like The American Coalition for Fathers and Children, and look at the positive legislation that they are advancing, and add your voice to theirs in contacting your state legislators.

    If you are a man, you can also check out these organizations, but in addition, you should check out The National Father's Resource Center and their links to other helpful organizations.

    For men and women alike, you should go on line right now and sign the Joint Parenting Petition to let your representatives know that fairness in divorce laws is important to you.

    But, now, a word of caution. Be careful while surfing -- and read carefully. While the organizations I have specifically named are mainstream and honorable, there are a number of organizations out there whose true agenda is to replace the unfair status quo with an equally unfair destruction of the natural rights of women. This cannot and will not work because, as I stated earlier, for white people to be free, ALL of our people must be free. Avoid them as they do much more harm than good to the ultimate cause of creating conditions amenable to more white children.

    We've covered a lot of ground in this series of podcasts. Our people have reached negative population growth to such an extent that we are in danger of extinction in a mere blink of the historical eye. I have covered the major causative factors, as well as practical solutions you can implement in your private life and public policy advocacies.

    There are practical things, then, that everyone within the sound of my voice can undertake. Many of these things are racially neutral so even the most timid of listeners has no excuse for failing to act. So instead of whining and crying and lamenting our low birth rates, I want to encourage you to stand up straight, undertake a posture worthy of our forebears, roll up your shirtsleeves and get to work. Don't sit around waiting for someone else to act. YOU must act. Today.

    This has been John Young with European Americans United. Thank you for joining me again today.

    (2)MacDonald, K. (2006), "Psychology and White Ethnocentrism," The Occidental Quarterly, Winter 2006, Vol. 6 No. 4
    (3)MSNBC News, March 17, 2007 “Study Ties day care to some behavioral problems.”
    (4)MacDonald, K. (2002), “A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples”
    (6)Williams, W. (2006) "GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC REPORTS: THINGS YOU'VE SUSPECTED BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK!" http://www.shadowstats.com/article/56
    (7)Whittington, L. et. al. (1990) Fertility and the Personal Exemption: Implicit Pronatalist Policy in the United States, The American Economic Review, June 1990
    (8)Tilove, Jonathan (2007) Beneath surface, Americans ambivalent about diversity, Newhouse News Service, July 08, 2007
    (9)Macdonald, Kevin "The Numbers Game: Ethnic Conflict in the Contemporary World" and Nisbet, Robert "Twilight of Authority", 1975 p65
    (11)Protection of Women and Children in Soviet Russia, 1932 Chapter I
    (12)Uttal, L. (1999), Using Kin for Childcare: Embedment in the Socioeconomic Networks of Extended Families, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 61 No. 4 Nov. 1999 pages 845-857
    (13)Sailer, Steve (2008), Value Voters, http://amconmag.com/article/2008/feb/11/00016/
    (14)Wilbur Ross (2004), Quoted by Daniel Gross in The Bottom Feeder King, http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/bizfinance/columns/moneyandmind/10279/
    News Source: John Young

    Related Stories
  • How to Have More White Babies: Part II (continued)
  • How to Have More White Babies: Part II
  • How to Have More White Babies: Part I of III

  • Comments

    Entire site copyright ©2007-2008 European Americans United.
    Opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of EAU,
    the editors, or any other entity. Some clearly marked materials are
    parodies or fiction. By submitting material you grant European
    Americans United a non-transferable 100 year non-exclusive license
    to use the submitted material.
    The following copyright pertains to the news site software only:
    Copyright ©Copyright (C) 2007-2013
    Powered by Esselbach Storyteller CMS System Version 1.8
    Licensed to: European Americans United