Sometimes I just feel like impregnating a bunch of chicks and have lots of kids but for some reason there is a moral restraint that stops me from going ahead and do it.

My uncle just passed away few days ago, he had forty something kids, we thought he had 26 kids but this week lots of his children appeared out of nowhere. My grandfather had twenty and something kids. My father had 5 (all with my mother) but for some reason I feel that I should impregnate lots of women (I don't think about this all the time, neither this has always been a dream for me but for some reason I think about doing this now and then).

Assuming that your kids won't live off government funding and assuming that you can afford to take care of them and you will try to be a present father in whatever way possible and they won't be criminals and their mothers come from functional families. Is there anything wrong with impregnating lots of women and having lots of kids?

Quote: (09-09-2016 03:53 PM)pitt Wrote:  

Assuming that your kids won't live off government funding and assuming that you can afford to take care of them and you will try to be a present father in whatever way possible and they won't be criminals and their mothers come from functional families. Is there anything wrong with impregnating lots of women and having lots of kids?

Why would you assume that your kids wouldn't live off government funding? That's a bit like assuming your kids will never get ill.

I really can't see a woman who comes from a functional family being happy having kids with a guy who has a bunch of other kids with different women. How on earth could you be a "present" father with different households competing for your attention?

Quote: (09-09-2016 03:53 PM)pitt Wrote:  

Assuming that your kids won't live off government funding and assuming that you can afford to take care of them and you will try to be a present father in whatever way possible and they won't be criminals and their mothers come from functional families.

Sounds like an impossible dream, you wouldn't be able to guarantee any of this. And even if their mother's came from functional families your kids wouldn't be part of a functional family, especially with half brothers and sisters all over the place.

"you will try to be a present father in whatever way possible" - this reads like a bit of a cop out. A kid needs his father to be around to guide him through his youth and teach him how to be a man. "whatever way possible" just doesn't cut the mustard I'm afraid.

Even if you were to pick women who seemed reasonable and up to the task of raising your child under these circumstances initially, how long do you think her reasonable attitude would last when you start popping out kids with other chicks? You would leave yourself wide open to various unpleasant scenarios including being denied access to your kids and having your income siphoned off by women you don't give a shit about.

So yes there is something wrong with impregnating lots of women and having lots of kids - first and foremost it would potentially be shitty for the kids, but also I don't see how any real good could come of it for anyone.

I think the intact family is the way to go. Mother and father married and raising their children together. Now if you want to have lots of kids with one wife and stay with her, then you might be able to have 20+ grandkids, and a large number of great grand kids. However, having 40 kids is not possible without short changing them on the attention they deserve from their father.

Quote: (09-09-2016 03:53 PM)pitt Wrote:  

Assuming that your kids won't live off government funding and assuming that you can afford to take care of them and you will try to be a present father in whatever way possible and they won't be criminals and their mothers come from functional families. Is there anything wrong with impregnating lots of women and having lots of kids?

I tend to think that it is very doubtful that you can retain control of your children with multiple baby-momma's given the current climate in western female centric culture. Gone are the days where men had complete control and responsibility of their offspring. We as men have resigned that a generation or two ago to our detriment. It will take significant legislature or victories in higher appellate courts to overturn this part of our culture. You have a better bet on finding yourself a unicorn and marrying up her.

With that in mind, over the years some Fertility Doctors have inseminated the amount of women that your uncle had and they ended up in jail for fraud. When you go to 40 or so children, you may get to issues of incest and that was a big problem for the children of these doctors. It is good that all of your cousins know each other so that they don't have to worry about that, unless you live in locals where that is acceptable.

I'm married. Come from a family of 6 kids as did the wife. Hell if money weren't an issue is have like 10 kids. Being a true patriarch like Adam or Jacob or those guys in the Old Testament seems great. To be able to build your own tribe?

As for your question and the specific circumstancial corner you painted yourself into yes there is a problem having that many kids with that many women. Only Genghis Khan was able to handle that.

Take a look at the 60 kids that your uncle and grandpa had.

What do they do? How were they raised? What type of fathers were these guys?

Make your decision after that.

Aloha!

I know a few Africans whose fathers had between 10 and 20 kids. Doesn't seem to have done them much harm, the more serious issues seem to appear when it's the mother who's had 10 kids plus with different dads.

Africa is different though, because children are raised by the whole extended family and even the local community to some extent - not just by one or two parents. Hell, a lot of Western parents don't even bother to raise their kids in any meaningful sense.

Of course, the other difference here is that the fathers with many offspring in Africa typically are elite businessmen and chiefs. They have many times the resources of average men.

Two conclusions follow from this. If you want to have many kids, you have to make sure that you have the resources for it. Secondly, it is not a great idea to have many kids if each of them is just going to be raised by a single mom without the proper support system.

Again, if you are going to be there for the kids as much as possible, you end up depending on the moms living in geographic proximity to each other. I don't see that this can be guaranteed unless you retain some sort of authority over all of them. In other words, it would probably be impossible in a Western setting. Again this is different in Africa, where the kid in many tribes "belong" to the mom until 6-8 years old, and then can be demanded by the dad. However, raising 20 kids on your own isn't going to be easy, either.

It's an interesting but difficult question. Of course our instinct is to make as many babies as possible, even though we have sublimated it into simply smashing as many pussies as possible. I feel that as I get older the desire to impregnate women just gets stronger and stronger, and having a lot of kids "feels" like a great idea even though I know how difficult it would be.

I guess you want to be broke all the time too. Good luck with that!

Quote: (09-13-2016 12:42 AM)NewDayNewFace Wrote:  

I guess you want to be broke all the time too. Good luck with that!

Most people's legacy will only be their children. What have you done that suggests you'll be any different?

In western society you can't have a lot of kids to different women. You can sire a lot of kids. That's a big difference.

I can only imagine what a child would think if they were one of twenty, thirty or forty. Likely they would get the impression that they were nothing more than a funfuck that went wrong. Their life would likely head straight towards the gutter from that point.

OP i often think this too, there are many things I find interesting of the concept of having a very large number of kids. Some of the points Ive thought through include:

1. Especially today, you are effectively making up the slack of other beta males incapable of reproducing.

2. You have a very, very, impactful effect on the local populous-es gene pool, especially after a couple of generations (your kids have kids) and especially even more if some have 3+ more kids per child. This point in particular I find the most flattering point, I think thats pretty fucking cool that you would have contributed to the physical features of a whole sub section of a local communities physical appearance.

3. Pretty much guarantees your bloodline will continue, you are playing with such high numbers of probability it is unlikely your bloodline will end due to your son becoming a beta male or your daughter an infertile cat lady.

4. More women impregnated, less who will hit the wall having 0 kids and living the remainder of their lives with cats. Granted the family situation would not be stable, but that is up to the opinion of the individual on which of these 2 bad scenarios is the better one.

Regardless of the downsides I find it an extremely interesting lifestyle, one that would certainly fix the low birth rates of the west.

Can anyone honestly argue that it would be a worse longterm issue than all the infertility promoted in current degenerate lifestyles such as the gays, lesbians, transgenders, all aspects of feminism and casual sex involving sterilization of the population via various birth control methods. All the above lead to the long term death of the host culture, which we see the effects of currently in western countries.

The 2 biggest issues I see are:
- Cost. If you're in the middle class (slave class), you're on the hook. Only the lower class with welfare (parasite class) and the upper class can avoid or comfortably bear the costs.
- Future. If you're going to reproduce into the white west, you're basically condemning your kids to a future of misery and struggle, war and death, or going the way of the Aztecs. You're passing the "looking delayed extinction in the face" feeling on to them.

I've witnessed this.

When it's happened, it's been middle class families living outside of main cities, having bought a decent sized property when the market is favorable.

Then, they homeschool the kids in a cooperative group with other homeschoolers. They have a reasonable amount of autonomy and can end up being well raised if they find the right group that socializes properly with adults.

Doesn't seem like a bad way to do things.

Quote: (09-13-2016 02:09 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

Quote: (09-13-2016 12:42 AM)NewDayNewFace Wrote:  

I guess you want to be broke all the time too. Good luck with that!

Most people's legacy will only be their children. What have you done that suggests you'll be any different?

So one should have multiple kids with multiple mothers that will hunt you down for child support? Have fun with that buddy.

I have one son and I make great money. My money isn't being garnished and I can afford a lot of things that other people can't. That's better to me than knocking up a bunch of women and having this "legacy". Which really means shit.

Having a huge amount of offspring is evolutionary success!

You can get the state to pay for it all if you live in a western world, and you would earn more from welfare than a job in Australia on once you go over 5-6.

Bring them all up red pill as a way to fight the good fight.

Long as you want to be a parent. Got the money to feed them. Etc. Go for it. Society can go fuck itself on whatever number it thinks you should have.

100% for homeschool / red pill education as others have suggested.

You want to be an R-selected father or a K-selected father? I chose to be a K-selected father, less kids more resources and attention spent on them. We don't live in a world where having that many kids makes sense or is really even feasible. If you have that many kids Uncle Sam and society will be their father, not you.

Quote: (09-13-2016 12:15 AM)Akwesi Wrote:  

Africa is different though, because children are raised by the whole extended family and even the local community to some extent - not just by one or two parents. Hell, a lot of Western parents don't even bother to raise their kids in any meaningful sense.

We have changed our parenting (or lack there of) in the past two generations. All of the world was raised by parents as primary, extended family secondary, and community tertiary since the beginning of man. Since most people lived in the same place where they were born, most of their family lived in their community. It was de-facto tribal/clan behavior. Only until we started to live in cities did we start loosing that, but even that withstood until women starting having children without a husband. You can thank the welfare state for that.

As late as the 70's most parts of the US you were watched over by neighbors who would narc on you to your parents if you get out of line. Corporal Punishment for children was also used by teachers, and principles, and the parents would have their piece if they so desired. Can anyone really say that any principal would do that to any kid outside of some conservative private schools?

We live in a completely different age from two generations ago when it comes to a lot of things.

Quote: (09-13-2016 02:22 PM)NewDayNewFace Wrote:  

Quote: (09-13-2016 02:09 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

Quote: (09-13-2016 12:42 AM)NewDayNewFace Wrote:  

I guess you want to be broke all the time too. Good luck with that!

Most people's legacy will only be their children. What have you done that suggests you'll be any different?

So one should have multiple kids with multiple mothers that will hunt you down for child support? Have fun with that buddy.

I have one son and I make great money. My money isn't being garnished and I can afford a lot of things that other people can't. That's better to me than knocking up a bunch of women and having this "legacy". Which really means shit.

Who said anything about having multiple mothers?

1 mother, multiple kids. Enjoy the hedonism.

He he, it depends!

On one hand, if we look from the Darwinist prospective, it is preferable - because there is bigger chance your genes will carry on.

Religious prospective - same thing. More children means that your religion will have more adherents. That is why Judaism and Christianity command their believers to procreate (notice how much children Ultra Ortodox Jews and more conservative Christians have), for example.


On the other hand, it is plain wrong if you can't commit to all of them. If a child does not have a caring parents, there is a big chance that he will turn to some deviate behaviour (SJW, feminism...). And that is why the Regressives are anti family - more broken children means more recruits for their cause(s).

On a similar note, where would be a good country to raise a large family. I am not even talking about culture but economics and countries which offer a financial incentive to start Christian families. I have seen some strong solid families in even cities like London, however the parents are in tremendous amounts of debt and have to work exceptionally hard to prevent their children from getting indoctrinated from outside influences.

Quote: (09-15-2016 09:32 AM)Constitution45 Wrote:  

On a similar note, where would be a good country to raise a large family. I am not even talking about culture but economics and countries which offer a financial incentive to start Christian families. I have seen some strong solid families in even cities like London, however the parents are in tremendous amounts of debt and have to work exceptionally hard to prevent their children from getting indoctrinated from outside influences.

Pretty sure the V4 countries in Europe offer incentives for larger families.

In particular Hungary, Orban has given a huge and very generous benefit for Hungarian families with three children, ten million Hungarian Forint to be exact. You can use a currency calculator to exchange that to a currency you are more familiar with (as I type this it equals 36,288 dollars). The only condition is that you have to show proof you intend to buy a house with that amount of money, he truly puts family first here, this ensures that the family intends to use the money for the benefit of the unit and not for some pointless lavish holiday.

So yeah, marry a hungarian chick, gain citizenship, have 3 kids, buy house, profit.

In Poland they give you 500 zloty a month if you have 2 kids under the age of 18, and an extra 500 a month for every child born after the second child (e.g. 1000 a month for 3 kids under the age of 18).

Nothing wrong with having lot's of kids per se, but sadly I really believe the amount of unqualified parents exceed the amount of responsible one in this society.

There seem to be more parents who had kids just because they didn't want to keep their legs shut, or just wanted a 'cute cuddly thing' but not he responsibility of raising them.

If I had to estimate, I'd only assume that only 10% or less of parents who exist today might be qualified to be parents. Sad but true.

(And even though many people balk about 'population control', it's actually true that in most traditional societies there were vetting processes to make sure people were qualified to raise offspring; there certainly wasn't a welfare net that just allowed single moms to pump out 10 different kids with 10 different fathers with no social reprecussion).

I remember reading a story of some guy in Tennessee who had like 32 kids from 30 women, he did this while working part-time at a fast food joint.

After taxes, his child support to each child was about $10 per month because he had a low salary and it had to be distributed evenly. All the mothers complained to the court asking the state foot the rest of the bill; they got denied.

Anyways, I don't know where I'm going with this but unless you do sperm donation, you won't have that many kids unless you smash as much trashy girls as possible.