MORALS: THE IMPORTANCE OF NOT HAVING UGLY CHILDREN | nationalsalvation.net
Somehow the idea of choosing your children sounds so cold, although I'm not sure that's what you mean. I have an idea that more white women will choose to take time to breastfeed because they WANT to rather than rush to a very important job. But not like the ninnies who try to make some political statement that they ought to act like the third world.
Comment by Shari
The future always sounds cold. The idea of our sitting here talking to people we have met out of intellectual interest instead of lifelong town acquaintance or family ties would sound very odd to our forebears. The idea of having an instrument in your house on which anybody could ring a bell at you and demand your attention at any time was considered a major intrusion for a long time.
In the future, the idea of a couple of people having kids because they didn't take precautions and having the boys half-castrated in our time will give us the kind of look bear-baiting gives the Middle Ages. The concept of two people determining their future children, not for the children, but because they are "in love" with each other will look childish crap it is. In other words, the future will begin to look at SOMETHING, at least ONE OR TWO things, from the future CHILDREN'S point of view.
Life is not just nurture. The children's point of view also includes GENETICS. That is what the Traditional Values clowns absolutely refuse to discuss. At least a bigoted father gives some consideration to the fact that his grandchildren could be ugly, unnatural looking mulattoes. No Traditional Values type could care less about that. All that matter is that the couple thinks it's In Love and get a church ceremony.
Cold? There is nothing more deep freeze than what passes for a heart in Traditional Values advocate. They love their rules and they couldn't care less about humans. Anyone who gives a moment's thought to the Golden Rules is labeled a Humanists because these Traditional Values types are too stupid to tell the difference between Wordist humanists who care as little about people as they do and people like me.
Right now the entire choice of children depends on how two people get along together, what kinds of "feelings" they have for each other. That is all that matters. The children get no consideration at all except as a by-blow of a romance. And this is true even if the romance has a man in a dress waving his hands over the couple.
"Warm" and "cool" relations today have this thing that if a guy wears a dress and waves his hands, it's all good, and the "marriage" can be a sterile one, sterility agreed on by both parties.
One good that may come from all this gay marriage business is that we FINALLY begin to realize that one rigid, single kind of marriage will not do in a society if it plans to produce another generation.
I saw a pretty white girl and just one more black guy holding hands the other day and I was thinking that all that mattered to anybody but the children would be the guy that put on the dress and waved his arms. The children and their children and THEIR children and THEIR children must live with BEING the results that make no difference at all to somebody whose only concern is Traditional Values.
In earlier times a man had every right to beat his OWN wife at will. In our time, everybody has the right to have a relationship and, yawn, drop some kids if they feel like it.
Shari, if you saw today's wonderful Traditional Values world as I do, "cold" would be a mild word for it.