All of this. 100%. And rather refreshing after reading Bronski's last piece which was likely well intentioned, but was a wild shot and missed what White advocacy is about. It's about quality.
No, there's no biological reason for swedish or other white women not to give birth to 7 children. They did have lots of kids back in the day.
This post looks like a silver-tongued excuse to the modern hedonism trend. We have to change our societal norms. And even if no chance to change the demographics to reclaim all the country, more kids is still obviously better.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment – I genuinely appreciate your engagement.
You're absolutely right that European women used to have more children. But that was under completely different conditions: high child mortality, subsistence farming, early marriage, and minimal access to education or healthcare. It wasn’t a strategic decision, but a biological and economic adaptation to harsh realities.
Today, the context has changed. If Swedish women were to start having seven children on average – with current medical standards and survival rates – it would quickly lead to enormous strain. Not just on families, but on the ecosystem and infrastructure. We already depend on imported fertilizer, antibiotics, and fragile global supply chains to sustain the population we have. Exponentially increasing that burden would likely lead to collapse, not renewal.
The point of the article is not to discourage childbearing. On the contrary – we must bring children into the world if we want our people to survive. But we should be honest about the fact that mass reproduction alone will not solve the demographic crisis. This is not a numbers game we can win.
Quality must come before quantity – especially in a future shaped by robotics, AI, and automation. Societies built on massive, undereducated underclasses are fragile, volatile, and easily manipulated. That’s not the future we should aim for.
Instead, we should focus on building strong, rooted, cohesive communities that support meaningful family life and raise children who are prepared to thrive – not just survive.
Not all women and men can and should have broods of children. Uterine prolapse, pelvic floor collapse, incontinence, ongoing hormonal issues requiring consistent medical treatment are very real issues that modern medicine doesn't easily rectify - and these are just a few. Gut health, too. Bonding with infants when a mother's gut health is out-of-whack.
As I just noted on Bronski's piece about how men marrying teens should be considered normal, I come from a rather large family in a community full of other large families. Large White families. While none of my relatives within the past 100 years actually died during childbirth, and had lovely lives with lots of lovely children, it's naive to not consider the trades involved for most women having more than, say, three kids. There are a lot of issues. These issues often impact quality of life for the children in the home, as well as the couple who tries to continue on through a marriage fraught with difficulties in the bedroom due some of these issues. My sister who has six kids - tells me this. My mother who had more than that - tells me this. My grandmother who had eight kids - told me this. Her entire uterus collapsed. Twice. She was out of commission for weeks at a time. This does impact the family. My girlfriends tell me this. So many of the neighbors around my parent's home - women in their 50s and 60s and 70s are trying to manage life (and adult children, grand kids, communities) from a place where they have anal fistulas - look that one up. Or diabetes. And yes, having multiple kids is often implicated in these as well as thyroid disorders and a myriad of other problems. Not everyone has long flowing blond hair and bright big blue eyes and 10 kids and yet still weighs 125 lbs. for frolics in the fields with their lovely children. Even for healthy active women, multiple kids are a major, major challenge of the physical body. This is just for starters. And this is just the women involved and their physical health.
Perhaps what we can and should say is, if you're a couple that can have and raise many children, do. Perhaps what we can and should say is, Whites should have as many children as they can. But this will differ - obviously - a lot. Having a smaller family is not necessarily hedonistic. And as someone who lost a baby rather recently in a horrifically traumatic lethal pregnancy which was dangerous, and then completely impacted my health - which is normal, honestly, it happens to women all the time - I can say that this conversation can be extremely off-putting for those of us attempting to engage in White advocacy on the day-to-day level.
We want positive advocacy. We can influence societal norms best by being advocates of White families doing their best to achieve success within their own families - which may or may not be large, but are hopefully as large as we can make them while raising humans of quality. All the best to you -
No, there's no biological reason for swedish or other white women not to give birth to 7 children. They did have lots of kids back in the day.
This post looks like a silver-tongued excuse to the modern hedonism trend. We have to change our societal norms. And even if no chance to change the demographics to reclaim all the country, more kids is still obviously better.
Interesting thoughts expressed. I think it is important to think and explore deeper into what we Swedes really stand for, what our way of life means. Unfortunately, I think Swedes has been one of the most easily manipulated peoples in accepting ideas that are designed to break down our families and society. We are an extremely modern society and most modern peoples are vehemently rejecting any ideas of going back into a kind of more primitive clan society again, which make me think that this suggested solution may not either succeed? Or, am I pessimistic?
All of this. 100%. And rather refreshing after reading Bronski's last piece which was likely well intentioned, but was a wild shot and missed what White advocacy is about. It's about quality.
No, there's no biological reason for swedish or other white women not to give birth to 7 children. They did have lots of kids back in the day.
This post looks like a silver-tongued excuse to the modern hedonism trend. We have to change our societal norms. And even if no chance to change the demographics to reclaim all the country, more kids is still obviously better.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment – I genuinely appreciate your engagement.
You're absolutely right that European women used to have more children. But that was under completely different conditions: high child mortality, subsistence farming, early marriage, and minimal access to education or healthcare. It wasn’t a strategic decision, but a biological and economic adaptation to harsh realities.
Today, the context has changed. If Swedish women were to start having seven children on average – with current medical standards and survival rates – it would quickly lead to enormous strain. Not just on families, but on the ecosystem and infrastructure. We already depend on imported fertilizer, antibiotics, and fragile global supply chains to sustain the population we have. Exponentially increasing that burden would likely lead to collapse, not renewal.
The point of the article is not to discourage childbearing. On the contrary – we must bring children into the world if we want our people to survive. But we should be honest about the fact that mass reproduction alone will not solve the demographic crisis. This is not a numbers game we can win.
Quality must come before quantity – especially in a future shaped by robotics, AI, and automation. Societies built on massive, undereducated underclasses are fragile, volatile, and easily manipulated. That’s not the future we should aim for.
Instead, we should focus on building strong, rooted, cohesive communities that support meaningful family life and raise children who are prepared to thrive – not just survive.
Thanks again for being part of the conversation.
Not all women and men can and should have broods of children. Uterine prolapse, pelvic floor collapse, incontinence, ongoing hormonal issues requiring consistent medical treatment are very real issues that modern medicine doesn't easily rectify - and these are just a few. Gut health, too. Bonding with infants when a mother's gut health is out-of-whack.
As I just noted on Bronski's piece about how men marrying teens should be considered normal, I come from a rather large family in a community full of other large families. Large White families. While none of my relatives within the past 100 years actually died during childbirth, and had lovely lives with lots of lovely children, it's naive to not consider the trades involved for most women having more than, say, three kids. There are a lot of issues. These issues often impact quality of life for the children in the home, as well as the couple who tries to continue on through a marriage fraught with difficulties in the bedroom due some of these issues. My sister who has six kids - tells me this. My mother who had more than that - tells me this. My grandmother who had eight kids - told me this. Her entire uterus collapsed. Twice. She was out of commission for weeks at a time. This does impact the family. My girlfriends tell me this. So many of the neighbors around my parent's home - women in their 50s and 60s and 70s are trying to manage life (and adult children, grand kids, communities) from a place where they have anal fistulas - look that one up. Or diabetes. And yes, having multiple kids is often implicated in these as well as thyroid disorders and a myriad of other problems. Not everyone has long flowing blond hair and bright big blue eyes and 10 kids and yet still weighs 125 lbs. for frolics in the fields with their lovely children. Even for healthy active women, multiple kids are a major, major challenge of the physical body. This is just for starters. And this is just the women involved and their physical health.
Perhaps what we can and should say is, if you're a couple that can have and raise many children, do. Perhaps what we can and should say is, Whites should have as many children as they can. But this will differ - obviously - a lot. Having a smaller family is not necessarily hedonistic. And as someone who lost a baby rather recently in a horrifically traumatic lethal pregnancy which was dangerous, and then completely impacted my health - which is normal, honestly, it happens to women all the time - I can say that this conversation can be extremely off-putting for those of us attempting to engage in White advocacy on the day-to-day level.
We want positive advocacy. We can influence societal norms best by being advocates of White families doing their best to achieve success within their own families - which may or may not be large, but are hopefully as large as we can make them while raising humans of quality. All the best to you -
No, there's no biological reason for swedish or other white women not to give birth to 7 children. They did have lots of kids back in the day.
This post looks like a silver-tongued excuse to the modern hedonism trend. We have to change our societal norms. And even if no chance to change the demographics to reclaim all the country, more kids is still obviously better.
Interesting thoughts expressed. I think it is important to think and explore deeper into what we Swedes really stand for, what our way of life means. Unfortunately, I think Swedes has been one of the most easily manipulated peoples in accepting ideas that are designed to break down our families and society. We are an extremely modern society and most modern peoples are vehemently rejecting any ideas of going back into a kind of more primitive clan society again, which make me think that this suggested solution may not either succeed? Or, am I pessimistic?