We need mass construction of new homes

Castelnau

Kingfisher
We need more nuclear families. A man, a woman, three or more children. Obviously there are numerous obstacles to this such as there not being enough good women, the manchild problem, media encouraging women not to marry and not to have children, infertility, divorce. A frequently mentioned barrier is lack of housing.

We need another Levitttown.


We need a massive number of new homes, then married couples can have a nice place to live and raise their children in. Married people are more traditional and Christian. These nuclear families would be the building blocks of America and a right leaning Christian nationalist party.

Cheap, affordable housing is a bipartisian issue that younger millennials on the right and left want but because of greedy NIMBYs, developers and corrupt politicians it is buried as a political issue. I think one of the easiest solutions to America's problems is for native born Americans to have more kids. To enable Americans to have more kids we need more cheap homes.
 
Lol keep dreaming bro.

InsignificantInfiniteArrowcrab-size_restricted.gif
 

West_001

Sparrow
In the last ten years I've seen the intended/unintended consequence of metropolitanization in my city. (So Cal)
Knocking down a 1,500 sq ft. Single Family Home on a 5,000 sq ft. lot, only to build (4) Three Story Condos at a $1Millon+ Price tag only creates a lack of enough good women, the manchild problem, media encouraging women not to marry and not to have children, infertility, and divorce.
 

Elipe

Kingfisher
Cheap, affordable housing is a bipartisian issue that younger millennials on the right and left want
Not quite. They want cheap, affordable housing in different ways. Millennials of the right would prefer a kind of suburban home with a yard in a nice quiet neighborhood. Basically, the kind of housing we grew up in. Leftists, on the other hand, want something more approaching "commie blocks" - mutualistic living arrangements. We want families, leftists want rat cages so that nobody would feel unduly "privileged" for owning a piece of land that belongs solely and 100% to themselves.

In fact, in the leftist circles I've lurked in online, the majority of housing complaints among them has more to do with the price of rent than the price of houses. They don't really talk about home ownership much, it doesn't appear to appeal to them that much. I even have a relative who could even be described as your average smart white liberal, and he just has absolutely no interest in owning a home. He's affluent enough that affording rent in a good apartment is basically a drop of a penny in his budget, so it's not like he's being deterred from buying a house on mortgage.

They're not really that interested in nuclear families to begin with.
 

Cicero12

Sparrow
They're already doing this lol, my suburb is basically the result of urban sprawl and you can see there was older buildings but they are mostly old dilapidated farms.
 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Recently I've been thinking, how great is the "nuclear family", anyway?

What if that was just the first step toward undermining traditional Christian society, a literal divide-and-conquer tactic? Might bigger, extended families living in the same house (or on the same plot of land) be more durable and resistant to subversion? Would parents be willing to have more children, for example, if there were more family members around to help raise them? And for that matter, homeschool them?

I'm just speculating here, but it really seems the "nuclear family" model was a byproduct of mid-century American prosperity, emphasizing financial autonomy and individualism over a cohesive, stable family unit.

Maybe what we need are atomized nuclear families pooling resources with their relatives to buy bigger houses where they can live together and support each other to being something greater than the sum of its parts.

My in-laws live in the basement and the help they provide with our baby - not to mention the financial contribution through rent - is absolutely invaluable.
 
Recently I've been thinking, how great is the "nuclear family", anyway?

What if that was just the first step toward undermining traditional Christian society, a literal divide-and-conquer tactic? Might bigger, extended families living in the same house (or on the same plot of land) be more durable and resistant to subversion? Would parents be willing to have more children, for example, if there were more family members around to help raise them? And for that matter, homeschool them?

I'm just speculating here, but it really seems the "nuclear family" model was a byproduct of mid-century American prosperity, emphasizing financial autonomy and individualism over a cohesive, stable family unit.

Maybe what we need are atomized nuclear families pooling resources with their relatives to buy bigger houses where they can live together and support each other to being something greater than the sum of its parts.

My in-laws live in the basement and the help they provide with our baby - not to mention the financial contribution through rent - is absolutely invaluable.

There is already housing built for multiple generations. That enable family to live nearby to each other:



So whilst its not for everyone since some people have to be separate from abusive family members. This would be in general a good solution to atomization in my opinion.
 

kamoz

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Instead we’ll get repurposing of office buildings into tiny apartments in the inner city for housing, which people will be forced to go into because it’ll be government or corporate sponsored housing and the only option available to the masses of people with no job and inability to make their rental or mortgage payments.

They’ll keep families together at first, but you better believe they’ll start to separate them because of the “virus.” You also better believe that they’ll decide who your neighbors are.

If only people knew and were frightened enough to do something while they still can....
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
E. Michael Jones covered a lot of these issues around housing and urban planning in America in his book The Slaughter of Cities. Basically before the 1950s-60s, there was a thriving community life in American cities centered around the parish, extended communities of the same ethnicities and extended families.

They scrapped many of these neighborhoods through housing projects and massive urban highways, which resulted in white flight into Levittown-style suburbs where community life and social cohesion were disrupted. I guess the next step is to break down the nuclear families in those burbs and get atomized individuals into urban boxes.

Dr E Michael Jones discusses his book The Slaughter of Cities

 

Punchitchewie

Woodpecker
We need more nuclear families. A man, a woman, three or more children.
In my neck of the woods they have changed “family tickets/ passes” to 2 adults and 2 kids. Read into that what you will.

White people don’t want to live around minorities. Have you seen the housing prices of majority white areas? A young single income family simply can’t afford it. That’s why the only whites pumping out lots of kids are the lower class ones.
 

NickK

Woodpecker
What if that was just the first step toward undermining traditional Christian society, a literal divide-and-conquer tactic? Might bigger, extended families living in the same house (or on the same plot of land) be more durable and resistant to subversion?
Exactly.
The Christian ideal is not the nuclear family but the extended family with one patriarch, basically a small tribe living off a large unified plot of land. We can only dream...
 
Your not going to see mass construction of homes outside the border states. The blue collar trades are increasingly the preserve of grey haired men, youngins such as myself are not entering the labor market is sufficient quantity to compensate for the retirees. As a result labor prices have increased and project deadlines keep being extended.

The border states meanwhile benefit from hordes of illegal labor, hence the reason housing is (relatively) cheap and plentiful barring geographic issues.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Exactly.
The Christian ideal is not the nuclear family but the extended family with one patriarch, basically a small tribe living off a large unified plot of land. We can only dream...

That's a bit more of a rural vision, families living in houses or apartments near their relatives to form a strong extended family in the same town or neighborhood is just as good an ideal, in fact it was still the case in most American cities in the 1950s, especially among Catholic communities.
 

Nordwand

Kingfisher
Instead we’ll get repurposing of office buildings into tiny apartments in the inner city for housing, which people will be forced to go into because it’ll be government or corporate sponsored housing and the only option available to the masses of people with no job and inability to make their rental or mortgage payments.

They’ll keep families together at first, but you better believe they’ll start to separate them because of the “virus.” You also better believe that they’ll decide who your neighbors are.

If only people knew and were frightened enough to do something while they still can....
That has been going on in my home town for some time, and I doubt that the rest of the UK is any different. Dedicated office blocks, offices above shops, gyms, bars, nightclubs, are all being converted into human hamster cages. A few of them are upmarket, but the prices/rents are beyond belief.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Recently I've been thinking, how great is the "nuclear family", anyway?

What if that was just the first step toward undermining traditional Christian society, a literal divide-and-conquer tactic? Might bigger, extended families living in the same house (or on the same plot of land) be more durable and resistant to subversion? Would parents be willing to have more children, for example, if there were more family members around to help raise them? And for that matter, homeschool them?

I'm just speculating here, but it really seems the "nuclear family" model was a byproduct of mid-century American prosperity, emphasizing financial autonomy and individualism over a cohesive, stable family unit.

Maybe what we need are atomized nuclear families pooling resources with their relatives to buy bigger houses where they can live together and support each other to being something greater than the sum of its parts.

My in-laws live in the basement and the help they provide with our baby - not to mention the financial contribution through rent - is absolutely invaluable.

Traditional cultures don't have the nuclear family as a unit (since, socially, marriage was always a joining, not only of two people, but of two families) - and this was a fact for all social classes, from the highest to the lowest. The fact that we now pine for the 'good old days' of nuclear families is a perfect illustration of the degradation (seen in other nostalgias too). The high incidence of post-birth depression is, I suspect, highly connected to the absence of older women in the home who would serve as a guide and a support for the new mother.
 

Troller

Pelican
You still have family units in the country side. People in small villages all know each other and some are distant relatives. Because of economic needs people migrated to the cities. And there communists destroyed family. Even though people tended to go to same neighborhoods.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Traditional cultures don't have the nuclear family as a unit (since, socially, marriage was always a joining, not only of two people, but of two families) - and this was a fact for all social classes, from the highest to the lowest.

Indeed, today's oligarchic dynasties have successfully kept the patriarchal, large-family model for themselves while brainwashing everyone else to abandon it.
This is well explained here (article in Portuguese) : http://olavodecarvalho.org/tag/familia-nuclear/
 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Gold Member
The high incidence of post-birth depression is, I suspect, highly connected to the absence of older women in the home who would serve as a guide and a support for the new mother.

Interesting observation, my wife had no depression at all after our daughter was born, and her mother often came over to help us with our daughter; now my in-laws live in our basement apartment and we see them every day.
 

DanielH

Pelican
Traditional cultures don't have the nuclear family as a unit (since, socially, marriage was always a joining, not only of two people, but of two families) - and this was a fact for all social classes, from the highest to the lowest. The fact that we now pine for the 'good old days' of nuclear families is a perfect illustration of the degradation (seen in other nostalgias too). The high incidence of post-birth depression is, I suspect, highly connected to the absence of older women in the home who would serve as a guide and a support for the new mother.
My wife and I will be moving in with her mom soon. We wanted to flee blue state dystopia but like you said, it would be hard raising children without any support, and financially it would almost force my wife to work if we lived on our own, and I really don't want her to have to work when we have children. Also if we're both working, we probably wouldn't be able to homeschool which is more important now than ever.
 
Top