Why is it necessary to give birth and raise more children?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

That is, under the guise of good intentions, the implication is being dragged in: give birth to as few children as possible. Of course, this conclusion is disguised behind the wishes of a "high standard of living", but it follows inexorably. I will try to show below why this justification is not a justification, but an ideological sabotage aimed at the destruction of the people.

At first glance, everything is quite logical: the more children there are in the family, the less material wealth is for everyone. But let's think about it.

To determine the average per capita family income, you need to divide the total income by the number of family members. But from this it immediately follows that there are two ways to improve the financial situation of the family:

1) increase total income;

2) not to increase the composition of the family (or even decrease, killing your own child in the womb).

So why is only the second path slipped to us? Worrying to keep us from falling into poverty? But for this, you can simply increase the family's income. No, the first path is deliberately "forgotten", the emphasis is placed on the second path - reducing the birth rate. And this already leads to quite definite conclusions.

First, if we are asked to choose a “standard of living” between the “standard of living” and children, it means that money is more important than children.

Secondly, if we are offered not to earn more, but to give birth less, then it is clear about whose “standard of living” they are encouraged to worry about. About your own skin!

Thirdly, as soon as instead of the difficult way of increasing earnings, an easy way of refusing to have children is being promoted, it means that they are trying to corrupt us from the inside. All these conclusions directly follow from the attitude “it is not necessary to breed poverty”.

Of course, under the current conditions it is much easier to say “earn more” than to do it

The difficult financial situation of the family is in no way reprehensible, because our salaries still often leave much to be desired. But the conscious reluctance of parents (primarily the head of the family) to lift a finger to increase earnings is already worthy, at least, bewilderment, especially in the presence of small children.

But here, too, one should not blame anyone. Cases are different. Even if the family's income is small, there is such a way as reducing the expenses of parents on themselves in order to give the children what they need. And this is where the essence of the egoistic liberal worldview comes into play. I don’t remember that liberals urged parents to cut spending on themselves in order to increase it on children. Save on yourself? Never! They call for one thing - "do not produce poverty." Like, if the parents are poor, then the children will be completely poor. However, it is known that poor families have more children (on average) than rich families.

In addition, it is enough to look around to make sure that many of those who complain about their poverty are not at all so poor as not to have children. It is sometimes impossible to get to the houses because of the cars with which all the yards are crowded. The shopping and entertainment centers are full of people. There is a crush on entertainment shows. And yet many complain about the "hard life"!

Maybe it’s not about difficulties, but about the fact that you don’t want to think about anyone but yourself? Those who do not deny themselves “little everyday joys”, but at the same time justify their little or childlessness by their unwillingness to “produce poverty,” sign only one thing: unwillingness to deprive themselves, their beloved. This is selfishness. This means that the reason is not in the potential poverty of their children, but in their own selfishness.

Were our great-grandmothers and great-grandfathers materially richer than us? Did they think first of all about their comfort, assuming it as a condition for the birth of children? No, they just were spiritually healthier. That is why we have mastered the sixth part of the land, becoming related with all the indigenous peoples. Our ancestors gave birth to children not out of any conditions, but out of love! Because they could not do otherwise. Their lives were filled with a higher meaning, and not the consumption of goods, services and entertainment.

The roots lie in the spiritual dimension. After all, the most important reason for attitudes towards few or childlessness is the unwillingness to part with life "for oneself" and take responsibility for raising children. After all, it is much easier to lead a carefree life, getting the maximum pleasure out of life with a minimum of obligations. But this approach dishonors even marriage, turning it into legalized fornication.

The Russian proverb “if you love to ride - love to carry sledges” contains great wisdom. Do not deny yourself the pleasures - take on yourself and obligations. Enjoying marriage - where are your children?

But what are the advocates of "modern values" calling for? They only want to "ride". They are reluctant to "carry sledges". But let's think: if we just ride all the time and don't carry sleds, then this means only one thing: we're rolling down! Of course, all fake "human rights activists" will take up arms on this conclusion. However, another example can be cited.

When we eat food, our goal is to satisfy the body, i.e. satisfy the feeling of hunger. The pleasure that we get by enjoying the taste of food is optional and not at all necessary, because you can eat very simple food. Imagine now that we just want to enjoy the taste, switching to chips, chocolate, etc. What will happen to us? We will waste away and die. Our body won't take it. But why, then, the same thing can be done in marriage, enjoying the pleasures, but not replenishing the family? As in the case of food, the body withers, so in the case of marital relations, the soul withers. Is there a way out? It is very simple: if you love to ride, love to carry sledges.

Our main wealth is people. What is the point in the "standard of living" if the number of its owners is decreasing? What is the use of all temporary acquisitions if they are followed by quick losses? Why do we need all this, if in decades someone else's speech will sound on our land?

Realizing all this, we must strengthen our own responsibility. Our great mission is not only to preserve Russia, but also to pass it on to our descendants. And for this they, first of all, must be. This is our duty to God and the Fatherland!

See also important materials on the topic:

In fact, it turned out that the masses of peasants, having experienced all the hardships of Soviet economic policy (the fight against wealthy peasants and private property, the creation of collective farms, etc.), flocked to the cities in search of a better life. This, in turn, created there an acute shortage of free real estate, which is so necessary for the placement of the main support of power - the proletariat.

It was the workers who became the bulk of the population, which from the end of 1932 began to actively issue passports. The peasantry (with rare exceptions) did not have the right to them (until 1974!).

Along with the introduction of the passport system in large cities of the country, a cleanup was carried out from "illegal immigrants" who did not have documents, and therefore the right to be there. In addition to the peasants, all kinds of "anti-Soviet" and "declassed elements" were detained. These included speculators, vagabonds, beggars, beggars, prostitutes, former priests and other categories of the population not engaged in socially useful labor. Their property (if any) was requisitioned, and they themselves were sent to special settlements in Siberia, where they could work for the good of the state.

The country's leadership believed that it was killing two birds with one stone. On the one hand, it cleans the cities of alien and hostile elements, on the other hand, it populates the almost deserted Siberia.

The police officers and the OGPU state security service carried out passport raids so zealously that, without ceremony, they detained on the street even those who received passports, but did not have them in their hands at the time of the check. Among the "violators" could be a student on his way to visit relatives, or a bus driver who left home for cigarettes. Even the head of one of the Moscow police departments and both sons of the prosecutor of the city of Tomsk were arrested. The father managed to quickly rescue them, but not all of those taken by mistake had high-ranking relatives.

The "violators of the passport regime" were not satisfied with thorough checks. Almost immediately they were found guilty and prepared to be sent to labor settlements in the east of the country. A special tragedy of the situation was added by the fact that recidivist criminals who were subject to deportation in connection with the unloading of places of detention in the European part of the USSR were also sent to Siberia.

Death Isle

The sad story of one of the first parties of these forced migrants, known as the Nazinskaya tragedy, has become widely known.

More than six thousand people were disembarked in May 1933 from barges on a small deserted island on the Ob River near the village of Nazino in Siberia. It was supposed to become their temporary refuge while the issues with their new permanent residence in special settlements were being resolved, since they were not ready to accept such a large number of repressed.

The people were dressed in what the police had detained them in on the streets of Moscow and Leningrad (St. Petersburg). They did not have bedding or any tools to make a temporary home for themselves.

On the second day, the wind picked up, and then frost hit, which was soon replaced by rain. Defenseless against the vagaries of nature, the repressed could only sit in front of fires or wander around the island in search of bark and moss - no one took care of food for them. Only on the fourth day they were brought rye flour, which was distributed at several hundred grams per person. Having received these crumbs, people ran to the river, where they made flour in hats, footcloths, jackets and trousers in order to quickly eat this semblance of porridge.

The number of deaths among the special settlers was rapidly going into the hundreds. Hungry and frozen, they either fell asleep right by the fires and burned alive, or died of exhaustion. The number of victims also increased due to the brutality of some of the guards, who beat people with rifle butts. It was impossible to escape from the "island of death" - it was surrounded by machine-gun crews, who immediately shot those who tried.

Isle of Cannibals

The first cases of cannibalism on Nazinsky Island occurred already on the tenth day of the stay of the repressed there. The criminals who were among them crossed the line. Accustomed to surviving in harsh conditions, they formed gangs that terrorized the rest.

Residents of a nearby village became unwitting witnesses to the nightmare that was happening on the island. One peasant woman, who at that time was only thirteen years old, recalled how a beautiful young girl was courted by one of the guards: “When he left, people grabbed the girl, tied her to a tree and stabbed her to death, having eaten everything they could. They were hungry and hungry. Throughout the island, human flesh could be seen ripped, cut, and hung from trees. The meadows were littered with corpses."

"I chose those who are no longer alive, but not yet dead," a certain Uglov, accused of cannibalism, testified later during interrogations: So it will be easier for him to die … Now, right away, not to suffer for another two or three days."

Another resident of the village of Nazino, Theophila Bylina, recalled: “The deportees came to our apartment. Once an old woman from Death-Island also visited us. They drove her by stage … I saw that the old woman's calves were cut off on her legs. To my question, she replied: "It was cut off and fried for me on Death-Island." All the flesh on the calf was cut off. The legs were freezing from this, and the woman wrapped them in rags. She moved on her own. She looked old, but in reality she was in her early 40s."

A month later, hungry, sick and exhausted people, interrupted by rare tiny food rations, were evacuated from the island. However, the disasters for them did not end there. They continued to die in unprepared cold and damp barracks of Siberian special settlements, receiving a meager food there. In total, for the entire time of the long journey, out of six thousand people, just over two thousand survived.

Classified tragedy

No one outside the region would have known about the tragedy that had happened if it had not been for the initiative of Vasily Velichko, instructor of the Narym District Party Committee. He was sent to one of the special labor settlements in July 1933 to report on how the "declassed elements" are being successfully re-educated, but instead he completely immersed himself in the investigation of what had happened.

Based on the testimony of dozens of survivors, Velichko sent his detailed report to the Kremlin, where he provoked a violent reaction. A special commission that arrived in Nazino conducted a thorough investigation, finding 31 mass graves on the island with 50-70 corpses in each.

More than 80 special settlers and guards were brought to trial. 23 of them were sentenced to capital punishment for "looting and beating", 11 people were shot for cannibalism.

After the end of the investigation, the circumstances of the case were classified, as was the report of Vasily Velichko. He was removed from his position as instructor, but no further sanctions were taken against him. Having become a war correspondent, he went through the entire Second World War and wrote several novels about the socialist transformations in Siberia, but he never dared to write about the "island of death".

The general public learned about the Nazin tragedy only in the late 1980s, on the eve of the collapse of the Soviet Union.