Duty to race and Fatherland

Crafty slogan manipulators “do not need to produce poverty”

Big large family

Almost all the media promoted the installation that you need to strive for “quality of life” and “not to produce poverty”. It is better to have one child, but give it all and provide “a high standard of living” than the “spawn of poverty” (as I like to say liberal activists).
That is, under the guise of good intentions dragged subtext: give birth to fewer children. Of course, this conclusion disguises for the good wishes on the “high standard of living,” but he follows relentlessly. I will try to show below why this justification is no justification, and the ideological sabotage aimed at the destruction of the people.
At first glance, everything is quite logical: the more children, the less wealth accounts for each. But let’s think.
To determine the average income of a family, you need the total income divided by the number of family members. But from here it immediately follows that to improve the material situation of the family there are two ways:
1) to increase the total income;
2) not to increase the composition of the family (or even reduce, killing his own child in the womb).
So why have we been palmed off only the second way? The concern that we have not fallen into poverty? But for this you can just increase the family income. No, the first way on purpose “forgotten”, the emphasis is on the second way – the declining birth rate. And it already leads to certain conclusions.
First, if “quality of life” and children we are asked to choose “quality of life”, it means that money is more important than children.
Secondly, if we are asked not to make more money, and less to deliver, so it is clear on whose “standard of living” urge to worry. About their own skin!
Thirdly, as soon as is difficult way to increase earnings is promoted an easy way of refusal to have children, it means that we are trying to spread out from the inside. All these conclusions stem directly from the installation it is not necessary to produce poverty”.
Of course, in the present circumstances to say “earn more” is much easier said than done. The difficult financial situation of the family in any way is not reprehensible, because our salaries are still often left wanting more. But conscious reluctance of the parents (primarily of the family head) to lift a finger to boost earnings already worthy of at least bewilderment, especially when there are young children.
But here, still not worth it to judge anyone. The cases are different. Even if the family income is small, there is such a path, as a reduction of expenses on the parents themselves to give the child needed. And here is just shows the true nature of selfish liberal ideology. I don’t remember the liberals urged parents to reduce expenses in order to increase their children. To save yourself? Never! They call for one – “not to produce poverty”. Like, if parents are poor, then children will be very poor. However, we know that in poor families children (on average) more than the rich.
Besides, it is sufficient to look around to make sure that many of those who complain about the poor not so poor not to have children. The houses are often not get due to the vehicles that made to all yards. In shopping malls full of people. The leisure circuses crowd. While many complain about the “hard life”! Maybe it’s not the difficulty, but the fact that you don’t want to think about anyone but yourself? Those who indulged in “small worldly pleasures, but it is worth a little – or childlessness reluctance “to produce poverty”, painted only one thing: an unwillingness to deprive yourself, a loved one. It is selfishness. So the reason is not the potential misery of their children, and in his own selfishness.
Did our great-grandparents were financially richer than we are? Do they think primarily about your comfort, suggesting his condition for having children? No, just that they were spiritually healthier. That is why we have mastered the sixth part of the land, related to all indigenous peoples. Our ancestors were having children not out of some conditions, and for love! Because they couldn’t. Their life was filled with a higher meaning, not the consumption of goods, services and entertainment.
Look at Chechnya. Is there live in luxury? Meanwhile, if the rest of Russia overcame at least half of the “demographic lag” from Chechnya, the problem would be quickly solved. Of course, after that there will be other issues, such as youth employment, etc. But afraid of wolves – in the woods not to go. We suggest that it is the “fear of wolves” and be cowards.
We should follow the example of Chechnya, not in the sense to try to become Chechens or to adopt the Chechen culture (it’s useless, and bad for us), but we should follow the example of Chechnya in the sense that, looking at Chechnya, remember your own roots. Even 100 years ago our families had 5-7 kids. Yes, today, the acute problem of housing, which limits the birth rate. But except for two or three children want a mansion? Because so far, one woman has less than two children (1.7 in 2012). Of course, growth is observed, and it was good. But it should occur even faster.
The roots lie in the spiritual dimension. After all, the most important reason for installations on low – or childlessness – the unwillingness to part with life for themselves and to take responsibility for the upbringing of children. After all, much easier to live a careless life, getting the maximum from life pleasures with a minimum of obligations. But such an approach dishonors even marriage, turning it into a legalized fornication.
Russian proverb “love to ride – love and sleigh to haul” contains great wisdom. Do not deny yourself the pleasure – take and commitment. Enjoy marriage – where are your kids?
But what apologists call “modern values”? They only want to skate”. “To carry the sleigh” they don’t want. But let’s think: if we just ride, and the sled does not carry, it means only one thing: we’re rolling down! Of course, this conclusion holds all the fake “human rights”. However, you can give another example.
When we eat food, our goal is to saturate the body, i.e. to satisfy hunger. The pleasure of enjoying the taste of food is optional and not mandatory, because you can eat very simple food. Imagine now that we want only enjoy the taste, clicking on crisps, chocolate and the most exquisite wines. What would happen to us? We zachahnem and die. Our body will not stand. But why then the same can be done in the marriage, enjoying the pleasures, but not adding to the family? As in the case of food, the body decays, so in the case of conjugal relations withers the soul. Is there a way out? It is very simple: love to ride – love and sleigh to haul.
Our main wealth is people. What is the meaning of “standard of living” if the number of holders is reduced? What’s the point in all the time, if they will be followed by the imminent loss? Why do we all, if through the decades in our land will sound alien to it?
Aware of all this, we must strengthen self-responsibility. Our great mission is not only to save Russia, but also to pass it on to our descendants. And for that first of all they should be. This is our duty before kin and country!

Translated by Yandex Translate