Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Cultural Survival

Russians want Russia to not only survive, but to grow and prosper. They recognize the demographic problem that is facing non-Islamic societies, and are rewarding people for having babies. Talk about pro-family.

Of course, Russians can thank Communism for crushing the human spirit to such a degree that people found it too burdensome to reproduce. Let's hope that these actions are not too little, too late. I loved this quote from the winner from last year:

"Andrei Kartuzov, who won the last "make a baby" grand prize along with his wife, Irina, said they had been planning to have another child anyway.

The campaign "is a good help for people, especially for those living in villages," he said. "If they hold such actions every year, then maybe we will have (more children) growing up and Russia will be bigger."

And isn't that the idea, really? To make our respective nations "bigger" - more powerful, thriving and successful?

Western Europe, of course, is going through the same problems. The question is: do they have the will to fight for cultural survival?


Pat said...

Mike -

Long-time listener, first time caller, so to speak :-)

Very interesting article, and thought provoking. Here are a couple:

-While I generally appreciate nationalism, I can't say I'd be gung-ho about a country (that is still just a hop, skip, & jump removed from being the world's Communist/socialist superpower) financially rewarding people for having babies. For one, where exactly did they get the money to fund these rewards, cars, etc.? Probably taxes they took from these very citizens competing for this 'reward'. I can't say I'd be too happy if that happened here. Additionally, a major criticism of the United States welfare system has been that in some cases, it essentially rewards some women for having more kids. While the motivations may be different, I think the overall theme still applies, that governments should not be pro-actively 'rewarding' people for non-illegal behavior, especially when that 'reward' is a redistribution of wealth.

-This may get a bit more philospohical than I care to get into, but is 'bigger' necessarily 'better'? I had a teacher in college who I absolutely hated, but the one worthwhile thing he said (mind you this was an operations & supply chain management course) is that "Bigger does not mean better...better means better." Does a country with apparent economic problems like Russia really need to proactively encourage aggressive reproduction in the hopes it will spur economic/social/political growth? Or might it be a better idea to work towards improving economic/social/political conditions, and thus implicitly encourage people to reproduce at a greater rate once the country's infrastructure is better equipped to handle such a growth spurt?

I'm back off to DaBearsBlog where I belong, as today's news merits some attention.

Michael Tams said...


Good line.

Non-Muslim countries, particularly ex-Soviet bloc and all of Western Europe, are facing extinction, to some degree. There are lots of reasons for this, not the least of which is liberalism. Spain, for example, has a birth rate of 1.1 children per woman - and while I can't recall Russia's, it is approximately that much. The replacement rate - so that the population stays constant - is 2.11 children per woman. Spain's population, as an example, will halve every 35 years. By the time you're middle aged, today's 20 million Spaniards will have become 10 million.

I blame liberalism, for it has taken normal feelings of affection for things like church, family and community and tried to make the state the dominant force in people's lives. Is abortion, that sacred "right" that liberals have fought so hard to enshrine, also to blame? Absolutely.

This isn't out of some bleeding heart love I have for the Europeans or the Russians. If it were merely liberals dying off, well, call me cold, but I wouldn't lose a whole lot of sleep over it.

I do, however, want the Russians (and yes, the Europeans) having babies because they happen to have stockpiles of very dangerous weapons. And if the immigrants from the middle east and North Africa (and central Asia, in the Russkies case) move into the homes and jobs and seats of power once occupied by misguided (yet effectively harmless) euroliberals, we've got a major problem on our hands.

For the record, I am completely convinced that we're in a struggle for existence with an irreconcilable enemy. Typical Muslim birthrates? They're in the 4-5 range, and sometimes higher. Also for the record, I would have no problem with "the government" providing incentives for having kids (candidly, they do already). Should I have to choose between ensuring the survival of traditional America and my concern for eliminating entitlements, I'm going with survival - we'll beat each other up over welfare once we're not being threatened with conversion or death. Much in the same way that when it comes to the dilemma between protecting civil rights and not being killed, I'm for erring on the side of identifying and eradicating the enemy; even if, as Michael Savage says, it meant internment camps.

And no, bigger is not better, but I'm guessing the Russkie who was being interviewed wasn't a) probably the brightest bulb around and b) might have lost a little something in translation.

As I've mentioned before, America Alone by Mark Steyn is beyond a necessary read. Get your hands on a copy or I'll buy it for you.

(as far as threats go, that's pretty lame. I know. I'll do better next time.)


Terry Morris said...

Pat, you belong here. I appreciate the, umm, da bears blog and all that, but this is where it's at, Pat. And you lay down some interesting thoughts.

BTW, did anyone see the Sooners put the thumpin' to them Miami Hurricans last Saturday?


Tanstaafl said...

I think the bigger problem is the Third World population explosion combined with the policies of our self-destructive elites that let them flood into the West.

The only people whom Western zero or negative population growth really scares are the ones who have a vested interest in the pyramid scheme Western economics has become. The rest of us I think would enjoy less crowding.

Michael Tams said...


Thanks for the comments.

Actually, I might beg to differ on your last point. The nihilists of the Left don't care - their mantra could be "as long as I'm getting mine."

Like I said, if it were merely a case of a lot fewer lefties, I don't think I'd mind so much. To echo your first point, self-destructive is the best description for it.