Military Review

Sergey Mikheev: “I am against the freedom to die”

26
Sergey Mikheev: “I am against the freedom to die”Famous Russian political scientist and publicist analyzes the reasons for our demographic failures.


- Sergey Alexandrovich, back in 2005, our experts prepared a report with data on the damage that the depopulation causes to the country's economy. Since the 60-s of the last century, the Russian population has ceased to replicate itself. In the middle of 2000, the country lost annually at least 750 thousands of people. Experts predict that if this situation persists, every 50 years the number of indigenous people in the country will decrease by 30 percent. But we were told that measures to improve the demographic situation led to the fact that in 2012, there were thousands more people on 300 - for the first time since Soviet times. Statistics draws almost a rosy picture, but after all, migration contributes to population growth. If in 2011, more than 250 of thousands of foreigners settled in the country, then in 2012 - more than 270 of thousands ...

- Unfortunately, the trend is obvious, and we cannot yet reverse it. Apparently, today we are talking about tactical successes, but not a strategic victory. For example, Secretary of the Security Council Nikolay Patrushev confirmed in September 2011 of the year: the working-age population from 2011 to 2025 will decrease by at least 10 million people. As he said, "the reserves for raising the level of economic activity in the young and the older are virtually exhausted."

The vector remains the same: the population is decreasing, respectively - and the number of those who can work for the benefit of our economy. In the coming years, we will come across this more than once and, of course, we will begin to try to find a way out of the situation. But we must bear in mind that this tendency can hardly be reversed within three to four years, because it has been forming for a long time. The reasons for its occurrence are many, and they are very different.

- It seems we got into a vicious circle. In order for the gloomy forecasts to not come true, it is necessary to develop the economy - specifically in the sense of increasing the level of people's welfare. For the development of the economy people are not enough. Studies from 1960 to 2000 year in 100 countries of the world have shown that a one-year increase in life expectancy gives an increase in gross domestic product by 4 percent. As Health Minister Veronika Skvortsova said, if the state program is implemented, then the life expectancy increased to 74,3 years will bring the growth of GDP by 20 percent! Then we shall live - but when?

- About “we will live” - I don’t know, I don’t want to encourage readers. We are dealing with a kind of psychological trap. People want to live well in perspective, but no one today is particularly eager to do something to achieve this goal. Including - those who are called "ordinary citizens." I want to live without worries, but I don’t want to give birth to children and work. Therefore, we are waiting for a well-fed and comfortable, long and not very burdensome life to fall on us. And, of course, healthy.

Maybe that was how they lived in ancient Rome: if you were born in a family of a slaveholder, then you have a huge estate and crowds of people who work for you while you indulge in idleness.

- Well, why only in ancient Rome, our newspapers have calculated how many billions will be inherited by the children of oligarchs. It is difficult to say whether they want, having received this money, as they say, work hard.

- This is what became the main dream of our population: to get somewhere a billion and do nothing. But let's honestly admit that this is impossible. The Americans are trying to realize themselves in the role of world slave owner, but for us it doesn’t shine.

Back to the real economy and demography. We should understand why and why population growth is necessary, for which we so advocate. Just to make the people bigger? A strange goal, but it is it that gives rise to the desire to pump Russia with migrants. Well, why do we need all this? Suppose we transport all of Central Asia to ourselves, then all of Africa. Then we will disappear, as such, we will turn into yet another Central Asia. What is the great meaning here? Primitive population growth for growth cannot be a strategic task. The true goal should be the reproduction of the original authentic civilization, historical the basis of which is nevertheless Slavic and is based on the foundation of Orthodox culture.

When we talk about the fact that we need the growth of the working-age population at any cost, we do it based on the interests and logic of the business. And in this case, the easiest and cheapest way to solve the demographic problem is indeed the massive recruitment of migrants. And if you call a spade a spade - replacing one population with another for the sake of solving specific business problems. If we consider ourselves not as a civilization, but as a kind of business project, then really, we need more people - no matter what. It is desirable - one who needs to pay little and who will not ask for anything. “End” Central Asia - we will take the starving Negroes from Somalia, for example. They generally can work for stew. That is, from the point of view of business, they are even better than the indigenous population several times. But this logic is suicidal, it is pointless to simply “fill” Russia with a people in order to produce more. The state and society do not exist in order to minimize costs and maximize business profits. Practice shows that this does not give any positive effect for society as a whole.

Moreover, even from the point of view of the economy, it is obvious that the number of the population does not automatically translate into its quality. Much is said about the modernization of the economy. But with whom and how to modernize it? With millions of uneducated migrants who sometimes speak their native language with difficulty? After all, this is a question of the quality of the future that awaits us. For another life, another economy is required. Creating quality living conditions requires not a huge army of unskilled workers, but the development of new sectors of the economy. But a technological breakthrough in the current Russian conditions is possible mainly on the basis of the indigenous population.

And here it is necessary to recognize something else: civilizational reproduction rests on the birth rate of the indigenous population. But it, unfortunately, does not want to give birth. I speak about Russians, about Slavs, who, alas, for many years are subject to a number of social diseases. Some of them are artificially stimulated by interested people and organizations, but another part of the disease objectively exists.

In general, the decline in the birth rate throughout the world is associated with the destruction of the traditional society. In our country, this destruction systematically began in 1917, but inertia persisted for a rather long time. After the war, the demographic “pit” associated with huge losses, in my opinion, was stratified on the intensive destruction of traditional consciousness and the gradual departure from the life of that generation, which still remembered the foundations of the traditional family. That is why the trend of declining birth rates began to appear especially clearly in the early sixties. Including, I link its occurrence with the notorious "sixties", all the so-called "thaws". Because the Western system of values, in which individual self-realization is much higher than traditional foundations, began to be introduced into consciousness. The family began to lose value as such, and to the forefront came the endless self-reflection, digging into oneself, the growth of individual ambitions and the desire to look like something special in life. All sorts of "lyricists" and "physicists" began to argue about something very abstruse, and at the same time the level of divorces began to grow unprecedentedly, which already in 70-s was even perceived as a threat by the authorities. In addition, by this time the family had already forgotten about the pre-revolutionary, Christian tradition of the family, as the people of that generation passed away, and the Soviet ideology began to falter and lose internal energy. The emergence of emptiness was inevitably compensated by the growth of selfishness, heightened demands for life, lower levels of tolerance, various individual “searches” and so on. In general, another “devastation” began in our heads. The family institute began to rapidly deteriorate. Even official Soviet statistics clearly shows this. Incomplete families, abandoned children, All-Union search for alimony employees - all this has become commonplace. The family began to lose its value, it became “uninteresting” to give birth to children, because they interfered, as they say, with self-realization. Well, parenting, as you know, requires a lot of effort and hassle, and even self-restraint, and the main interest in life has been getting pleasure. So the process did not begin in the nineties, when the Soviet Union collapsed, but much earlier. The wave of growth of divorces occurred in the seventies: young people, formed in the conditions of "thaw", entered the period of the creation of families. And their negative example has become a vicious "science" for the next generations.

In the nineties, with the disappearance of the USSR, the tendency radically increased, we completely and without restraint began to adopt the Western fashion, which dictated that personal well-being and freedom is more important than anything else. And the cruel crisis in all spheres of life and the almost complete refusal of the state from its social obligations only aggravated the collapse of the family institution.

- This is about hedonism?

- Exactly. Personal pleasure and personal consumption is more important than family, more important than personal responsibility, the state, society, and everything else. Above all - me. It is my needs that are the measure of what is right and what is wrong. The rest is secondary. Under these conditions, any social responsibility is recognized as a relic. Including family. This remnant prevents self-realization, well, if so, then it must be abandoned. Children? Give up. Family? And from her too. Patriotism? Yes, do not make me laugh. Duty to the state? Come on, what are you talking about. Roughly speaking, my desire and I are the main goal of everything.

Unfortunately, this phenomenon has penetrated very deeply and has long been massive in our society. We are ready to offer ourselves a lot of excuses for which they do not intend to have children. Most often they are contrived, for example, they declare to you that “they do not want to produce poverty”. Sorry, you have money for a trip to Turkey or Egypt, but not for children? In order not to get out of nightclubs, there are funds, but not for raising children? Enough for a car - not enough for children? In the end, millions of people regularly spend money on vodka and other dubious addictions, but not on children.

When they say that there is not enough money, you need to understand these words like this: “I don’t want to limit myself and my pleasures for the sake of children”. But since it’s still inconvenient to state this directly and openly - everyone wants to consider himself right and good - they are beginning to blame everything on external circumstances. The most popular culprit is a state that "does not create the conditions." But does the state have to help with everything and everywhere, as they say, wipe the snot with a handkerchief? Look at other countries with traditional families: there that, everyone is showered with money according to the principle of take - I do not want? Not at all.

Let me remind you of one case in which everything mixed up: the desire to have fun, the presence of a car, money, absolute irresponsibility - and the child left in the care of the mother. So, last fall in the center of Moscow, a drunk girl on a Mercedes made an accident, because of her fault, not only were several cars broken, but the motorcyclist lost his leg. In the capital, there are a lot of traffic accidents, but this one has interested everyone. After all, the culprit of the 21 accident of the year confessed that she had gotten behind the wheel of a drunk because her mother had called her and asked her to come to the sick one and a half year old daughter immediately. The girl behind the wheel in the blood found 1,23 ppm, which corresponds to about 150-200 grams of vodka. Further more. She asked to be released on her own recognizance and offered a pledge of 500 thousand rubles. She later admitted that she had never learned to drive herself, but had given her the “rights”. On the eve of the collision, she left a note on her page on the social network: “I want something like this tomorrow, so that it’s all right!”. Officially, she was unemployed, she drove an expensive car by proxy received from a businessman. Need to add something? What conditions should the state create for this woman to react responsibly to raising her own child and to the lives of people around her?

- I remember how I raised my children in Soviet times. I was looking for a pram, there weren't all these diapers, as there were no children's medicines. Now - all in stores and pharmacies. So raising children today is easier in some respects, you see.

- Yes, now there are more opportunities for this. But the question is in social attitudes. They are primitive: I do not want to strain, I want to be forever young, that is, to constantly have fun. Naturally, children have fun interfere. Even those who still start a family do not want to change their way of life, but try all their lives to “goat”, remaining eternal teenagers. This ideological setting is the root of Russia's demographic problem. The remaining problems are only derivatives. The destruction of the traditional consciousness was the cause of small children and childlessness.

I take the risk of running into the rebuff of the Soviet patriots, but I will say: it was the model of that time that consciously, actively and systematically destroyed the traditional family in Russia. Look at the orgy of the twenties - the family at that time is called a relic. About the sixties, I have already said above.

Then they realized it and tried to at least partially return to our traditions, the Soviet system began to promote the thesis “Family is the cell of society”. He was not born of a good life, in that period when it became clear: the collapse of a family can lead to irreparable consequences. They counted - they shed tears, and began to support the family. Social support in the late Soviet Union was really tangible, but she could not correct the situation.

In general, in my opinion, it was revolutionaries and their followers who voluntarily or unwittingly became the bearers of radical liberal, frankly pro-Western ideas in the sphere of social relations, being followers of one of the western philosophical doctrines. Having destroyed traditional Russia, this infection began to slowly eat and the Soviet organism itself, in order to subsequently explode in an explosive manner in the nineties.

The collapse of the USSR in the nineties completely brought down all social policy. Of course, family people began to live much harder than non-family, the material difficulties were enormous. Now we are trying to build a new model in the field of family support, but so far we have only a part of what existed in Soviet times. Although, as I said, the Soviet model could not overcome the negative trends.

Nevertheless, the main problem should be considered ideological. In pre-revolutionary Russia, there were no kindergartens or pioneer camps — and in families 10-12 children grew up. And today, three or four are considered a feat. In fact, this is the minimum necessary for reproduction. But it seems to us that this is very, very much ...

- One of the Western ideas that sprouted on Russian land is the “child free” movement, uniting people who voluntarily chose childlessness. They claim that the roots of the movement are in a high standard of living and education, which makes people want to live for themselves. It turns out, the better it lives, the faster we die out?

- It is necessary to look deeper, and to do this using the Internet is very easy. In fact, the founder of this ideology was an American, Margaret Sanger, who created a new model of genocide, as many experts believe. She propagated the rejection of childbearing, and her success was assessed in 1925 by the Rockefeller Foundation, who began to sponsor the American Birth Control League. In 1934, Sanger published a draft law designed to “stop the overproduction of children.” Today, they are trying to assure us that the absence of children is the privilege of a “developed” society, to which Russia belongs with its “creative class”. This is how they cover up frank calls for hedonism. At the same time they explain that the less there are consumers in Russia, the thicker will be the chowder of the rest. Not only the citizens of our country.

- So what is family and children in the Russian mentality?

- The problem is that today I do not understand what the modern Russian mentality is. It is extremely blurred, I will say simply: Russians are gradually dying out. And they do it, first of all, on their own. This threatens the disappearance of Russian civilization as such. I will disappoint readers who are constantly looking for the perpetrators on the side - this is primarily a matter of the Russians themselves. Yes, there are dark forces that angrily oppress us - both inside the country and abroad. But the question is Hamlet’s, “is it worthy of being humbled under the blows of fate, or should we resist?” I’m sure: we must resist, but we don’t want to do that. For the most part - again I repeat, unfortunately - Russians today are looking for reasons to do nothing. Even those who loudly declare that he has some kind of active life position, as, for example, nationalists. They are ready to fight with anyone, but, roughly speaking, do not intend to make any effort to give birth and raise five or six Russian children. They prefer to go to gatherings of radicals, attend fan stands at football matches, cover themselves with English-language tattoos, or even have their faces stuffed - and at the same time imitate real Russian patriots. Here you go, and bring up five Russian children, this is an act! No, they answer, we do not want to do this. We will be drinking beer, waving scarves, yelling in a bad voice, establishing some secret societies of “sword and screaming”. I assert: everyone who prefers it to create a normal, Russian, large family is, in fact, the main enemy of the Russian people.

Moreover, how many Russian women - with the sanction of Russian peasants - kill their Russian children in the womb, making abortions! If the number of abortions among us had been reduced by at least twice - I don’t even say that they disappear altogether - we would get a powerful increase in population. But - no, we will not do it. I myself consider myself a moderate nationalist, however, when I hear some moans and cries of people who consider themselves nationalists, I ask: “Have your women ever performed abortions?”. If you did, and you supported it, then you are the killers of the Russian people. And no need to look for anyone else - just look in the mirror.

I tell them: “Think about the fact that every year Russian women, together with Russian men, kill a million Russian children!”. Do everything to reduce abortions - and you will see such an increase in the Russian population that you never dreamed of.

At the same time, of course, there are “dark forces” that are completely uninterested in us growing. They promote abortion, introduce an unhealthy lifestyle, stimulate drinking and promote hedonism. This is not only "Westerners", they are among our fellow citizens, including those with positions.

But let's remember that a person always has the freedom of choice: if you accept all this, then do not blame the evil uncles who do not allow you to live a normal life. For example, Vladimir Medinsky released a book that Russian drunkenness is a kind of myth. Yes, the tales of age-old Russian drunkenness - a lie. But the current situation is simply catastrophic, the level of drunkenness is overwhelming, it is being promoted at every turn - see the so-called entertainment or humorous programs. All around drunkenness, I'm not talking about the fact that everything is "below the belt." The idea that it is interesting to be drunk, fun and fashionable is being introduced, drinking will provide you with a bright, cheerful and carefree life. And even a relatively sober lifestyle - boredom, this is for “suckers”, for fools, real cheerful guys are obliged to be drunk and commit idiotic, sometimes suicidal acts. And in this, almost the meaning of life. Then we are horrified by the statistics of drunken accidents and murders. The question is in a conscious choice. Today, no one can force you to get drunk against your will, have an abortion, throw your children, forget your parents, and so on. Therefore, no need to blame on external circumstances - we do all this ourselves, on our own free will and completely consciously. Absolutely consciously we kill both ourselves and our future. And no new revolutions, to which we are periodically called, will not be able to change the state of affairs unless we ourselves decide to change.

- To sum up, what should be the first and most important step in solving a demographic problem?

- We must look at yourself. Understand that no one will provide you with a “dolce vita”. Say, people from central Russia have a lot of valid claims to people from the Caucasus. But, forgive me, in spite of the fact that life, for example, in Dagestan or Ingushetia is far from sugar, local residents of children give birth, not kill. Therefore, they become more. So what are we waiting for? How do we plan to increase the number of Russian population in our country? Words, and again words ... All these illusions are reminiscent of schizophrenic ravings, he kills his children - but at the same time wants more Russians. This will never happen - as long as we continue to live as we live now. Moreover, we are doomed to historical defeat. As they say, the clock is ticking, but no one wants to hear this, everyone is talking loudly about the need to "improve and deepen." And everyone lacks the notorious freedom. I want to ask - why do you all need freedom? In order to die faster? I am against the freedom to die. And I hope that I have like-minded people.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.stoletie.ru/
26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lech from ZATULINKI
    Lech from ZATULINKI 18 June 2013 08: 03 New
    +6
    all the distortions in the demographic policy of past years, including the destructive policy in relation to their own PEOPLE Gorbachev and YELTSIN, are reflected.
    Perestroika and the 1990s can be compared with the Hitler invasion in their consequences.
    The mass of the people was dying from all these liberal reforms.
    God forbid LIVING IN AN ERA OF CHANGE.
    I see the only way out in material incentives for OUR WOMEN AND MEN to increase the birth rate of the indigenous population - the current maternal capital is insufficient and small by current standards.
    1. cartridge
      cartridge 18 June 2013 08: 10 New
      12
      We are dealing with a kind of psychological trap. People want to live well in the future, but nobody today is especially eager to do something to achieve this goal. Including those who are called "ordinary citizens."


      Personal pleasure and personal consumption are more important than family, more important than personal responsibility, the state, society, and everything else. Above all, I am.


      Correctly Mikheev says. Hence the demographic problems, and problems with the manning of the army, and the lack of the necessary number of workers for the factories.
      I don’t know how to solve this problem correctly and in science, but I think that if you prohibit nightclubs nationwide, introduce the death penalty for drug trafficking and censorship remove vulgarity, debauchery and violence from the media, primarily from TV, then a noticeable improvement The situation will be visible with the naked eye.
      1. baltika-18
        baltika-18 18 June 2013 08: 58 New
        +3
        Quote: cartridge
        I don’t know how to solve this problem correctly and in science, but I think that if you prohibit nightclubs nationwide, introduce the death penalty for drug trafficking and censorship remove vulgarity, debauchery and violence from the media, primarily from TV, then a noticeable improvement The situation will be visible with the naked eye.

        But this will probably be a science.
        1. sergey32
          sergey32 18 June 2013 09: 35 New
          +3
          It can be solved both in science and in common sense. Already discussed this on the site, but certainly this is an almost complete ban on abortion, with the exception of honey. testimony. It would be nice to return a tax on childlessness as in the USSR, and substantial, which would go only to support families with children. Only you have to pay it somewhere from 25 years, so that there are no kinks as before. I got my first salary in 14 years, when all summer I poured concrete in a team with men. I hear men laugh, "Serge, look, you counted the" eggs "too."
          Reducing the sale of vodka and cigarettes, for the sale of surrogates prison.
          Change in urban policy. Reducing the construction of apartment buildings, the emphasis on individual houses. In small apartments, no one will create large families.
          I would also send part of the children's pension contributions to the payment of some part of the pension to their parents. The more children you have, the more they earn, the easier it will be for you in old age. Also an incentive.
          But in general, one should correctly orient one's children in life that three of four are the norm.
          1. Commissar of the NKVD
            Commissar of the NKVD 21 June 2013 12: 59 New
            0
            Quote: sergey32
            a complete ban on abortion,

            Today in our country this will lead to even more dire consequences: in the worst case, the number of murders of newborn children by mothers will increase sharply, at best, the number of orphans will increase. Their last, and so rolls over all conceivable limits.
            Quote: sergey32
            It would be nice to return a tax on childlessness as in the USSR

            That is, a childless woman gave a bum, gave birth to a moron and raises him at state expense. and you don’t touch her, she’s the mother! and even in the orphanage passed. And you won’t take tax from her, she gave birth!
      2. Vasya Ivanov
        Vasya Ivanov 18 June 2013 10: 16 New
        0
        The Federal Migration Service hides the demographic issue by importing migrants. Moreover, many were tried, many are members of radical sects, this is a bomb with a delay. We trash this topic all the time, but things are still there. And one can talk endlessly about raising the birth rate, unemployment, kindergartens, housing issues, paid education and medicine, family values ​​are the secret of the crisis in demography.
        1. DEfindER
          DEfindER 18 June 2013 11: 27 New
          +4
          Quote: Vasya Ivanov
          And one can talk endlessly about raising the birth rate, unemployment, kindergartens, housing issues, paid education and medicine, family values ​​are the secret of the crisis in demography.

          I agree that it is not maternal capital that stimulates fertility, but the availability of housing, medicine, education, when the state takes custody of a person from his very birth to the end of his life, as it was in the Union. And by the way, the article talks about the demographic crisis in the 60s due to the party’s wrong policy, but in general in the 60s the demographic pit of war just approached when families born in the war were to create, and there were very few of them. And after this pit (after the 63rd year) there was a surge in the birth rate and the population of the USSR grew up to the 88th year, Family values ​​in the USSR were at the highest level, I saw it myself and I know! The author is either mistaken or intentionally hides the facts.
          1. 755962
            755962 18 June 2013 13: 04 New
            +4
            In a large family, children feel safe, as surrounded by rocks, in a quiet and comfortable harbor, protected. And, growing up, they themselves become such rocks for their children. We need to learn wisdom from our ancestors. And the Orthodox faith, voluntarily accepted by them, must also be returned to their families with Russian traditions - sobriety, truthfulness, industriousness, kindness

            Families were big in Russia. Infanticide is a terrible sin. "Get rid of the conceived - not get rid of the dead"
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. domokl
    domokl 18 June 2013 08: 15 New
    +1
    In principle, everything is true. But this interview is perceived as a slogan. Let’s give birth ... Come on, only young people don’t have an apartment, there is no confidence in the future. This is probably the main thing.
    1. Hleb
      Hleb 18 June 2013 09: 18 New
      +1
      This is probably the main thing.
      in Russia, the peasantry has always lived in poverty and gave birth. in the Caucasus, for some reason, they continue to give birth to three, four children (although the trend is there), they are more confident in tomorrow: are they better off with apartments? the same Germany why stopped giving birth?
      in Chechnya, the peak of birth rates fell on the second war ...
      1. optimist
        optimist 18 June 2013 14: 44 New
        +1
        Dear Gleb! You would have remembered ancient Greece. And as for the peasants, I can tell you why they gave birth a lot. Lack of pensions, once; lack of medical care and terrible infant mortality, two; lack of contraception, -Three; religious factor, four; the need for a large number of workers in subsistence farming, five! Now about the current Caucasus. Have you wondered who they give birth to? Dumb animals with the psychology of bandits. And I don’t want my children to be like Mowgli. And in order for a modern child to grow up smart, healthy and developed, you need VERY VERY much money.
  4. Komodo
    Komodo 18 June 2013 08: 17 New
    +1
    Drunkenness, abortion, demographic failures are just a consequence.
    And the reasons for the demographic failures will be explained to you by E. Fedorov.
  5. Dimy4
    Dimy4 18 June 2013 08: 17 New
    +3
    Already in the 80s, giving birth to more than one child, at least in large cities, was difficult for parents, then gradually grew into unfashionable. The author correctly pointed out that current families, especially those who live without official marriage, want to be forever young. But the understanding that time ruthlessly comes late. And how sad it is to talk about this a large number of girls at school age having gone through an abortion after their very first pregnancy can not then conceive a child. I have a living example before my eyes - my niece has been without children for about 30 years, at first I didn’t want to, now she doesn’t succeed.
  6. My address
    My address 18 June 2013 08: 20 New
    0
    I do not agree. If the state wishes, much will be done. But the desire is only declared. Where a sufficient number of gardens? Why do not financially stimulate the girl / woman to minimally depend on the man in terms of family? Why not introduce income tax? Where are the benefits to the enterprise for the birth of its employees?

    Yes, just turn to forum users, there will be so many practical advice!
    1. Lech from ZATULINKI
      Lech from ZATULINKI 18 June 2013 08: 25 New
      +5
      Yes, you are right at the current stage it is more profitable for the KREMLIN to push a ton of money to OFFICIALS from Chechnya, DAGESTAN, or to SOCHIN EPOCHAL SPORTS CONSTRUCTIONS.
      But to invest in an ordinary RUSSIAN FAMILY, they are reluctant or unable to do so somehow not according to the state.
  7. krasin
    krasin 18 June 2013 08: 27 New
    -1
    Yes, the tales of centuries-old Russian drunkenness - a lie

    I agree, to blame everything on drunkenness has become a habit.
    Benefits of large families, maternity capital, but there is no sense. Uncertainty in the future - in my opinion, this factor affects fertility. In the USSR they lived poorer, but there was confidence, and there was a birth rate.
    Under the current government, when thieves from the state are ousted, the CIA officers are sitting in the government, they are pulling the budget out of the bins. -The president seems to want to fix something. And if something happens, you understand me (God forbid), and it started like a new life- revolution. Until Putin takes the cockroaches out of the Kremlin and the regions will not be calm to the people, and therefore confidence in the future.
  8. fenix57
    fenix57 18 June 2013 08: 33 New
    +4
    Hello! Disruption!, A small salary! I foresee everything against. Yes, Caucasians and Central Asians give birth, but do not forget that they live, you can tell the commune, all in a crowd. Wait for Russian help, only from a few relatives! From the state this is not help but a mockery! Before giving birth, it is necessary to take out the unborn child under the supervision of a doctor, a lack of antenatal clinics; gave birth to a problem-nursery, kindergarten ... etc., etc. It is easy to shout: “BORN,” she gave birth and the young family remains alone, and the state is on the sidelines. hi
  9. Yura
    Yura 18 June 2013 08: 37 New
    0
    To begin with, for families with three children or more, the state should make a gift in the form of four or more room apartments (here I mean the parents who gave birth to their children) and always do this when the third and subsequent children appear in the families. Further: to the mothers of these children until they reach the age of eighteen, care for them should be counted in the length of service and pay accordingly wages.
    1. sapsan14
      sapsan14 18 June 2013 09: 16 New
      13
      Three children. For twenty years - no help from the state. Raised, educated. I am sure that they will be real Russian people. Apartments, money, kindergartens, schools, institutes - all this is good, it is very necessary, but from the evil one. The conception, birth, parenting is not affected.
      1. Hleb
        Hleb 18 June 2013 09: 43 New
        +4
        right. "procreation" comes from the origins of life on earth. and exchange this instinct for material values ​​and even more so justify it as a sin
      2. sergey32
        sergey32 18 June 2013 09: 50 New
        +1
        I agree with you, penny benefits are far from the main thing. I have four, tomorrow at the eldest daughter of graduation, they will give a gold medal. My wife says to me, I won’t go to the graduation party, come on, all the mothers there will be completely embarrassed, they will take very strong children or children of wealthy parents and officials to the lyceum. He says I don’t want to look pale against their background.
      3. Commissar of the NKVD
        Commissar of the NKVD 21 June 2013 13: 06 New
        0
        Quote: sapsan14
        The conception, birth, parenting is not affected.

        Yes, it does not affect conception and birth. And try to raise a normal child when the wind blows in your pocket! You will not be up to education, but before you feed him, what to wear, how to learn in a paid education. You will not tear! In the 90s this has already passed. How many “street children” have we received in this way, is it not necessary to speak?
    2. Semurg
      Semurg 18 June 2013 09: 58 New
      +5
      Quote: Jura
      To begin with, for families with three children or more, the state should make a gift in the form of four or more room apartments (here I mean the parents who gave birth to their children) and always do this when the third and subsequent children appear in the families. Further: to the mothers of these children until they reach the age of eighteen, care for them should be counted in the length of service and pay accordingly wages.

      In fact, today, for the most part, large citizens of not the titular nation, then all that is listed above will be for them and they will give birth even more. can’t do it. The nature in women is laid to give birth, but in the heads of the program failure this is what needs to be treated, and the men are attached to the women and children (although the women have pretended that we are superior in this matter).
      1. Yura
        Yura 18 June 2013 12: 26 New
        +2
        Quote: Semurg
        In fact, today, large children are mainly citizens of a non-titular nation,

        Well, this can be solved, the birth rate of indigenous nationalities living in Russia can be stimulated, and even ethnic groups with a demographic situation of seams can be selected from them. Well, as for the salary of mothers, this is not a benefit, if it is possible to put it this way, the state’s launch of part of its funds into circulation. After all, any mother having received this money today, tomorrow will spend it in the store, having bought everything necessary for the children. It turns out that with its purchasing demand it stimulates the turnover of trade, those in turn are industry. And if we understand that the state in the form of various taxes from the entire turnover has about half, then in three months this money will be returned to the state. The same picture emerges with apartments, only money will be returned to the state later. Well, regarding the comments of Sapsan14, Gleb, Sergey 32, I am happy for them and proud of such people. I have two children, now three grandchildren, and I also didn’t get a dime from our state, there were cases when enterprises didn’t pay the money that I earned and again, our state didn’t help at that moment, not only me but also those with whom he worked, but they broke down as best they could and how they could, someone could not stand getting sick and left, someone drank too much, many of whom I thought about my children and now my normal strong people have unlearned, my son has served in the Army (two more years) now they work, and they with my grandchildren are my joy. And yet, if our state does not do anything at all, then our great-grandchildren will be everyone else but only non-Russians, Tatars, Chuvashs, Bashkirs, Chukchi and other peoples who inhabit our country.
  10. bubla5
    bubla5 18 June 2013 08: 48 New
    +1
    We do not need to take an example from the Americans, this sick nation will soon destroy itself and die out, we must have all our ideas, life positions, idiology, and most importantly make the family at the head of everything.
  11. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 18 June 2013 09: 38 New
    +8
    In the USSR, I would still raise the birth rate, but in modern Russia, I will not risk it ...
    Yes, and age already ...
    1. Commissar of the NKVD
      Commissar of the NKVD 21 June 2013 13: 09 New
      0
      It doesn’t matter how old the peasant is, the main thing is that the woman should be in juice !!! laughing
  12. Was mammoth
    Was mammoth 18 June 2013 09: 38 New
    +1
    Yes, the Soviet government is to blame. And then everyone would have 12 children each. Is this politician also a victim of the upbringing of the Communists? Or is he already raising a dozen children and climbing into bed with his wife only thinking about demography? In the West, too, the Communists are to blame? There were no “snacks” in the USSR and Sasha Gray did not become idols. By the way, nihilism in Russia originated in the 17th century, not in the 91th year. Only two world wars swept through our country, a civil war, Gorbachev’s activity, a coup of XNUMX years, and the current "bright" time is rolling. "Of course, there are" dark forces "" (Hmm). Who created these "dark forces"? Power all rushes with the "national idea" as with a written sack, can not find. Break something, do not build. People are afraid to raise more than two children, and someone is scared for one. In real families, they think about responsibility to specific children, and not about slogans. So that the topic is not disclosed, only the problem is described. Put a minus.
    1. optimist
      optimist 18 June 2013 15: 19 New
      +3
      Totally agree with you! The author dumped everything and mixed. Also, the 1917th sailed, from which, supposedly, the whole mess began. In the USSR, REALLY cared about people, about their health, education, upbringing. And now everything is aimed at making more stupid beast-cattle animals, voting for whom it is necessary and working for a penny. And dying to retirement ...
      1. Commissar of the NKVD
        Commissar of the NKVD 21 June 2013 13: 12 New
        0
        Quote: optimist
        Also the 1917th sailed, from which, supposedly, the whole mess began

        For the 1917th it is possible to blame all the Racean troubles, even the current ones. And I'm ready to subscribe to the rest. A-a-a-agromic plus.
  13. mhen
    mhen 18 June 2013 10: 09 New
    +2
    ... fighting yourself is the hardest fight. Victory from victories - victory over oneself. (c) F. Logau
    Article plus.
  14. Middle-brother
    Middle-brother 18 June 2013 10: 20 New
    +4
    Correct article
    The question is in conscious choice. Today, no one can force you to drink against your will, have abortions, abandon your children, forget your parents and so on. Therefore, it is not necessary to blame on external circumstances - we do all this ourselves, of our own free will and completely consciously. Quite consciously, we kill ourselves and our future. And no new revolutions to which we are periodically called can change the state of affairs if we ourselves do not decide to change.

    As prof. Preobrazhensky - devastation, it is in the head.
  15. krez-74
    krez-74 18 June 2013 10: 32 New
    +4
    Careerism has been inculcated in people now, and over the course of 10-15 years. They have been completely graduated, and this in itself is a hoax. Moreover, working people, those who really had a profession (not office plankton), belittled ... Children grow up with a developed cult of the Golden Calf! And such people can’t give birth a lot, can’t bring up and focus on it. Such people always have some reason - this is not the time, then later, when there is money, a career, a car, a house. But the fact is, the country was built and developed by not such a warehouse people!
    1. Commissar of the NKVD
      Commissar of the NKVD 21 June 2013 13: 14 New
      0
      Quote: krez-74
      Such people always have some reason - this is not the time, then later, when there is money, a career, a car, a house.

      When all this appears, they will already be about 50 years old. You can give birth, but you can’t bring it up.
  16. explorer
    explorer 18 June 2013 10: 35 New
    0
    Of course it is possible, and it is never too late to delve into the cabbage. winked But what about our maternity hospitals?
  17. deman73
    deman73 18 June 2013 11: 47 New
    +1
    An excellent article for children is necessary to give birth and bring up the main thing that the state helps and cares
  18. agbykov
    agbykov 18 June 2013 11: 49 New
    +3
    I am surprised that after reading this article I saw comments that give us "this and that" and we (maybe) will begin to give birth to children. State to us what? Snot should wipe? In my opinion, the point of the article is that you need to start, first of all, with yourself (and not only in the issue of fertility, by the way). Do not justify your egoism with external causes. My army experience has shown that to the slogan "Do not believe, do not be afraid, do not ask", which is true for any difficult conditions, it would be necessary to add "and do not make excuses."
  19. Ivan Kalinovich
    Ivan Kalinovich 18 June 2013 12: 59 New
    +1
    Correct and timely article!
    Keep!
    It is surprising that some people put a minus ...
  20. Normal
    Normal 18 June 2013 13: 02 New
    0
    The article is a huge plus. Thanks to the author. Sergey Mikheev respect and appreciation.
    The article correctly indicates the causes of the fall in the birth rate. It is true that the revolutionaries lived on in the beginning of this trend in 1917.
    This is a rejection of the family and freedom of sexual relations (preached by prominent revolutionaries) and the destruction of the peasantry (its most capable part) And .... universal education (as the first and necessary step to individual self-realization) and the redirection of the entire human resource to solve state problems and projects to the detriment of the traditional family.
    Someone already wrote that supposedly the revolutionaries had nothing to do with it - nihilism originated in Russia in the XNUMXth century. Yes, but then nihilism was the lot of a scanty number of intellectual loafers, and the reproduction of the population was ensured by the whole people.
    I agree that both the war and the sixties caused great damage. The universal po-wism of the seventies also only confirms the rightness of Mikheev. Everything is correct, everything is so. The problem and its causes are outlined quite extensively and comprehensively.
    But here what I disagree with Sergey Mikheev is that the state cannot and should not stimulate the birth rate. Like in the Caucasus they give birth and we must give birth, only we need to realize the need for this.
    Unfortunately, the Russian people are not inclined with self-organization. Only in the most extreme case, on the verge of death, can we self-organize. But this is not the case, the death of the whole nation is not obvious and is carefully hushed up precisely in order to prevent the Russian self-organization.
    In these conditions, the abstract calls to give birth more are just a slogan behind which there is nothing.
    The state can and must take all possible and impossible measures to ensure that the Russian Woman gives birth and gives birth not only to one child "for herself", but 3-4-5 children. Mechanisms and incentives for this exist and there is no need to pretend that this is not possible in modern conditions.
    It is enough to recall the demographic explosions after the introduction of Prohibition and after the fire at the Ostankino television tower.
    In my opinion, the opinion is not appropriate in this case that the state should not help, that we should all realize and decide for ourselves. Yes, we are aware and decide. That's just state policy in every way counteracts this.
    The Russian state was created and multiplied primarily by the Russian people, their labors and aspirations. Often led by foreigners, but primarily at the expense of the Russian People. It was in the Russian environment that these foreigners could be realized and become Great Russians.
    It is time for the Russian State to repay debts to the Russian People. Otherwise, there will be neither the Russian People nor the Russian State.
    1. Hleb
      Hleb 18 June 2013 14: 52 New
      0
      This is a rejection of the family and freedom of sexual relations
      I don’t know when we had a rejection of the family, but about the freedom of sexual relations — and that we had less of them than in Muslim countries? Or is this freedom lacking now and the preachers-revolutionaries have appeared again? But in Germany where is the same problem , also there was no such freedom?
      universal education was lame? is it in the USSR then?
      the beginning of this trend lived by the revolutionaries in 1917.
      but how to explain the same problem in Europe? Japan? and how to explain the birth rate in China?
      and increasingly, pop-up topics about Islamization say nothing?
      1. Normal
        Normal 18 June 2013 16: 30 New
        0
        Quote: Gleb
        I don’t know when we had a rejection of the family

        Quote: Normal
        (preached by prominent revolutionaries)
        If I’m not mistaken, including Trotsky, the second person in the Revolution.
        Quote: Gleb
        but about freedom of sexual relations — and that we had fewer of them than in Muslim countries? or now this freedom is lacking
        You in my opinion did not understand correctly. Not a rejection of freedom of sexual relations, but freedom of sexual relations is one of the reasons for the decline in fertility. Specifically, the theory of "Glass of Water" which apologized was Kolontay and which even had to be criticized by Lenin himself, so this theory was spread immediately after the revolution.
        Quote: Gleb
        in Germany where the same problem

        Quote: Gleb
        but how to explain the same problem in Europe? Japan?

        Explanations in the article.
        In general, the decline in fertility worldwide is associated with the destruction of traditional society .....
        In general, we are talking about Russia and the state of affairs abroad shows where we are moving, and does not justify our movement there.
        Quote: Gleb
        universal education was lame? is it in the USSR then?
        Why was limping? I did not write this
        And .... universal education (as the first and necessary step to individual self-realization)
        That is, the first step from a traditional, patriarchal many-year-old family to life for oneself (then for the state, but still not for children), for self-realization and for receiving sensations and pleasures from life instead of procreation. As you know, a high birth rate is observed in countries with a low standard of living and education (as a rule), and vice versa, where the educational standard of living is high, there are almost no birth rates.
        About Islamization did not understand what it is?
  21. Doremia
    Doremia 18 June 2013 13: 30 New
    +1
    and on the other hand, the child-bearing age is up to 30 basically, well, after graduating from high school what young guys and girls see (I don’t take the capital), and that it’s hard to find a job in the first place, and secondly even finding it salary up to 10 on average , and just think, while living in the city, is it really possible to give birth even to the first child having such a salary and give him at least something a little bit necessary. I'm not saying that there are many nonresident people who simply have nowhere to live, and if in September there will really be a paid school education, then they will not think about giving birth to children because they don’t want to, but because raising and giving a minimum to the child will not be real., but Most of the children were in the village, but we yourself know what is happening now, and young people are leaving from there, because there is no work in the village., And there are no prospects. therefore, we cannot say that we have only a decomposition of society, and many other factors push us to what we see now.
  22. ed65b
    ed65b 18 June 2013 14: 29 New
    +1
    And who has how many children From members of the forum ?????? I have three. And I know how it was to grow them in the chaos of decay and anarchy.
    1. Nevsky
      Nevsky 18 June 2013 15: 16 New
      0
      Quote: ed65b
      And who has how many children From members of the forum ?????? I have three. And I know how it was to grow them in the chaos of decay and anarchy.


      I have no one, and I also live with my ancestors now, earning money in a province in Ukraine does not allow me to rent housing, buy clothes and eat at the same time. There was an opportunity to have a baby, but the future and unfulfilled spouse went to the one who already has her own apartment .. crying At the moment, already as 2 weeks unemployed. But there is one plus. I spend more time on IN. In short, sad. sad
    2. Normal
      Normal 18 June 2013 19: 58 New
      +1
      Quote: ed65b
      I have three.

      And with me. The eldest daughter 22, the youngest daughter 8, son 2
    3. Commissar of the NKVD
      Commissar of the NKVD 21 June 2013 13: 16 New
      0
      I have a native and foster. It’s difficult, of course, but nothing, we are spinning. Of course, there is not enough red caviar, but there is bread and butter.
  23. Vtel
    Vtel 18 June 2013 15: 11 New
    0
    According to Minister of Health Veronika Skvortsova, if the state program is implemented, then life expectancy increased to 74,3 years will bring GDP growth of 20 percent! Then we will live - but when?

    As one modern eloquent official said: "We will live poorly, but not for long."
    The article is wonderful - to the author +++!
  24. Svyatoslav72
    Svyatoslav72 18 June 2013 15: 49 New
    +1
    At one time, the following proverb went to the Army: - "The country needs Heroes, but ... ... brings ... akov."
    Here! this "cry" on the topic of demography specifically got, due to the lack of purpose and meaning, as well as the same base for replenishing the population. The powers that be have done EVERYTHING to ditch the state-forming population: they have destroyed production; collapsed agriculture; ditched education and medicine; abolished social guarantees and justice with the rule of law; abolished the meaning of life, bringing it into bestial survival and corruption. What, .... did they still want the "herds of sheep" to multiply and pray for their "brilliant creation"?
    The higher a person’s self-awareness, the greater the responsibility for his actions and behavior. Personally, by ideology, I see no reason to replenish the Russian population. Since, his "living space" (of Russians) has been privatized and occupied for the personal needs of "elite cattle owners." Human values ​​were replaced by selfishness and materialism imposed religious obscurantism, which stimulate all kinds of mania, which in all religious dogmas (creeds) were counted as vices and sins. Status and Image raised to the "top" of self-expression and an indicator of well-being, making it a role model and awarded untouchability. The reasons lie in the State structure, and the models of interaction between the Government and the population, the attitude within the community, the lack of Nationalism and the Government’s lack of desire to support Statehood. Everything is simple, but not so convenient for understanding.