Posted on 08/11/2013 4:51:32 AM PDT by Kaslin
Not wanting to go the way of its former print rival, Newsweek, it is no surprise that Time magazine is looking for ways to generate buzz. Thus the provocative current cover story: “The Child Free Life: When Having It All Means Not Having Children." I read the article while on vacation. Vacation with my family—including seven grandchildren, ironic, huh?
I immediately remembered reading something Theodore Roosevelt said, directly on point, in a famous speech Not wanting to go the way of its former print rival, Newsweek, it is no surprise that Time magazine is looking for ways to generate buzz. Thus the provocative current cover story: “The Child Free Life: When Having It All Means Not Having Children." I read the article while on vacation. Vacation with my family—including seven grandchildren, ironic, huh?
I immediately remembered reading something Theodore Roosevelt said, directly on point, in a famous speech nearly three quarters of a century ago—on April 23, 1910. I am aware that most American conservatives find little in the political ideas by Theodore Roosevelt worth salvaging, much less translating into present day policy. But he nailed it that day, not only by giving us his famous quote about “The Man in the Arena,” but also with something he said about “child free living.” It was part of a major address delivered at The University of Paris (The Sorbonne) titled “Citizenship In A Republic.”
Roosevelt left the White House in 1909 and was at the pinnacle of his renown a year later when he toured Europe. One journalist wrote at the time, “When he appears, the windows shake for three miles around. He has the gift, nay the genius of being sensational.” TR addressed a massive audience in the school’s grand amphitheater. The crowd included academicians, “ministers in court dress, army and navy officers in full uniform, nine hundred students,” and another 2,000 “ticket holders.”
The former president was introduced that day as “the greatest voice of the New World.” And hiding in the shadows of his remembered-as-the-man-in-the-arena-speech is a long since forgotten rhetorical rebuke to the ideas promoted in the current issue of Time:
Finally, even more important than ability to work, even more important than ability to fight at need, is it to remember that chief of blessings for any nations is that it shall leave its seed to inherit the land. It was the crown of blessings in Biblical times and it is the crown of blessings now. The greatest of all curses is the curse of sterility, and the severest of all condemnations should be that visited upon willful sterility. The first essential in any civilization is that the man and women shall be father and mother of healthy children so that the [human] race shall increase and not decrease. If that is not so, if through no fault of the society there is failure to increase, it is a great misfortune. If the failure is due to the deliberate and willful fault, then it is not merely a misfortune, it is one of those crimes of ease and self-indulgence, of shrinking from pain and effort and risk, which in the long run Nature punishes more heavily than any other. If we of the great republics, if we, the free people who claim to have emancipated ourselves from the thralldom of wrong and error, bring down on our heads the curse that comes upon the willfully barren, then it will be an idle waste of breath to prattle of our achievements, to boast of all that we have done.
That’s right. Theodore Roosevelt told the French that they needed to keep having babies.
At the time of Roosevelt’s speech, France was a major world power. Today—not so much. There is enough blame for such decline in global influence to go around, but the increased secularism of Europe, with its penchant for socialized everything, has certainly played a role.
Now more than 70 years later, there is an even greater threat to their cherished way of life. If only the French today would rediscover Teddy’s advice and reverse the birthrate trend—they might have a fighting chance. But such is the mindset of secularism, it is all about self and “fulfillment.” Issues of family, not to mention progeny are secondary, if thought about at all. Marriage is deferred—even eschewed. Children are planned—or better, planned around. And over time the birth rate in Europe has fallen far short of what is needed to keep up with the various demands of the future. In other words, the nations are aging. There are fewer children, yet more grandparents—a trend that will continue and accelerate.
It takes a fertility rate of 2.1 births per woman to keep a nation’s population stable. The United States is drifting away from that. Canada has a rate of 1.48 and Europe as a whole weighs in at 1.38. What this means is that the money will run out, with not enough wage-earners at the bottom to support an older generation’s “entitlements.”
But even beyond that, the situation in France also reminds us of the opportunistic threat of Islamism. It is just a matter of time before critical mass is reached and formerly great bastions of democratic republicanism morph into caliphates. In the United Kingdom the Muslim population is growing 10 times faster than the rest of society. In fact, all across Western Europe it’s the same. The cities of Amsterdam and Rotterdam are on track to have Muslim majority populations in a decade or two. A T-shirt that can be seen on occasion in Stockholm reads: “2030—Then We Take Over.”
A few years ago, Britain’s chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, decried Europe’s falling birthrate, blaming it on “a culture of consumerism and instant gratification.” “Europe is dying,” he said, “we are undergoing the moral equivalent of climate change and no-one is talking about it.”
The Rabbi was right, and so was Teddy. I am aware that most American conservatives find little in the political ideas by Theodore Roosevelt worth salvaging, much less translating into present day policy. But he nailed it that day, not only by giving us his famous quote about “The Man in the Arena,” but also with something he said about “child free living.” It was part of a major address delivered at The University of Paris (The Sorbonne) titled “Citizenship In A Republic.”
Roosevelt left the White House in 1909 and was at the pinnacle of his renown a year later when he toured Europe. One journalist wrote at the time, “When he appears, the windows shake for three miles around. He has the gift, nay the genius of being sensational.” TR addressed a massive audience in the school’s grand amphitheater. The crowd included academicians, “ministers in court dress, army and navy officers in full uniform, nine hundred students,” and another 2,000 “ticket holders.”
The former president was introduced that day as “the greatest voice of the New World.” And hiding in the shadows of his remembered-as-the-man-in-the-arena-speech is a long since forgotten rhetorical rebuke to the ideas promoted in the current issue of Time:
Finally, even more important than ability to work, even more important than ability to fight at need, is it to remember that chief of blessings for any nations is that it shall leave its seed to inherit the land. It was the crown of blessings in Biblical times and it is the crown of blessings now. The greatest of all curses is the curse of sterility, and the severest of all condemnations should be that visited upon willful sterility. The first essential in any civilization is that the man and women shall be father and mother of healthy children so that the [human] race shall increase and not decrease. If that is not so, if through no fault of the society there is failure to increase, it is a great misfortune. If the failure is due to the deliberate and willful fault, then it is not merely a misfortune, it is one of those crimes of ease and self-indulgence, of shrinking from pain and effort and risk, which in the long run Nature punishes more heavily than any other. If we of the great republics, if we, the free people who claim to have emancipated ourselves from the thralldom of wrong and error, bring down on our heads the curse that comes upon the willfully barren, then it will be an idle waste of breath to prattle of our achievements, to boast of all that we have done.
That’s right. Theodore Roosevelt told the French that they needed to keep having babies.
At the time of Roosevelt’s speech, France was a major world power. Today—not so much. There is enough blame for such decline in global influence to go around, but the increased secularism of Europe, with its penchant for socialized everything, has certainly played a role.
Now more than 70 years later, there is an even greater threat to their cherished way of life. If only the French today would rediscover Teddy’s advice and reverse the birthrate trend—they might have a fighting chance. But such is the mindset of secularism, it is all about self and “fulfillment.” Issues of family, not to mention progeny are secondary, if thought about at all. Marriage is deferred—even eschewed. Children are planned—or better, planned around. And over time the birth rate in Europe has fallen far short of what is needed to keep up with the various demands of the future. In other words, the nations are aging. There are fewer children, yet more grandparents—a trend that will continue and accelerate.
It takes a fertility rate of 2.1 births per woman to keep a nation’s population stable. The United States is drifting away from that. Canada has a rate of 1.48 and Europe as a whole weighs in at 1.38. What this means is that the money will run out, with not enough wage-earners at the bottom to support an older generation’s “entitlements.”
But even beyond that, the situation in France also reminds us of the opportunistic threat of Islamism. It is just a matter of time before critical mass is reached and formerly great bastions of democratic republicanism morph into caliphates. In the United Kingdom the Muslim population is growing 10 times faster than the rest of society. In fact, all across Western Europe it’s the same. The cities of Amsterdam and Rotterdam are on track to have Muslim majority populations in a decade or two. A T-shirt that can be seen on occasion in Stockholm reads: “2030—Then We Take Over.”
A few years ago, Britain’s chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, decried Europe’s falling birthrate, blaming it on “a culture of consumerism and instant gratification.” “Europe is dying,” he said, “we are undergoing the moral equivalent of climate change and no-one is talking about it.”
The Rabbi was right, and so was Teddy.
5 Wrote: 58 minutes ago (6:50 AM) From David Stokes:
There are a couple of typos in this. I sent a corrected version over to TH the other day, but apparently the wrong one got posted. I was on vacation and not attentive to detail, sorry -- I hope they will switch out the correct version soon, I just emailed the editor, but it's Sunday...so...you never know. You can read the corrected version at my blog: Source -- Best Regards, --- DRS
If all of those Mexicans demonstrating in the US on May Day doesn’t make Americans rethink their reproductive choices, and if the two elections won by Obama don’t, then I don’t know what will.
American-Americans seem quite content to fade into the shadows, subsidizing their replacement through taxation while they go...
I guess if Teddy said it, it was worth saying twice.
A+ post — typos or not.
Nobody seems to mention the FACT that in each case—Muzies in EU, Mehhi cccans here—the erstwhile population is completely FUNDING their own demise.
They’re ALL on ‘welfare’ of some sort.
Yer FUNDING IT ALL, you jerks!!!!!!!!!!!
If we of the great republics, if we, the free people who claim to have emancipated ourselves from the thralldom of wrong and error, bring down on our heads the curse that comes upon the willfully barren, then it will be an idle waste of breath to prattle of our achievements, to boast of all that we have done.
What Teddy said to the French goes double for the USA no pun intended.
God in a sense is the punisher because it was his commandment to Adam and Eve and their posterity to “multiply and replenish the earth”. To believe there was nothing more to it than a command is to deny Godliness. The American dream dies when real American’s don’t, or won’t, produce the following generations, or worst will kill their offspring prior to birth out of some selfish desire unexpressed and invalid.
The sin of aborting children, illegal in society and religion for over 200 years in this country alone, has by the whim of black robed treasonous bastards, the abdication of Congress to its duty, and the acquiesence of the executive branch, the sin is sin no more so believes the world, and the law has been turned on its head and we are left to reap the whirlwind.
In regards to all of those illegal (and many legal) Mexicans reproducing:
When you don’t have to pay to have a baby and you don’t have to pay for it’s food and care and have free daycare and many other free goodies provided by the white race......you breed yourself into the majority and history will record the result.
Most whites can only AFFORD only one or two children. Those on welfare can have as many as they want. In fact, the more they have the more benefits they get from the government including cash.
You have just itemized the essence of “white guilt”, which keeps popular liberals in power, with many more to come.
Those whites who still possess shame and humility do not have children that they cannot afford with the premise that they would not want to have to resort to entitlements to help support their own children. Blacks, hispanics, white trash, and illegal aliens, however, have no such shame and have no problem crapping out multiple children (by multiple fathers) and having the whites pay for them. These children grow up with no family values, no morals, no education and no sense of pride. The leftists (and the RINOs) see nothing wrong with this. They only look at the permanent voting bloc that they have enabled.
Trash begets more trash, and the disease perpetuates. Eventually, to paraphrase the great Iron Lady, this system will run out of other people’s money. Then what will all the moochers do?
WRONG. Most whites can afford many children. Their problem is their conceit about wanting an easy life. It is their arrogant pride at not wanting to be changing diapers. White people are largely a cultural wreck as they think so many other things are more important than having children.
Yup, those innocent “children” are destined to grow up not much better than animals. Compared to some animals they will not grow up as well. Like animals, only a few will ever become noteworthy. The rest will pillage and plunder until they die or are slaughtered.
I don’t fault intelligent people for not having children. There is no way to responsibly out populate the trash. The outcome of the die that was cast decades ago and encouraged for all these many decades is complete and the result is inevitable.... societal collapse.
PS, when I see a nice family with well nurtured children it just makes me sad.
I would like to add a thought to Mr. T. Roosevelt’s.
Not everyone is supposed to have children. Only a select portion of the population are *able* to produce and raise quality children. And we need to go to some lengths to ensure that those people have several children, not just one or two. Society needs to give them largesse and support for this purpose.
Likewise, some people are very good at raising children, but not at having any themselves. So likewise adoption should be given unique largesse and support.
Importantly, the flip side of this is what to do with those who are unable to produce and raise children?
There are even some hints that things like homosexuality, prostitution, and post-menopausal female sexuality may have their basis in *protecting* breeding couples from non-breeders, by distracting the latter. Giving them an outlet for non-productive sex.
It is a well established fact in demographics, that when a nation reaches an economic plateau unique to it, suddenly its birthrate drops from many children per family to just sustainability, about 2.3 children per family on average.
Most recently, this has happened in Mexico and is now happening in much of the Arab world.
However, in the western world, while government cannot easily increase the birthrate to more than this, the government and the culture can *lower* the birthrate even more.
This is done by directly and indirectly making it harder for young people to afford having children, both in terms of money and in terms of energy. The more burdens placed on them, the fewer children.
This is first accomplished by raising the acceptable standards of care and provision to children. “To lead a good life, children must have:” can be very destructive.
But one of the more recent, but very effective means of reducing the birthrate is student loans. Putting heavy debt on potential parents when they are best equipped to have and raise children means that many or even most will put off having them, often forever.
Yet the pressures on young people are such that it is preventing marriage, home ownership, children, a real future, supposedly so that they can get a better paying job. This is a “devil’s deal.”
Yes. And worse is that when I see the same, it is now the exception rather than the norm. My family raised me with manners, taught me to be personally responsible for my actions, and with a strong work ethic. It kills me to see others my age whom I know grew up with the same upbringing to just have flushed those values down the toilet and are raising brats instead of children.
I say bring the revolution on now because it deeply saddens me to see my beautiful country dying. My grandparents gave me the greatest gift of hope, faith and honor. They would be very sad to see the world that they left in such shambles. I like to think I am an optimist, but the past five years have been very hard. I honestly don’t know if there is hope for us.
Anyway, it’s Sunday. Let me try to be happy for a beautiful, quiet morning.
I think TR’s only mistake - and it was a BIG mistake - was to assume that all progressives would be as virtuous as he.
First, most whites can’t afford many children. These whites are very responsible people and plan for their children’s future by setting aside money for their advanced education and their own retirement and security when old.
You must live in a world of RINO-E people. People who don’t live in the world with the rest of us.
If it were up to you each white household would look like “Old Mother Hubbard’s Shoe” while the irresponsible white parents look on and wring their hands because a minor financial problem arose and now they are in to the “loan sharks” and Payday loan syndrome......eventually to end up in Obama’s welfare rolls.
I can clearly see that you are a very irresponsible individual by the very post that you wrote.
Whites convince themselves they can only have one or two children; that is a choice they make. Each child reduces your tax burden; where there is a will there’s a way.
I pray for people like you who have bought into satan’s lie that a child is not a blessing. Someday maybe you will be brought into the fullness of Christ’s truth - the Catholic Church. Remember, Luther was a heretic and no Christian denomination taught that contraception was OK until 1930.
I have little patience for people with cable TV, new clothes, fast food, etc. who claim they can’t afford a child.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.