Blog

Humanist Cannibals – Written by Thanos Tzimeros

15/06/2021 – 08:49

102

Let's take it from the end to the beginning. The spot says: “IF you dream of starting your own family tomorrow, make sure you get informed today!” Who is it aimed at? Those who dream of starting their own family. Is it aimed at Dourou, who proudly declares “I am 47 years old and I have no children”? No. Is it blaming Dourou for not having children? No. Is it telling every Dourou in this world “it is your fault that birth rates are decreasing in Greece”? No. And where does it end? Get informed! Is it bad for someone to suggest that you get informed?

By Thanos Tzimerou

The entire text is written by a woman, journalist Kia Papadopoulou, who confesses that she puts a piece of her soul into it. She is over 40, has not become a mother and asks herself the questions she wrote, addressing, I emphasize, those who share them. Target group, they call that in my village. Don't you share them? It doesn't concern you. (The same question “when will I become a mother?” didn't bother anyone as the motto of Dimitra Papadopoulou in the well-known series “I love you – you love me”.)

The ads are aimed at those who are interested in the product. The social messages are aimed at those who are touched by the issue they touch on. There are social messages about the need for psychological support due to the prolonged lockdown, the lack of communication between children and parents, the indifference to the elderly, domestic violence and a whole lot more. Are they derogatory for those who are not affected by the problem? Did any of those who have a calm family life feel offended? Were social media flooded with hysterical voices of reaction? Were any of these spots showing abused women and misguided teenagers considered racist, vulgar, medieval, etc.? Did anyone claim that all women and all teenagers are like this? Were sponsorships withdrawn, participations canceled, government announcements issued? No!

I watched the spot many times, trying to find something reprehensible. Nowhere does it say or imply that a woman is a child-producing machine, that this is her only role in life, nowhere is there anything that offends her personality or limits her right to self-determination, as the prime minister's spokesman stated, justifying the withdrawal of ERT and APE from the role of communication sponsors. But, damn it, only women give birth to children! No other place has been found. When a career or anything else cancels motherhood, no offspring arise! It's that simple.

Is there a person in the world who would argue that motherhood and career can coexist, without one invading the other's territory? Hundreds of articles in popular magazines and as many television shows have as their theme how to combine these two with mutual concessions, so that neither gets in the way. I would say both fatherhood and career. I judge for myself. From the age of 30 to 50, I worked 14 hours a day, at least. I made a fortune, but I didn't have children. When would I see them? I got married at 51 and had a child at 53. Only one, contributing to the worsening demographics of the country. The advantage is that now I have time and attention to offer him. The disadvantage is that when my son turns 30, I will be 83, if I don't look at the radishes upside down. In all likelihood, I will not live to see grandchildren. Is this normal? No!

So why the hatred and the mutual discord and the “huge outcry” for an issue that is addressed to those who perceive it as a problem and not to others? Because the “others” have gained the right to silence the opposing view under the guise of political correctness. Perhaps also because among the others there are many who are affected by the problem, but they try to manage it with Freudian defense mechanisms – denial & repression – and they don’t want anyone to remind them of it. I ask the even more elementary question: why should there be an outcry and war in public discourse when something is said that you don’t agree with? Is it illegal? Does it threaten someone? If not, why so much anger? Get over it. Does X want to hold a conference, a conference, a campaign on the Ψ issue, any issue, which, like all issues, has its pros and cons. Can it? Yes or no? The answer of our "pro-cho" democracy is "no". How is the (supposedly) humanistic approach to the issue reconciled with the curses, excommunications and furious attacks against those who do not embrace this specific "humanistic" perspective? A major problem of our times. Perhaps a conference should have been held for this as well.

So what did the conference want to say, as is clearly evident from both the spot and the texts on the site that was “taken down” after the “outcry”? That nature – for better or worse – has set certain limits, which you cannot exceed without consequences. Pregnancy after 40 is more risky. For example, while the probability of a fetus with chromosomal abnormalities is one in 1250 when the pregnant woman is 25 years old, at 40 it is one in 100 and at 49, one in 10! All the chances of an adverse outcome increase dramatically: miscarriage, pregnancy complications, premature birth, a newborn with health problems. These are not opinions, they are scientific data. “Yes, but a friend of mine gave birth to me with IVF at 54, a very healthy child.” Well done to her, but this is not normal. Neither for her body, which was bombarded with hormones, nor for the child who will grow up with a mother and grandmother.

And those men who participated in assisted conception do not look back with nostalgia on their own role in the romantic tete-a-tete with the sperm collector.

A conference, organized by doctors specialized in assisted reproduction, who have seen with their own eyes cases and cases, without always a happy ending, has every right to thunder what we all understand, but the postmodern Fa-Fa (Fascism – Pharisaism) of political correctness cannot bear to even hear: it is not normal for people to become parents at the age of grandparents. Including me. This trend must be reversed. Period.

(The fact that hierarchs, that is, people who chose… careers and not childbearing, were invited to support this view may be an oxymoron and not a happy choice by the organizers, but that is not our topic.)

But the problem of low birth rate is not primary. It is derivative. Childbearing at an advanced age and 1,2 children per couple arise as a component of other problems, economic and social. The common denominator in all of them is state incompetence and insufficiency. To have children, you must feel financial security. No family feels it in an environment of crisis, which has now become endemic. You must feel stability. It does not exist when the laws governing economic activity change 3 times a week and taxes fall like hail. If you lose your job, it must be easy to find another, because children have expenses. It does not apply in an economy that hates business and drives away investment. The state must pull its long arm out of your pocket, so that you have five francs left for your family. When a child gets sick, the health system must be able to provide services immediately and not make appointments when a soldier has gone. There must be all-day daycare centers and schools, because where will the working woman leave the child until she returns from work? The welfare system must shoulder the support of the new mother and not send the bill to the employer, because in this way it undermines, rather than promotes, the prospect of motherhood. Schools, where you will send your children to be taught the good life, must stop being dominated by lumpen elements, illiterate and lazy social revolutionaries who will get them into the trap of squats and Molotov cocktails. Universities must become serious academic institutions and not stables where party youths can be seen.

As long as public services are this mess, children will be born by the dropper. A couple who want their child to grow up with quality will have to pay out of their own pockets for daycare, a doctor, school, a foreign language, maybe even music or a sport. A sum of 15 thousand a year, and I'm not saying much. And that's before universities start. Can you have 3 children? How many have such an income that they can allocate 45.000 a year just for the children?

So who are having many children early? Those who are financially comfortable, some of the middle class with a lot of effort, sacrifices and possibly necessary discounts on the children's standard of living (e.g. public school - with a prayer that the children fall under a good teacher) and those who belong to races or ethnicities that do not bother much about schools, standards of living and other such... perversions of modernity. The latter do not give a damn about the limits of female self-determination, because women in their culture have no self-determination. However, the President, who hastened to cancel her sponsorship of the conference, is happy because the children that we do not have, will be made by the rich, without making any allusion to the role of women in their "culture".

A society that protests the association of women with motherhood is already intellectually sterile. And that is the worst kind of sterility. We should organize a hundred conferences on the subject of the reversal of values ​​in our society. But they will probably be thwarted before they even begin because the cannibalistic humanists of political correctness will rush to devour us.