new

ILYA EHRENBERG – THE MAN WHO INVENTED THE ‘SIX MILLION’

But Ehrenburg was perhaps most notorious for his viciously anti-German hate propaganda in World War II. In it, he exhorted Soviet troops to kill all Germans they encountered without pity.

In one leaflet entitled “Kill,” Ehrenburg incited the simple Russian soldier to treat the Germans as subhuman. The final paragraph concludes:

“The Germans are not human beings. From now on, the word ‘German’ is the most horrible curse. From now on, the word ‘German’ strikes us to the quick. We have nothing to discuss. We will not get excited. We will kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day … If you cannot kill a German with a bullet, then kill him with your bayonet. If your part of the front is quiet and there is no fighting, then kill a German in the meantime … If you have already killed a German, then kill another one — there is nothing more amusing to us than a heap of German corpses. Don’t count the days, don’t count the kilometers. Count only one thing: the number of Germans you have killed. Kill the Germans! … — Kill the Germans! Kill!”

mass-rape-in-germany-by-soviets
And in another leaflet: “The Germans must be killed. One must kill them … Do you feel sick? Do you feel a nightmare in your breast? … Kill a German! If you are a righteous an conscientious man — kill a German! … Kill!”

This is typical of the steady diet of pathological hate fed to millions of Soviet troops by this Jew, safely ensconced far from the front.

Ehrenburg in the 1960’s, living out his life NOT as a war criminal, but as a hero is Israel.
But it wasn’t only the ordinary German soldier Ehrenburg was talking about, whom he accused of the very atrocities the Communists were themselves committing. Ehrenburg’s incendiary writings were, in fact, a prime motivating factor in the orgy of murder and rape against the civilian population that took place as Soviet troops rampaged into the heart of Europe. Appealing to the lowest, most subhuman instincts of this Bolshevik horde, he reiterated his genocidal message:

“Kill! Kill! In the German race there is nothing but evil; not one among the living, not one among the yet unborn but is evil! Follow the precepts of Comrade Stalin. Stamp out the fascist beast once and for all in its lair! Use force and break the racial pride of these German women. Take them as your lawful booty. Kill! As you storm onward, kill, you gallant soldiers of the Red Army.”

The crowning achievement of Ehrenburg’s career came on December 17, 1944, when this hate-crazed fiend became the first person to mention the kabbalistic figure of Six Million alleged Jewish victims of National Socialism, and then proceeded to introduce that figure into Soviet propaganda.

After the war he joined with co-racial and fellow propagandist Vasily (Iosif Solomonovich) Grossman to produce a fictitious “Black Book” and lay the foundation for what has come to be known as “The Holocaust.” The rest is history.

Ehrenburg never forgot his Jewish roots, and before his death he arranged for the transfer of his private archives to the tribal cult center at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem.

And so, it is altogether fitting that the birthday of this psychopathic lie-master should have been chosen as a day on which to remember the hoax which he concocted and of which he was the original inventor.

What was the result of this hateful propaganda?

Between the months of April and May, the German capital Berlin saw more than 100,000 rape cases according to hospital reports, while East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia saw more than 1.4 million rape cases.

Between the months of January and August of 1945, Germany saw the largest incident of mass rape known in history, where an estimated two million German women were raped by the Soviet Red Army soldiers, as written by Walter Zapotoczny Jr. in his book, ‘Beyond Duty: The Reason Some Soldiers Commit Atrocities’.

Hospital reports also stated that abortion operations were being carried out daily across all German hospitals.

Natalya Gesse, who was a Soviet war correspondent at the time, said that the Soviets didn’t care about the ages of their victims. “The Russian soldiers were raping every German female from eight to eighty. It was an army of rapists,” she said.

This caused the deaths of no less than 200,000 girls and women due to the spread of diseases, especially that many eyewitnesses recounted victims being raped as much as 70 times in that period.

Red Army soldiers would mass rape German women as a kind of revenge against their enemy: The German army. They felt that it was their earned right to do so as the German army had ‘violated’ their motherland by invading it. In addition to not being in contact with women for long periods causing their animal instinct to be heightened.

In his book, Zapotoczny said that even female Russian soldiers did not disapprove of the rapes, some finding it amusing.

“Our fellows were so sex-starved,” a Soviet major told a British journalist at the time, “that they often raped old women of sixty, seventy or even eighty – much to these grandmothers’ surprise, if not downright delight.”

In 1948, rape cases decreased vastly after Soviet troops were ordered back to their camps in Russia and left residential areas in Germany.

sources:

https://rense.com/general75/ehr.htm

https://dailyarchives.org/index.php/history/1939-how-german-women-suffered-largest-mass-rape-in-history-by-soviets

Here is the original article by Ilya Ehrenburg called “To Remember” from Pravda, December 17, 1944:

Die Pommersche Zeitung writes “Our struggle was honest from the very beginning; we did not cross our borders in blind madness intending to subjugate other nations. On the contrary, needing to leave our borders behind us, we went as the messengers for a new order and a new justice. Not one German ever dreamed of annihilating Englishmen or punishing Frenchmen or enslaving the Dutch or any other peoples, in order to live by the blood and sweat of other nations. On the contrary, our victories emitted tranquility.”

Poor dears, apparently they were forced to go to the Caucasus and to Egypt in order to emit tranquility and now when they were allowed to return to Cologne and to Eastern Prussia, they meekly say “whoever we hurt, we don’t hold it against them.”

What were their intentions when they crossed their borders? This question can be answered by the maps they published between 1939 and 1942. This is an atlas of “blind madness:” “Greater Germany” included Lille and Kiev, Riga and Nancy.

They did not want to enslave other nations and live by others’ blood and sweat? Not long ago didn’t Grupenfuhrer Gasse declare to the newspaper Hamburger Fren den blatt: “The former Russia will be colonized by Stormtroopers and their childen”? And the Danzigger Fortpost was estimating “Every German colonizer will be served by eight to ten families.” Yes, at that time they were not overly modest. And the German firm Bremen was promising stockholders cotton from Turkmenistan. At that time they declared that “a nation of merchants, Englishmen, do not deserve a place on Earth.” (Felkisher Beobachter) At that time they were threatening: “Shooting hostages will show the French that nothing will stop us.” (Parizer Tzeitung) Shipping off the Dutch to the Ukraine, they declared “Only history books will remember Holland as a state.” (Antriff)

Where did they “emit tranquility”? In the “desert zone” or perhaps stoking the ovens of Majdanek or Treblinka?

Isn’t it too early for them to renounce themselves? They are still shooting and already starting to whimper. They are still tearing children’s bodies apart and already starting to wash their bloodied hands.

We have a saying “To remember is to live.” Indeed, a man who loses his memory loses half his life and starts to fade away. But to remember means not only to live, it also means to save a life, to save future generations, to preserve the idea of what it means to be human.

There occur historical events which confound wise men. Hitler’s Germany is not a sphinx. It is typhus-bearing lice. Now everyone understands what fascism is but not everyone wants to remember what they understood. To forget means to forgive. And to forgive the stokers of Majdanek means to bring up children for even more efficient future ovens. I am not a politician but in my work I deal with human feelings because every writer is a psychologist. Every writer is also a moralist even if he does not think about morality. As a writer I want to remind you about the sources of fascism.

For many years the Nazis brainwashed German youth. What were they conveying to the little fascists? A feeling of superiority. Now the world knows what racial or national arrogance means. If every nation decided that they are first in the world and therefore have the right to order others about, we will see new Majdaneks in the 20th century.

So where is the foundation of this German feeling of superiority? In the past, some will say. There is no doubt that in the past Germany had remarkable philosophers, musicians, poets, and scientists. No anti-fascist thinks about putting down Goethe or Beethoven, but you cannot live off the legacy of culture. Culture is a continuing process of creation. And in fascist Germany nothing is left from the glorious past. We laugh at the degenerate who tries to replace a lack of wisdom and knowledge with an impressive past. It is ridiculous and despicable for a nation to burn museums and libraries while at the same time pointing to Schiller and Kant.

Others would argue that Germans are proud of their present. What is there to be proud of? A money-grubbing Goering? A lascivious Goebbels? Ignorant and lewd ministers? A hardworking Himmler? Or are they perhaps boastful of their sophisticated technology, well-kept cities, and comfortable houses? But the fascists did not create any of this: Hitler only ravaged Germany. It is also good to recall that American technology is higher, that Dutch cities are cleaner, and Swedish housing is more comfortable. Besides, technology alone cannot be the pride of a people unless the strength of a nation is connected to its higher aspirations. And in fascist Germany civilization serves only the lowest aspirations. So the gas chambers for the mass murder of children became a natural expression of German technology.

No, the feeling of superiority that the fascists instill in their children is based neither on the past nor on the present. German superiority is steeped in prejudice, in the belief in the magic properties of German blood, a conviction that everything German is better than anything non-German. . . .

The origins of rivers of blood appear to be seemingly innocent swamps of human stupidity. Children sometimes make fun of things they are not familiar with; then mothers reproach them and the child, as he grows up, learns that the world does not end at the corner of his street. Each person and each nation loves what they grew up with. What Russian would be indifferent to a white birch tree? But we have never claimed and never will claim that a birch tree is more noble or more worthy than a cypress tree or a cedar tree. Your mother may be smarter than your neighbor, but you do not love her for that, you love her because she is your mother. Genuine patriotism is modest and has nothing to do with nationalism: patriotism—is brotherhood; nationalism—is carnage and death. . . .

In the countries they captured, the Germans killed all the Jews: the elderly and nursing babies. Ask a captured German why did your compatriots annihilate six million innocent people. And he will say: “They are Jews. They are black (or red) haired. They have different blood.” This began with vulgar jokes, with name-calling by hoodlums, with graffiti, and all this led to Majdanek, Babi Yar, Treblinka, to ditches filled with children’s corpses. If before Treblinka antisemitism could appear to be a common, ugly outburst, now it is a word soaked with blood; the Polish poet Julian Tuwim says “Antisemitism is the international language of fascists.”

The whole world now sees the consequences of racial and national arrogance. The ovens of Majdanek, where the Germans consumed people of thirty nationalities because they were—Russians, French, Poles, or Jews—these frightening ovens did not emerge right away. They grew out of an upbringing based on the hatred of whole nations. People all over the world need to remember that nationalism is the road to Majdanek. If a nation builds its freedom on the oppression of another, if a state restricts the rights of citizens of a different color, if a society persecutes a man because the shape of his nose or the way he speaks differs from that of his neighbors, so that nation, that state, that society is in danger. . . .

We must remember: fascism was born out of the greed and stupidity of some, and the perfidy and cowardice of others. If mankind wants to put an end to the bloody nightmare of these years, it must put an end to fascism. Half measures will not do here. If fascism is left somewhere to breed, then in ten or twenty years we will again see rivers of blood. A nail drives out a nail, but you cannot drive out fascism with fascism. You cannot liberate nations of one brand of fascism and deliver them into the hands of fascists of a different brand. Fascism—a terrifying cancerous tumor. It cannot be treated at mineral spas. It needs to be removed. I do not believe in good-hearted people who cry over executioners: these alleged do-gooders are preparing the death of innocent millions. The nations of Europe fought courageously against the invaders; and nations are not Moors who could leave after finishing their work. The French have a good saying: in his house, the collier is a master. Not only the French understand this saying. The Red Army has demonstrated what it means to liberate: the Poles, Norwegians, Serbs and Slovaks understand this. We do not install half-fascists in place of fascists: we liberate without quotation marks. We know that democracy is the daughter of a nation and not a glamorous lady whom you could only adore from a distance. . . .

Nations who experienced the fascist tyranny will understand us without any lengthy explanation: this is a time of nations and not diplomats. The courageous people of France will understand us. Our allies will understand us. There was a time when the British believed in the magical properties of the English Channel. Now they understand that the Channel is not a barrier against fascism. For a long time, the British prohibited the entry of dogs into the country: this is how they try to protect their country from rabies. But rabid, two-legged creatures in contrast to four-legged ones possess different “Fau.” And only complete destruction of fascism—from Warsaw to La Linea—can protect England from a new disaster.

When Die Pommersche Zeitung dares to claim that the Germans crossed their borders as the most peaceful missionaries, it means that the fascists now have only one hope: the loss of memory. After a severe injury, doctors sometimes diagnose a condition called amnesia. The injuries to the world are immense but nations do not suffer from amnesia. They will remember everything in the days of judgment. Even after the victory, they will not forget these terrible years. We must remember: this is our obligation to the dead heroes and to the children.

These cruel visions must remain before our eyes: this is the price for saving our world. I know that it is easier to forget but we will not forget. We solemnly swear: remember, remember, remember!

Source: https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-human-behavior/to-remember-ilya-ehrenburg

Why Older White Men Should Start Second Families

Developed societies are not reproducing themselves. This includes the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and European peoples along with their former white colonies.

Societies must have children. At the same time, children of our peoples will enjoy better prospects if they can live among others like themselves rather than among a mix of other ethnicities. And governments, whoever their citizens may be, have a constant need for new generations of taxpayers and soldiers.

A significant number of older men become available for marriage. Though some are widowed, more are divorced. Whether they sought this freedom or not, many older men find themselves no longer bound by obligations to former wives, children, and grandchildren. They are free to start over.

Identitarians, who are making the strongest case for increasing the fertility of their own groups, should look at older men as natural allies and recruit them to the cause. Older men identify more strongly with the societies into which they were born. They retain traditional values. They have demonstrated by their survival and success that they have “the right stuff” worth passing on to a new generation. They generally have the material resources to support children, and if they do not already have a family, they should start one.

Men should not be encouraged to fritter away the last few decades of life traveling and playing golf. Like younger men who are re-discovering their identities, they should raise strong families to perpetuate their heritage.

Genetics

Genetics lie at the core of most arguments against older fatherhood. Although the bulk of the harmful mutations that appear in every person’s genome are inherited from parents, an older man is more likely to have de novo mutations to his genome — those that appear during his lifetime.

Still, the number of harmful de novo mutations is small compared to the thousand or so inherited mutations. Kondrashov includes a table showing that in the genome of a newborn, de novo mutations make up 10 percent of the worst mutations (which reduce fitness by 10 percent or more), 1 percent of those that reduce fitness by 1 percent or more, and 0.1 percent and .001 percent of the lesser orders of magnitude of deleterious mutations. However old a father may be, he can take comfort in the fact that a significantly greater percentage of his children’s load of deleterious genes will be ones he and his wife inherited rather than new ones he passed along to his children. The increase in the risk of harmful mutations is probably no more than about 25 percent. If the rest of his genome gives children a 25 percent edge — in terms of charm, good looks, intelligence — it can be a fair trade.

Genetic advantages of an older father

An older guy who is available for marriage probably inherited fewer harmful mutations than most. He obviously didn’t inherit anything that would kill him young. Heart disease is about 30 percent heritable. An older guy fit enough to marry probably doesn’t have it. Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia are about 50 percent heritable. The older husband who doesn’t yet show any signs of dementia is less likely to carry those mutations. An older guy on the marriage market is less likely to carry genetic mutations favoring bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or other conditions that show up over the course of adult life.

An older man available for marriage has almost certainly been successful, and therefore above-average in intelligence. Intelligence is about 80 percent heritable. A woman can’t control her own contribution to a child’s intelligence — that’s baked into her genome. But if the older partner she attracts has a 20 IQ point advantage over a younger suitor, she can reasonably expect her children will be correspondingly smarter.

Part of the argument about de novo mutations is that since the rates of childhood mortality fell from about 50 percent at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to today’s 1 percent, an increasing number of deleterious genes are retained in each successive generation. The older father is one or two generations closer to the Industrial Revolution. In all, though the older father will have somewhat more deleterious mutations, his genome may be superior to that of a young woman’s younger potential partners.

What do we want out of life?

There are other considerations, and each of the following has a particular point of view: the older man, the younger wife, the children, and the state. Finally, society has an interest in perpetuating its culture, values, and traditions and this interest may conflict with those of the individuals and the state.

Will children make an older man happy? Children take time and money away from the pursuit of commercialized happiness. A man whose concept of “happiness” is skiing, surfing, and rock concerts will find that children do not bring happiness.

Personal consumption is a major element in many men’s idea of happiness. They want the latest iGadgets, imported wines, and Swiss watches. Children are expensive, so all but the wealthiest men must make trade-offs, but children can also be a vehicle for conspicuous consumption. Sending them to private schools, exclusive camps, and Ivy League universities burns money almost as well as buying yachts.

It is impossible to measure the value of sex. The man raising children within a marriage can be reasonably sure of getting sex every now and again, but he can be equally sure that he will not get all he wants. The man who equates happiness with frequent sex is better off being a wealthy bachelor, frequenting prostitutes, or using Tinder. An older husband, presumably with a somewhat reduced libido, is likely to be better matched to his wife.

Responsibility for a family gives a man a reason for living. The family provides emotional support. A lifelong partnership gives a man an anchor in life, a sense of stability. Happiness comes with satisfying ones felt obligation to God and/or the church, one’s clan, one’s tribe, and one’s nation. For a patriot, serving his country also brings happiness.

Community involvement

Being married provides a man with a niche in society. Other people know how to peg him: married with children. He is automatically included in other groups: the PTA, parents who carpool, babysitting cooperatives, swimming pool parents, etc. These connections keep an older father involved in society. It is easy for a retiree to let go of life bit by bit as his family obligations are satisfied and no new ones appear. A late-life family poses real obligations, and keeps a man connected with society.

Why would an older man start a family?

Having children doesn’t offer material benefit for the older prospective father. If he is already old, he won’t last long enough for children to care for him in his dotage. Having a younger wife will confer some status whether or not she bears him children, but the tax and welfare benefits of children are laughably small. Ultimately, the only motive is to have children for their own sake, and perhaps to follow some higher calling, such as an obligation to ancestors, society, or the church.

Why would a woman have children with an older man?

Western society has been drenched for decades with anti-fertility messages. We are told there are too many people on earth and Westerners, because of our material consumption, damage the planet. Our societies are inherently unfair to women and racial minorities and sexual minorities; we should die out. Add to that the scare stories from women’s magazines about the genetic risks of an older father.

If a woman decides, despite all the opposition, that she wants children, what are the advantages and disadvantages of an older man? The age of the mother is dictated by biology. A woman’s fertility declines quickly after 35. If she is over 40, the couple may well seek medical help, and will probably stop at one child. This is asymmetric: he has three more decades of fertility than she.

In Western society, a woman who has decided to dedicate her fertile years to having children is in a privileged position for choosing mates. This is especially true for intelligent, educated women, because so many of their competitors are busy with careers. Such a woman can choose a partner from more or less her own age up to the limits of male fertility. Why would she choose an older man?

Financial resources

Raising a family takes money. A woman wants a man who can provide for her.

In choosing a younger man, a woman is betting on the future. It’s uncertain how far he will rise. He may burn out — and prove to be an unsuitable provider — or, he may become spectacularly successful, pull away from his wife and family, and become subject to all kinds of temptations. With an older man, you get what you see. The drama has already played out.

Older men tend to have more money. This is especially true of older men looking for younger woman in the marriage market. They would not be looking unless they were successful. It is also something specific to this generation. The baby boomers have been running society for more than 40 years, and have stacked the deck in their own favor. The baby boomers are the richest generation in America’s history, and also in Western Europe. Younger men are not likely to have as much money.

Men already on pension are probably receiving healthy ones. This is on top of the wealth they have accumulated. Gen X and millennial men have had such a hard time scraping together the down payment for a house that they have not benefited from the rise in stocks and real estate. Moreover, they could well be cheated out of social security; there will be nothing but a dry well for them.

Maturity

People tend to become more stable and predictable as they get older. They know more about life and they fall into habits that have proven successful. An older husband is less likely to make erratic decisions, such as changing careers, moving, or developing a newfound taste for drugs, alcohol, or video games.

Arguments and stress are part of every marriage. A mature man will understand his long-term interests better, and favor the long-term benefits of marriage over short-term concerns about one-up-man-ship or self-esteem.

A woman should enter marriage with the expectation that her partner will be there for the 20 years or so it takes to raise children. An older guy can be a good bet. Actuarially, an older suitor in good health is very likely to survive another 20 years, and psychologically, he is more likely to remain the same person.

Fidelity

A woman should not bet on a man who is unlikely to settle down. A man’s character becomes clear by the time he is 50. An older man is less likely to his affections wander, so long as he has a reliable partner.

To return to a previous point, the primary reason an older man would want to marry a younger woman and have children is because he wants children. The best way to succeed at that is to remain in a monogamous marriage. Children in a stable marriage are more likely to succeed, and the man himself is far more likely to have more children with a single loving spouse than he is with whatever paramours he may find by stepping out.

Traditional values

The rate at which society changes has accelerated dramatically. Members of the silent generation grew up attending church, not cursing (very much, anyhow), believing in the Golden rule and that honesty was the best policy, and expecting that we would marry and stay married. Our millennial children think we are hopelessly square. More than that, they slur us with epitaphs such as patriarchy, racist, bigot, homophobe, and whatnot when we utter what was merely common sense when we were younger.

A woman might conclude that the family values with which an older man grew up are a better foundation for a family than the social justice ideas that fill the minds of younger men.

Commitment to children

Convincing a much younger woman to have children is not an easy task. A man who does so has already shown his commitment to children. He probably already has children. A prospective bride can talk with him about what worked and didn’t, and how he will contribute to raising a new family. A man who has never married may not have given the subject much thought, and except for a few who have had the chance to help raising younger siblings, not much experience either.

Experience

Older men who are inclined to marry have probably done it before. They have experience changing diapers and babysitting. They probably know how to wash dishes and keep house. If the guy has kept himself in shape, as a great many have in this day of bicycling and health clubs, he should be up to the task. A man who works to stay in shape can sustain himself pretty well until he reaches his 70s, but at some point age catches up with him. An offsetting benefit is that an older husband is likely to have more time to spend with his wife and family

The wife’s career

The odds are strong that the prospective husband has already reached the peak of his career. If he is a workaholic, it will be evident — and he will probably not want to saddle himself with family responsibilities. If he truly wants children, there is a strong chance he will find time to spend with them. If her husband has more time to spend with children, his younger wife may find her own life easier. It will be easier for her to pursue a career if she wants, or to take music lessons, attend lectures, and do other things strictly for herself.

Predictable problems

An older man will have a different circle of friends and different interests than those of a younger wife. If both man and wife come from the same country and culture, he may expect his wife to socialize with people of his generation. If they come from different countries, as is often the case with modern May-December marriages, one of them will have to adapt to a whole new environment and make a new set of friends.

For an older man, the better option appears to be to rise to the challenge of learning a new language, making new friends, and adapting to new customs in his bride’s country. If it is the woman who is doing the adaptation — moving to a wealthier Western country — there is a chance the new environment will change her perception of her husband. Not a few older men have seen their tender Asian or Eastern European brides go feminist and decide that this marriage was not exactly what they wanted.

Advantages to children of an older father

The children of an older father will see more of their father. Spending time with their father doesn’t contribute to intelligence or the formation of personality, since these things are mostly inherited. However, boys, especially, turn out better if they grow up in intact families and spend a lot of time with their fathers. When mother and father agree that developing a child’s character is important, it seems they can do that. Even in a therapeutic society dedicated to the proposition that every child should be “happy,” parents who emphasize responsibility and hard work seem to be rewarded.

The good of society

Society needs children. A culture needs new generations to share everything that defines culture: customs, religious beliefs, history, dress and so on. The more fathers, the more children, and the more children, the better — at least in the West. If older fathers sire more productive children — intelligence, personality, etc. — their children make more positive contributions.

If we look at society as a gene pool, an older father’s increased load of de novo mutations is more than offset by the likelihood that he is perpetuating superior genetic material

The good of government

A government needs soldiers and taxpayers. Government benefits from children — and pays for their education and services — whoever the father may be. Older fathers do not impose any special costs on government. Their pensions do not go up. An older father is more likely to be solvent and less likely to be on welfare. This benefit is more than enough to offset the greater likelihood that he will die and his family will go on welfare.

Conclusion

We of today’s older generation have more education, resources, and time than any in history. Although we do not have as much of a feeling for our family, tribe, and nation as our ancestors did, we certainly have more than the generations following us. If there is going to be a renewed ethnic identity among our people, we have an important role. Many of us are already committed.

Awareness alone, however, will not solve the problem. We need new generations of people like ourselves. White people need to be raising white babies. Japanese need to be raising Japanese babies, and Chinese, Chinese. There is no danger in encouraging other groups. Given our shrinking numbers, the world has room for all of us.

We reached the zenith of human accomplishment when we had pride in ourselves and our people and believed that what we had was worth passing on. We can continue to do this by spending time with our grandchildren but, when possible, we should start new families.

Resolving to begin again and find a committed partner is not easy but it isn’t impossible. There are traditional women in our own countries, women who have not been swept up in the moral ambiguities of the age, who are looking for reliable partners. There remain countries such as those of Central and Eastern Europe where a majority of women of childbearing age want a traditional family.

Stop lamenting the unfortunate changes that have affected our countries and our society, and create a new generation to perpetuate all of the good that we inherited and cherish.