The ramblings of Ninel Peia

Of all the privations and humiliations of life in Romania during the regime of Nicolae Ceausescu, few policies were as downright awful as 1966’s Decree 770, designed to increase the country’s declining birthrate.

Abortion and birth control were outlawed. All women of child-rearing age were subjected to regular, compulsory gynaecological examinations. The definitive work on the subject is Gail Kligman’s endlessly grim yet outstanding The Politics of Duplicity: Controlling Reproduction in Ceausescu’s Romania. (Spoiler: There is no happy ending. This Guardian Long Read is also worth your time).

The result of all this is widely known. When the state takes control of people’s bodies, it is no wonder that society becomes wholly brutalised. Tens of thousands of women suffered shocking injuries, and many others died, during back-street terminations. Families unable to feed themselves were forced to have children they could not care for. Hundreds of thousands – an entire generation – ended up in the appalling orphanages which remain the most vivid legacy of Ceausescu’s regime. It is unfortunate perhaps that many people in western Europe and North America still associate Romania with those half-starved, mistreated orphans, yet just as the images of Auschwitz at liberation will ensure such things never happen again, the memory of those poor children chained to beds and left for days on end must endure, insurance that we will never be confronted with their like again.

FireShot Capture 8 - romania orphanages - Google Search_ - https___www.google.co.uk_search

At least you’d like to think so.

The ramblings of Ninel Peia, a PSD senator, would suggest otherwise. Peia yesterday proposed legislation which would make huge monthly payments to all women with three or more children, for life. Those who have five or more offspring would be given a ‘Heroine Mother’ medal. Really. Ceausescu would be so proud his memory is alive and well.

There are currently 33 – yes, 33 – kids in Daughter of Bucharest Life’s class at school. As long as Romania struggles to educate the ones it has, and kills others with the shocking levels of its healthcare, the idea that the country needs more children is utterly ridiculous.

Indeed, far from encouraging big families Romania’s politicians should be doing the exact opposite*. It should be handing out free condoms left, right and centre, and ensuring that every woman who wants one has access to a free, safe abortion. A widespread programme of sex education preaching the value of contraception should be introduced on to the school curriculum (there is currently nothing). Child allowance (a paltry 80 lei per child) should be increased, but payment limited to the first two children.

Romania’s government will today launch a major anti-poverty initiative. Ensuring Peia’s ridiculous idea goes nowhere would be a very good start.

*Can we just add that we have nothing against large families per se. Indeed, we are godparents to the sixth-born child of some friends. But we should point out that they earn more in a month than we do in a year. They could afford fifteen kids if they wanted. As far as we are concerned everyone can have as many children as they like: just don’t ask us to subsidise them.

29 thoughts on “The ramblings of Ninel Peia

  1. First, let me start with a big LOL, reductio ad Ceausescum is always funny (I am using the Latin accusative for Ceausescu just to show off).
    Second, newsflash: there is no demographic explosion in Romania, so don’t worry. The rather high number of children in your kid’s class is related to poor management.
    Third, equal opportunities for all children (not necessarily their parents, and including twins) should be on our minds, so let’s not dismiss Peia’s proposal so easily.
    Fourth, speaking about not “subsidising” other people in a country with low upward mobility and a lot of class privilege and barriers is somewhat disingenuous. In Romania, the upper middle class individuals’ income and status are mostly related to inherited privilege and networking.

    Like

    1. I never said there was a demographic explosion, merely that there are already more than enough kids born every year to poor families. We do not need any more. What’s more, I am in favour of equal opportunities for all children (and their parents). When did I ever suggest I wasn’t?

      Like

      1. Romania and the rest of Eastern Europe already have a negative population growth, due to below replacement birth rates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population_growth_rate
        Therefore, I would say there are less than enough kids born every year.

        On equal opportunities, children born in poor families need more help. Offering cash would help them catch up.
        As for making babies, humans, poor and rich alike, love to make kids. No need for birds and bees stories, I hope.

        Finally, it is definitely not true that the best way to get people out of poverty is to reduce the number of children. That reduction is called the demographic transition and is the outcome (not the prerequisite) of industrialization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

        Like

      2. Surely shortfalls in population growth can be recovered via flexible immigration policies? Is it not much cheaper to import young adults, already educated, ready to join the workforce?

        Like

      3. Where do you find adults already educated and ready to join the workforce in Romania?

        Not even muslim animals who are educated in cutting throats would want to settle in Romania.

        I am in favor of any educated migration, however – there is no country to supply educated migration because countries that supply migration are not educated. Had they been educated, they were already prosperous countries.

        Like

      4. Which reminds me: instead destroying Third World countries and getting destroyed itself as a society by mass illegal migration, Europe should cut deals and invest heavily in their educational systems.

        Replace religion with science, replace extremism with Democracy beginning from low ages, teach people how women should be treated.

        It’s the best thing that Europe can do in the long run. However, it seems that time has come when we can say there will no longer be a “long run” for Europe. It will probably crash and burn in the next 10 years (as George Friedman also predicted).

        Like

      5. I am all for open borders. However that won’t solve child poverty in Romania. My reference to negative population growth was in reply to you unusual statement about too many children.

        Like

      6. It’s simple maths. If you have a monthly income of 500 lei and one child, you might just about keep your head above water. If you have a monthly income of 500 lei and five kids, chances are both you and they will live in poverty.

        Like

      7. Humans don’t necessarily love to make kids. Sometimes they’re homosexuals like Germans or Norwegians and they don’t make kids even if they had money to raise them.

        Homosexual countries actually need to rely on mass migration to supplement their work force.

        It’s obviously not the case in Romania. In Romania it’s just a problem of money.

        Europe should have a common demographic policy like they have the common agricultural and environmental policies. Homosexual countries like Germany and Norway who don’t have childred should pay incentives to normal countries who would love to have children but can not because people don’t have the money to raise them.

        Like

  2. We’ve got to start making more children. I’d make 50 children if the State took them and educated them. The State must get involved properly where families can’t. But everybody’s got to make children in huge quantities.

    How come muslim animals can make children and we can’t?!

    Like

  3. I seldom see a white Romanian baby out and about these days…however I see plenty of marauding gypsies with little armies of babies.

    Like

  4. “The result of all this is widely known. When the state takes control of people’s bodies, it is no wonder that society becomes wholly brutalised.”
    Abortion became legal in France in 1975. Was the country ‘wholly brutalised’ prior to that?

    Like

    1. Contraception was not illegal, nor were there obligatory examinations. It was also common practice to travel abroad for terminations, as happens today in Ireland.

      Speaking of Ireland, you need only look at what went on in its orphanages until very recently to see yet more awful consequences of what happens when women are denied their reproductive rights.

      Like

      1. Okay, those are somewhat valid points to a rather flippant statement. But interestingly enough, contraception only became legal in France in 1967. This is not due to any religous reason, as France is a secular Republic, but rather to a means to propogate the white race

        Like

    2. I think abortion should be legal under any circumstances.

      Children should be subsidized, not forced upon couples. This is an investment worth making, otherwise we will end up like Western Europe.

      Like

  5. ‘As far as we are concerned everyone can have as many children as they like: just don’t ask us to subsidise them.’
    Oh Craig, the irony in this statement is just infuriating. Mate *we* subsidize your choice to have unprotected sex with your missus and shit out a couple of kids. You don’t send them to a private school, you send them to a state school that us childless people contribute towards through taxes.
    ‘afford’ is also subjective, a gippo with your salary could afford to raise several more children than you do simply due to not needing to spend money one luxuries like laptops, tv, steak dinners etc…

    Like

    1. Homosexuals breathe air on this planet and give nothing in return. There should be a tax charged on homosexuality, nobody is obliged to fund and subsidize these social parasites to get laid.

      Like

  6. As an aside, how true is it really that “All women of child-rearing age were subjected to regular, compulsory gynaecological examinations”?

    I’ve talked about this to several women who were of child-rearing age during the Ceausescu years, and while they agreed such practices were whispered of, not one of them said they – or anyone they directly knew – had been subjected to such an ordeal.

    Like

    1. Depended very much on location – it was less easy to carry out such examinations in a rural environment – and if you already had children or not. Poorer, urban women unable to pay bribes felt the brunt of the policy the hardest.

      Like

    2. It’s bullshit, invented by Westerners.

      There was a law which prohibited abortions, but very few women were keen to have an abortion in those days. Having children was a matter of pride.

      Only hookers had abortions so there was no need for examinations because people were behaving naturally, unlike in today’s Wester Europe.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s