I suppose, if you’ve planned ahead to have a very large family, you could simply start naming them Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, Echo, Foxtrot, and so on, through the entire phonetic alphabet. (I’m not sure what numbers 21 and 23 would think about being called Uniform and Whiskey; and number 16 — Papa — might be a big confusing; but they’ll just have to deal with it, the same way they deal with being among the last ones in the hand-me-down-clothes hierarchy.

But seriously, I wrote last week about a U.S. movement referred to as pronatalism, which not only favors large families in order to grow the country’s population, but suggests — not so subtly — that those of us who choose not to follow their example are somehow un-American.

As sort of poster children for this movement are the Collinses of Pennsylvania: Malcolm and Simone, and their four (soon to be five) little ones, with plans for as many as half a dozen more.

Now, I am not inherently opposed to large families. In fact, I think they’re great, as long as the parents truly love children, and have the wherewithal to care for them properly, to give them the individual attention they need, and to provide them with a good start toward happy and productive lives. But it’s not a suitable lifestyle for everyone. And this is what most avid pronatalists seem to overlook. Much like extremists of all stripes, they are convinced that what is right for them is right . . . period.

And this one-size-fits-all lifestyle is a real movement that shows signs of spreading. In late March, a group of roughly 200 advocates met in Texas for the second annual Natal Conference — a weekend-long event costing around $1,000 to attend. The attendees come from two very different branches of the American right: conservative Christians, as well as members of the so-called “tech right” — a growing group sprouting from the libertarian culture of Silicon Valley. [Stephanie Hegarty, BBC, April 1, 2025.]

At this point, you may be wondering: “Well, so what? If they want to form a congregation of like-minded families, what’s wrong with that?”

And the answer is: On its face, absolutely nothing. They can form any sort of organization they choose; they can incorporate if they like, or even call it a religion. That is their inalienable right as U.S. citizens.

That is, unless and until they try to bring the government into it, which is what Malcolm Collins says they have been trying to do. They view some members of the Trump administration as potential allies, and are attempting to capitalize on what they see as possibilities.

For example, they point to:

— Elon Musk — the father of some 12 or more children — who has called fertility decline “the biggest danger civilisation faces, by far,” and who is said to have donated $10 million to a Texas organization known as the Population Wellbeing Initiative, which conducts research into fertility, parenting, and the future of population growth.

— Vice President JD Vance — who has been outspoken in his support of increased procreation, and said at an anti-abortion rally in January: “I want more babies in the United States.”

— Donald Trump — who, though not yet having spoken out in support of wholesale baby-making, did sign an executive order on February 18th to improve access for IVF that recognized “the importance of family formation and that our nation’s public policy must make it easier for loving and longing mothers and fathers to have children.” [Id.]

*. *. *

But why am I so bothered by this? For one simple reason: the Feenstra family, late of Saskatchewan, Canada, and now on track to citizenship in Russia. I’ve written enough about them in the past year that I almost feel as though I know them personally. They sold their farm and left Canada with eight of their nine children (the eldest son chose to stay behind) on the promise of being able to buy a farm in Russia, where they could escape the liberal, “woke” politics of their native Canada.

And, after a somewhat rocky start, they have found what they wanted: a couple of hundred acres (which they don’t really own because foreigners are not allowed to own land in Russia), on which they have built a house and other farm buildings, and are on their way to becoming a thriving, profit-making enterprise.

And, more importantly, they say they are able to live their chosen ultra-conservative lives, worshiping as they choose despite the absence of any church they can attend; associating with other conservative families; and proselytizing for Vladimir Putin’s program of . . . wait for it . . .

Population growth.

And there you have it. Last year — 2024 — was Russia’s “Year of the Family,” with celebrations and prizes given to those families who best exemplified Putin’s ideal . . . which included the Feenstras.

Putin’s Procreation Party was a big, splashy, year-long push for a baby boom to offset the years of population decline caused by a combination of factors: the flight of those who opposed his regime and knew they were in danger of arrest, or simply couldn’t live with it any longer; and the loss of tens — perhaps hundreds — of thousands of young men to Putin’s “special military operation” in Ukraine.

It was taken so seriously, there were even punishments meted out to those — such as teachers and doctors — who dared express a different view.

And it is the echoes of those events in Russia that haunt me as I see Trump trying to rid the United States of immigrants he considers “undesirable,” while offering $5 million “gold card” visas to wealthy foreigners more to his liking.

In other words, cull the herd of the weakest and least productive, while breeding — and even importing — a “superior” strain. Might it lead to selective breeding . . . or eugenics? That much is not yet clear.

*. *. *

And is this movement really finding its way into government circles?

In the interest of brevity . . . though I fear I’ve already passed that point . . . I’ll stop here for the moment, and address that further issue in a separate chapter.

As if we don’t already have enough to keep us awake at night.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
4/12/25