Axel Kicillof's antihuman and antinatalist experiment

By Santiago Santurio, national deputy for the Province of Buenos Aires (LLA), for La Derecha Diario.

---

Argentina is going through one of the worst demographic crises in its recent history. In the last ten years, births have dropped by 40% nationwide (INDEC). In the Province of Buenos Aires, under Axel Kicillof's administration, the decline exceeds 44%. These are the lowest levels since 1980. The picture is clear: fewer families, fewer children, less future.

However, faced with this alarming scenario, the governor reacts by promoting conditions that make it increasingly difficult to grow, work, and start a family. Instead of making life easier for Buenos Aires residents, he deepens an antinatalist approach. An anti-human Argentina. With fewer people, with individuals who are alone, isolated, and dependent on the State.

On that path, they attacked the essential values of our society and eroded our identity, pushing Argentines toward an individualistic model that has nothing to do with our tradition of community and family.

Axel Kicillof's dangerous project

In this context, ignoring urgent health needs, Axel Kicillof's government launched a "day of outpatient vasectomies" in hospitals in the Province of Buenos Aires, fully funded with public money. Scalpel-free vasectomy in the Province.

Today our country has just 1.3 contributors for every retiree. The pension system is on the verge of collapse. We need more active workers, more economic activity, more families to sustain a living country. The foundation of any society is children; if the pyramid loses its base, society tends to disappear.

However, instead of reducing taxes, freeing workers, encouraging investment, and creating conditions for people to plan, Kirchnerism insists on policies that discourage birth rates. Kicillof sells it as "progressivism," but it is nothing more than population control. The discourse that is now reappearing in progressive sectors is not new. It has deep historical roots.

Thomas Malthus, at the end of the 18th century, claimed that the population grows faster than resources, and that the only way out was to contain or reduce the number of human beings. His thesis was refuted time and again—from the Industrial Revolution to the technological revolution—but his logic survived in certain elitist circles.

A century and a half later, the Club of Rome took up this idea with its famous report The Limits to Growth (1972), which argued that the planet could not sustain a growing population. From that document, the notion that "people are the problem" became popular.

That approach was translated into concrete policies in several countries: population control programs, limits on birth rates, campaigns to discourage motherhood, and even cultural models that present the family as an obstacle to individual development.

When a governor manages the most populous province in the country, and there births plummet by more than 44%, the political responsibility is direct. Not because people should have children by decree, but because a State that suffocates, impoverishes, and discourages any life project becomes an enemy of the family and of life.

Meanwhile, developed countries, from France to Japan, launch aggressive policies to reverse the decline in birth rates, Kicillof tries the opposite: a progressivism that prefers fewer Argentines rather than more freedom. Because, for the K model, the family is a threat: an institution they can't domesticate.

The case of Hungary

An example of how pro-family policies have produced results, unlike progressive ones, is Hungary. Hungary's State Minister for Family Affairs states that the solution to the sharp decline in the European population lies in caring for families, "the most important social group".

She speaks about how "pro-family" policies are not an expense, but an investment in the future. In 2023, more than 6% of GDP was invested in public policies benefiting families. 

This is how they intend to manage us in decline. It is their project: a smaller, more controlled, poorer country.

​​The real discussion is this: do we want a country that grows, that produces, that develops? Or a country that resigns itself to managing decline, as this local neo-Malthusianism quietly proposes?

Argentina needs more freedoms, more jobs, more prosperity. It needs strong families, not fewer people or isolated and dependent citizens.

It needs conditions for families to flourish again, not speeches that treat them as a burden. We need public policies that encourage birth rates, protect life, families, and private property. That those who left return and those who are here stay. ARGENTINA NEEDS MORE ARGENTINES. It needs to recover the vocation for the future that this antinatalist experiment seeks to extinguish.

Because a country without families is a country destined to disappear. That, unfortunately, is the legacy left by the K model: a national death certificate.