Category: Uncategorized

Mr. Joseph Farah affirms my Monday prediction regarding Creepy McCrypto:

Most of the attention on the nomination so far has focused on her lack of experience, her track record, her opinions on abortion, etc.

But the silver bullet that will do in the nominee is her cozy relationship with Bush – one that likely placed her in a position of covering up scandals in the Texas Lottery to keep secret the preferential treatment the president received as a young man to enter the Texas Air National Guard.

All it will take is a subpoena or two to get the whole sordid story on the public record – in front of a national television audience.

I don’t think George W. Bush, already experiencing unfavorable public opinion ratings, will allow that to happen.

Mr. Farah’s sources are much better than mine – especially since he’s in DC doing the talk radio thing while my connections consist solely of my synapses – but it’s interesting that he is reaching the same conclusion.

I just can’t figure out why the Pan-Gargler would think that soccer players tend to be a bit fruity.

Nevertheless, I’m still optimistic about the upcoming World Cup. I think a semifinals appearance is possible, if not likely. But we should be able to get past the group stage, which would be nice.

KS informs us that she possesses a 130+ IQ and reading comprehension problems:

I am rather disappointed that you would mandate a woman of my age, 18, to start looking for a mate immediately for the sole purpose of producing children, whereas you issue a caveat to young men to stay single. You tell us women on World Net Daily, ” Remember, your choices narrow as you get older, while men’s choices broaden,” because, apparently, once we are no longer young and fertile, we are no longer of any value to the opposite sex. I suppose when your wife hits menopause, you will immediately begin hunting for a younger mate.

Yes, once a woman is no longer young and fertile, she is completely useless for having children, except in a professional capacity as a doctor, midwife or fertility technician. If having children was my foremost priority, I would certainly replace a post-menopausal or barren wife for one capable of bearing children. But what does any of that have to do with Monday’s column or the subsequent discussion?

KS reveals a haphazard manner of thinking all too typical of today’s youth, conflating narrowing choices with a complete lack of value and failing to note the obvious caveats applying to the two columns in question. Furthermore, she either reveals the female tendency towards totalitarianism in confusing individual observations with an order by an authority figure or she does not understand the word “mandate”.

You instruct us not to flirt, or bait-and-switch. ” Unlike their female counterparts, men who say they don’t want to get married or have kids usually mean it.” You seem to think it is fine for men to not want children or marriage, but not for women. If it is our biological purpose as women to bear children, shouldn’t all men also fulfill their biological purpose in providing the other 23 chromosomes and, oh dear, a feminist thought, perhaps share in the responsibilities of raising children?

First, I never mentioned anything about flirting, second, does KS seriously wish to argue that it is ethical or effective for women to engage in bait-and-switch tactics? And while it would be demographically desirable for young men to harbor more interest in marriage and children, the evidence suggests that the lack of such interest is primarily a symptom caused by the construction of the Equalitarian Society, its quasi-legal courts and masculinized women. One cannot cure the disease by treating the symptoms and ignoring the cause. There’s more sloppy thinking here, as it is not possible for men to share in the responsibilities of bearing children, which is the subject at hand. Men have always shared in the responsibilities of raising children, unless one redefines the activity as excluding the provision of food, shelter and protection.

According to you, we should “settle earlier rather than later.” I resent the fact that you even use the term “settle.” It gives me the impression that you do not think we have a right to search for a decent human being beyond our peak reproductive age, so long as he provides viable sperm, he will do.

A resentful woman, imagine that! Again, KS confuses individual opinion and biological realities with the force of law. You have the right to do whatever you want. If you want to collect cats, go for it. But you will settle, sooner or later, because The Perfect Man does not exist. There is always an opportunity cost, even if you make the best of all possible choices.

Indeed, in my opinion, the job of mother is the most difficult on the face of this earth, and many women are not equipped to fulfill it, especially if they follow your advice and bear children before 25, before they have had time to experience the world beyond their parents’ homes. This is why I am uncertain as to whether I want children. I would love to have them, but I am not sure if I would do as amazing a job that my mother did with me and my siblings. And may I point out that the tradition of marriage used to be a father selling his daughters in order to improve his connections, wealth, and status. As if his female children were livestock, ommodities to bring him material gain.

Here KS makes a remarkably stupid statement. The job of mother is one of the easiest jobs on the face of this earth and trillions of women have successfully performed it. About the only easier job is that of father. The fact that they are uniquely necessary jobs does not make them complex, dangerous or hard to do.

As for the tradition of women being regarded as commodities, if KS and other young women elect to continue following the equalitarian precepts of the Sisterhood, I think we can just about guarantee that the West will see a revival of the practice within 100 years.

RL asks some interesting questions:

Allow me to turn that question around. If you also believe that Western Civilization is the best and brightest, then why are you so quick predict its demise?

Are there any actual historic examples of an entire civilization, any civilization (not a kingdom, empire, or country), completely disappearing from the face of the earth because they stopped reproducing enough?

I think I’ll address the first question tomorrow, because I’d prefer to do so in more detail than I feel like ripping off right now. But as to the latter, that’s a bit of a difficult question.

First, because any civilization which has become defunct is, by definition, not around now, so we don’t necessarily know what happened to it. For example, historians have a few theories about why the Etruscans were wiped out by the Romans, but we don’t actually know.

Second, a civilization which becomes demographically vulnerable is seldom left in peace to vanish in silence. Indeed, among the various aspects of a decadent culture is an declining inclination to reproduce. But humans, like nature, appear to abhor a vaccuum, especially if there’s perfectly good land and other resources available for the taking.

If one examines the case of Italy, the immigrant population has grown from 156,179 of 54.1 million in 1971 to an estimated 3.8 million of 58.5 million in 2004. So the population appears stable, even if the percentage of Italians is falling. But the real problem is that in 1971, the birth rate was above the replacement rate of 2.1, now it is well below it, at 1.17. So, the trend is going to increase rapidly and the declining number of children is already readily apparent to anyone visiting an Italian city.

Lest anyone think that pointing out these obvious trends is only a concern of the right wing seeking a return to the Dark Ages of the 1950s, I note the following:

“the anthropologist and writer Ida Magli has a more controversial view of why Italy’s fertility rate is falling. She says: “No one wants to say the truth–that Italian women don’t want to be mothers. In this country, there is no help for a mother with a child. So maternity destroys her chances of working and realising herself.”

RL asks, we answer:

What I took issue with was his thinnly veiled assertion that the history and biology made it right and that women should just accept their position as cows.

“It’s been that way for millions of years, and only just the last few decades have people like you begun to believe differently.” – George.

My example with the king was showing how most people on this site, I strongly suspect, wouldn’t agree with that line of reasoning if applied to other areas of longstanding (but generally overturned in modern times) historical precedent. Thus, why should women necessarily accept their biological and historical position?

1. Because the human race will end if they do not accept their biological position. Women, to their credit, are not indifferent to this, as the fear of nuclear war and global warming shows. Nevertheless, it is the Western woman’s refusal to accept the biological demands which God/Nature/evolution has placed on them that is on the verge of guaranteeing the loss of every so-called advance that women today currently cherish. As we are already seeing in Europe, if a society becomes insufficiently interested in sustaining itself for whatever reason, other societies will readily move in to replace it. This is not exactly a new phenomenon.

2. Since very few women are both interested in and capable of a productive career in theoretical or applied sciences, any prospective technological solutions would likely be primarily dependent upon men. As I alluded in my column yesterday, a brave new technological world is just as likely to degrade women’s position in society as it is to enhance it, if not more so.

3. Because women are biologically disadvantaged and will always be personally vulnerable to individual male power and aggresiveness. This is one reason why the serious gender feminists push lesbianism. Without completely breaking all contact with men, it is impossible for a woman to maintain a position of superior power without the tacit acceptance of the men supporting her.

As for questions of right and wrong, that obviously depends on your perspective. The West’s Judeo-Christian cultural tradition clearly indicates that women have a duty to accept their special position, which is not a bovine one but rather one of supreme importance. If one rejects that, as many obviously do, then one cannot really make any judgment on the matter without first defining the morality with which one is doing so.

The retirement gap
By Teresa Heinz
October 8, 2005
The Boston Globe

Isn’t it interesting how a feminist always feels the need to pretend that she’s a normal, heterosexual, married woman when her partner-in-crime is running for office? Or, for that matter, when she is. If feminists were actually mainstream, normal women would instead be surreptitiously dropping their married names when in the public eye.

That’s why it amuses me when people talk about a second President Clinton. If the Lizard Queen gets elected – and she may well – I expect her to announce that she’d prefer to be addressed as President Rodham by mid-November 2011.

That’s if we’re lucky. If we’re not, we’ll be publicly confessing our sins against Her Reptilian Majesty prior to being carted off in the tumbrils.

Study Finds Fertility Is Higher Here than in Home Countries;
Illegal Aliens Have Birthrates 50% Higher than Native-Born

WASHINGTON (October 12, 2005) — A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies finds that women from the top ten immigrant-sending countries collectively have higher fertility than women in their home countries. As a group, immigrants from these countries have 23 percent more children than women in their home countries….

* In 2002, immigrant women (legal and illegal) from the top 10 immigrant-sending countries had 2.9 children on average, compared to a fertility rate of 2.3 children in their home countries — a 23-percent difference.

* Mexico immigrants in the U.S., for example, had 3.5 children per woman compared to 2.4 children for women in Mexico. Among Chinese immigrant fertility is 2.3 in the U.S. compared to 1.7 in China, and immigrants from Canada have 1.9 children compared to 1.5 children in Canada.

I’m just wondering what is the point of sending young women to college if afterwards they are still too clueless to grasp the probability that children raised by non-English speaking immigrants from unfree countries are not exactly likely to share the preferences – from food to form of government – of those they are expected to replace.

I mean, if you can’t figure that out, just what benefit are you likely to offer society anyhow?

What Bear and others who point to the melting pot of yore don’t seem to have considered is how modern communications and travel technology now obviates the need for immigrants to adapt to their new home. Believe me, you can live almost anywhere in the world and as long as you have a satellite and an Internet connection, you wouldn’t even realize you were on a different continent unless you left the house.

Immigrants now face a choice to abandon their cultural traditions or to maintain them, and it increasingly appears that they are electing to retain them. It’s worth noting that “the rights of Englishmen” have never been instilled anywhere except by force; they will not likely be preserved here by those who have no interest or traditional connection to them.

M writes back, and interestingly enough, declines to declare her major:

As for your opening gambits, your beef seems to be more with women focusing on education at all, not what kind they get. So if I answered “Neuroscience” or “Engineering”, what I could expect to get is the same as if I said “Philosophy” or “International Relations”. In short, you already answered your own question: “It will make you very employable, I’m sure.” While categorizing all of your critics into either “frothing feminists” or “ignorati” is pretty much unworthy, I can’t really blame you when people come out with “I’m an exception to your article because I’m ________ degree and so cool.”

First, it’s not that all of my critics are frothing feminists or ignorati, it’s just that the vast majority of them demonstrate serious reading comprehension problems, an inability to see the forest for the trees or an unshakeable allegiance to feminist dogma even when it flies in the face of demonstrable reality. As anyone who read the Fark comments knows, there wasn’t a single substantive critique in the lot. I’m always quite happy to engage a serious critic, unfortunately they are very few and far between.

Second, very few men or women realize that “education” is largely a crock. I speak two foreign languages, one of which I learned in high school. While I do not speak the language I studied in college and for which I received a major from an expensive private university, I am quite comfortable in a language in which I have never been “educated”. Education is not wholly synonymous with learning and a degree is not proof of knowledge, let alone proven expertise.

Furthermore, most college educations are completely wasted. Except in the most demanding technical fields, one’s career seldom bears much relation to one’s education in the United States. It is very different in Europe, where the educational tracks are guided, but here in the States I’d be surprised if 5 percent of the countless Sociology, Women’s Studies and International Relations majors ever spend a single year working in a job that is even tangentially related to those academic fields.

And for this it’s worth sacrificing marriage, children and the Western cultural tradition? Some might think so. I disagree.

What I’m more interested in at the moment is where you left the other half of your argument, and why. Statistics don’t show that we’re in the middle of a population crisis here. In fact, the situation is just the opposite. The birth rate for natives is a little above replacement, and that is admittedly mostly due to the national emphasis on education and career rather than family during the most fertile years of our lives. This is true of most developed countries, with the US at a 2.1 fertility rate, and most European countries hovering between 1.2 and 2.0. However, in the US, the rate of replacement due to immigration (and high immigrant fertility rates, both legal and illegal) more than makes up for our close call on the native fertility scales. This has become a big political issue in the past decade because immigrants are ceasing to absorb into our society, learn our language, etc. Therefore, I can really only come to the conclusion that you left the other half of your argument behind… that you are not calling for women to have more babies, you are calling for white women to have more babies. If you wanted to seem more PC, you would say native women or “US citizens”. I’m somewhat curious as to why you are so willing to be branded a misogynist, but hang back from the racist brand.

I don’t know how accurate that last sentence is, considering that more than a few commenters here and on Fark weren’t shy about applying the racist label. To which I can only say that if that were true, I would imagine that my career as a NCAA D1 100m sprinter would have been a lot more difficult, given that it’s not exactly a massive Caucasian’s club.*

And while I don’t care greatly about the color of the babies of tomorrow, I am very much concerned with who is having them. As Europe is learning, third-world immigrants from countries which have not had the benefit of 500 years of the Western tradition are not an adequate substitute for native-born citizens who have. Even from the liberal point of view, is an illiterate Argentine who is more familiar with Peron than George Washington really an adequate substitute for a female Boston Brahmin who teaches political geography at Harvard?

Isn’t it at least possible that importing a significant percentage of people with no cultural tradition of free speech, limited government or even monogamous marriage just might have some effect on Western countries’ ability to continue their traditions? In Britain, for example, not only Piglet but even the Cross of St. George – the national symbol – is being banned in public due to immigrant sensitivities.

This is precisely why I have asserted that the Equalitarian Society will come to an end in the intermediate future. It simply isn’t sustainable, not even by its own lights.

*A few years ago, I was working out with free weights in Washington DC with three giant bodybuilders. They were black and they were freaking enormous, doing leg presses with six (6!) 45-pound plates per side. I was going through my martial arts phase at the time and my head was shaved clean, which led the biggest guy to ask why it was shaved – while I was on the bench with 285 pounds over my throat and he was spotting me.

“White supremacist” I told him. “Now let go of the damn bar!” He correctly grasped the sarcasm in the situation, burst out laughing and finally took his hands off. This was necessary because he was the worst spotter ever. I think I did twelve or thirteen reps that set because Mr. Ebon Steroid Freak was curling ninety percent of the weight for the first ten.

I’ll be on Jim Richards Show on NewsTalk 1010 CFRB Toronto at 8:35 PM. If it’s like the last time I was on that station, it should be good humor. Toronto apparently has no shortage of feminist lunatics frothing at the mouth there and they seem to enjoy using me as the sharp stick with which to poke them.

No idea if they have a webcast or not.

Mellochic advocates blatant dishonesty and gold-digging:

Wow…. I feel like my sarcastic commentary can’t really do this column justice. This whole article is crap. I mean… picture this… you’re out on your first date with someone, and you start talking about how much you want to get married and have lots of kids. Now, if that doesn’t scare them off…. Creepy McCrypto? Yeah… why didn’t I drop out of high school to make babies with worthless future janitors of america? Damn… guess I’ll have to settle with my chemical engineering degree and reconcile myself to an awesome Ivy-League boyfriend. What was I thinking?

Let’s see, a girl with a chemical engineering degree dating a guy from the Ivy League… yes, actually, the image of Creepy McCrypto does tend to spring to mind. Note, too, how future janitors are “worthless” but the mere fact of attending the Ivy League makes a man “awesome”.

Now, I’m not saying she’s a golddigger, but… you know the rest. The bit about scaring them off would be funny if it wasn’t so sad… Mellochic tacitly admits her desire for marriage and children while managing to miss the entire point of the exercise, which is for a woman who desires children to winnow out those men who will be scared off so she can focus her attention on those who aren’t. As for the whole article being crap, if it were not for some minor points of grammar and punctuation, it would be hard to improve on this gentleman’s take:

“Why, yes, the easiest way to get married and have children is to have meaningless casual overnight sex, work 60 hour jobs after 5 years of college, tell men you never want to marry or have kids, stay in long term relationships with guys that hate children and don’t want them, and ignoring obvious faults in men they date for the sake of converting him later, and try to make no logical sense in choosing a partner.. yes.. THAT is the best path to take.“

As for Creepy McCrypto herself, allow me to make a prediction. Her nomination will not even make it to the floor of the U.S. Senate.