In defense of sexual predilection

Ed Trimnell follows through and posts an admirably substantive critique of what he describes as my sexual determinism:

 Vox took issue with my earlier statement that “Conservatism is for men as well as women.” He is also on record as being opposed to female suffrage.  Now, before you ask, “Why bother to refute such ideas?” let me inform you that Vox Day is not some babbling nut job. On the contrary, Vox is highly articulate, and the author of a number of successful books.

However, Vox has been seduced by the doctrine of sexual determinism—and the notion that one’s sex determines one’s ability to function in the political realm. Like most false ideologies, this one, too, is based on an initial premise of truth that is over-extrapolated to a false conclusion.

I think it can be reasonably said that I subscribe to the doctrine of sexual predilection and predictability, thought not absolute determinism, and I readily assert that one’s sex can be used to reliably predict one’s ideological and political predilections, as well as many other things.  I should note here that one of the things that often trips up my critics when they attempt to attack my positions is that they tend to operate in binary terms whereas I always think in terms of probability even if my rhetoric often sounds superficially binary.  Since binary-based attacks are necessarily crude in comparison and therefore off-target from the start, they are easily defeated.  As for whether that doctrine is false, or over-extrapolated, let us see if Ed is able to adequately support those assertions.

Ed begins with an analogy.

Vox is Tom Peters in reverse. The mistake that Vox commits is to interpret female differences as weaknesses (rather than the strengths that Peters claims them to be). Vox asserts that:

    “…women would not be permitted to vote in any society that wishes to sustain itself…”

According to Vox, the proof is in the pudding. The Western democracies introduced female suffrage around one hundred years ago. And in the intervening years, most have adopted some form of the welfare state.

Women—given their predisposition toward cooperative, group-directed activity—may be more susceptible to the arguments of Democrats, socialists, and similar collectivists. Perhaps. (Of course, Tom Peters asserts—relying on the same data—that these traits make women better corporate managers!)

How can deterministic arguments be turned against men? Men are by nature more aggressive, and more prone to violence and antisocial behavior. Most violent crimes are committed by men; and almost all rapes are committed by men. Compared to women, men are far more inclined toward violent, sexually aggressive, and antisocial behavior.

This is an excellent of example of reason needing to be silent when experience gainsays its conclusions.  Ed makes a basic logical error here in attempting to equate my logical and empirical argument with Tom Peters’s logical argument.  I am not familiar with Mr. Peter’s post-In Search of Excellence work, so I don’t know if he empirically proves his case that women are better corporate managers or not.  But it should be obvious that if Peters has done so, then Ed has shown my argument to be correct, analogically speaking.  If Peters has not, then it has absolutely no relevance to my case that women’s suffrage is inimical to human liberty, national sovereignty, and the survival of Western civilization because I have provided empirical evidence to prove my case by a variety of metrics.

Ed goes on to provide a historical metric of his own:

However, history proves that sex does not equal destiny at the voting booth. In the close election of 1976, the gender gap was nil. Reagan’s “gender gap” was in the single-digit range in 1980. In 1988, George H.W. Bush actually captured a majority of the female vote.

So much for the argument that women are destined to vote for the Democrats.

Why then, has the political gender gap become so pronounced in recent election cycles? It might be because women (along with other groups) are voting according to their biology, whereas they mysteriously weren’t in the 1970s and 1980s.

Ed’s error here is caused by the erroneous equivalence he makes between voting Democratic and voting against human liberty.  He is assuming that the Republicans are the pro-liberty party, which is simply not true.  Because women are smaller, weaker, more emotional, more fearful, and have a more active left amygdala than men, (to list only a few of the sex differences relevant here), they reliably throw their political support to the party who more adeptly plays upon their fears.

This is not an abstract argument, it is observably a political practice that has been in use since the beginning of the 20th century, which just happens to coincide when women received the right to vote in many countries.  Note that women’s suffrage is literally the very first plank in the Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle, which in its demand for proportional representation is more radically pro-female than any current Western political party outside of Scandinavia. 

Here is the program of a genuinely Italian movement. It is
revolutionary because it is anti-dogmatic, strongly innovative and
against prejudice.

For the political problem: We demand:

a) Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with
proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility
for women.

The party that plays most upon female fears in the USA is usually the Democratic Party, but was the Republican Party at the time of George H.W. Bush’s first campaign.  The Republicans were offering more credible security promises in a perceived time of global insecurity.  UPDATE: as one reader comments, we should not forget either “Willie Horton” or “Dukakis in the tank”.

The Republican security case was trumped in 1992, when Bill Clinton played upon economic fears and made an overt play for female voters by “feeling their pain”, because the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and the Gulf War turned out to be considerably less apocalyptic than anticipated.  The Republican Party’s objectives have since been significantly feminized, even though they have been trumped by the Obama Democratic Party’s abilities to one-up them.  The reason the political gender gap has become increasingly pronounced is that in an environment of increased economic fear, the party that does a better job of appealing to the more fearful portion of the electorate will inordinately prosper from its advantage in that regard.

Consider the fate of Switzerland.  Women were not permitted to vote there until 1971, much later than the rest of Europe.  This is the primary reason why Switzerland retains its sovereignty whereas neither democracy nor national sovereignty presently exists in any of the member states of the European Union, which is ruled by an unaccountable, unelected European Commission.  But even in Switzerland, it only took 28 years post-suffrage for the national constitution to be modified to permit the passage of gun laws, and for extensive restrictions to be placed upon the ownership of firearms.  As for the EU, note that in Italy, even the pretense of popular rule was abandoned in 2011 as the government is headed by an unelected, EU-selected Senator-for-Life.

It is easy to establish an objective metric to consider the effect of female suffrage on a nation without waiting to see how long it takes for female suffrage to be followed by the complete cessation of democracy or the loss of national sovereignty, which I note took as little as 19 years in the case of the German Weimar Republic.  A law is, by definition, a restriction on a human activity.  So, to prove that female suffrage is not inimical to human liberty, all that is necessary is to show that the number of laws being passed post-suffrage is equal to or less than the number of laws being passed pre-suffrage.  Alternatively, one could compare the lifespans of sovereign democracies and/or republics where women are, and are not, permitted to vote.

So my question to Mr. Trimnell is if he accepts the number of laws and regulations in effect as a reasonable metric for measuring human liberty in this regard?  And if so, what are the historical cases he believes favor his anti-determinism case?

Rabbits in the NFL

Never give them any quarter.  None.  They never, ever stop trying to exert control over everything you think, say, and do:

Comedian and radio show Artie Lange went from player to player at media day, as we understand it, asking outlandish questions until someone game him an outlandish answer.  That someone was 49ers cornerback Chris Culliver, who expressed strong opinions against the possibility of a gay teammate, creating a major distraction for his team.

But the obvious apologies and retractions shouldn’t be the end of it, in the opinion of Seahawks punter Jon Ryan.  Ryan believes that Culliver should be suspended.

“If Chris Culliver isn’t suspended by Goodell then I am absolutely embarrassed to be part of a league that accepts this type of behavior,” Ryan said on Twitter.

Who cares if Jon Ryan is embarrassed or not?  It’s not behavior, it is free speech and freedom of thought.  Culliver was perfectly within his rights to speak about what he thinks and Ryan should quit the league if he’s such a delicate flower.  Ryan should also be given a lecture by Roger Goodell about who is responsible for the NFL’s disciplinary processes and who is not.

If suspending people from their jobs for expressing their opinions is now the norm, then obviously it is fair for Christians to demand the suspension of everyone who dares to say anything that contradicts the Bible in any way.  It won’t be long before the Muslims will get into the game too, as they already are in London and some of the European cities.  It should be interesting to see how fast homosexuals abandon their public pressure tactics when they belatedly realize they are outnumbered by an enemy far more implacable than they ever imagined Christians to be.

The Ripped Life

An old friend of mine has launched a new business that should be of some interest to the Paleo advocates out there, particularly Supernaut.  It’s called PaleoLife Foods and he describes it as “an ultra-premium, natural nutritional foods company that
was founded on the core, Paleo/Primal Diet-inspired belief that the
foods we put into our bodies should be nothing but the truly
highest-quality, freshest, REAL whole foods as close to nature as
possible — and made up of ingredients that we, as humans, not only
evolved on for millennia but THRIVED on.”

PaleoLife has a new bar out that is available on Amazon and has gotten very good reviews.  I haven’t tried it myself, since my box hasn’t arrived yet, but as my friend is an aesthete of the highest order, I’d be very surprised if it was unpalatable.  If you’re already eating Paleo or are flirting with the idea, you might want to check out their Primal Cocoanut.

Speaking of the Ripped Life, I’ve finally been able to get back onto my 5x/week routine now that the calcio season and the holidays are over.  I’ve learned to take it a little easier, stop when I feel something, and protect my joints a bit, which appears to have helped in avoiding all the niggling little injuries to which I am prone given my distaste for changing my routine.  A minor bicep issue means I still can’t comfortably do pull-ups behind the head, which is frustrating, but the gym has a nice free-weighted rowing machine that, in combination with chin-ups, serves as an adequate substitute for the time being.

That settles that

The month-long experiment has come to an end.  The results are in.  I was more than a little curious about what sort of effect the end of my WND column would have on the blog.  After all, the blog only began as a sort of permanent mailbag to replace the little mailbags at the end of the column, and it initially became useful to me as a means of responding to multiple emails about the same column at once.  It was so effective in this regard that the numbers of emails I received about the current column eventually dropped from dozens per day to only a few per week despite the fact that the column readership grew considerably over the same period.

It seemed to make sense that because a lot of people originally first came to visit VP by way of WND, we would see a noticeable decline in the traffic here without my column there.  That didn’t bother me, as traffic has never been a priority here and I assumed all the regulars would likely continue to swing by.  I was more than a little tired of fruitlessly attempting to advocate liberty to a crowd that was much less interested in it, on average, than in being in a position to dictate to the other half of the country.  That is why, at the end of the experiment yesterday, I was surprised to learn that after retiring my column on December 31, VP traffic not only did not decline last month, but increased to 630,860 Google pageviews, (895,311 combined with AG), up nearly 20 percent from the previous month. 

What happened?  It wasn’t the SFWA presidential campaign that made the difference; there aren’t that many SF/F writers in the first place and most of them don’t pay any attention to the election.  A fair number of rabbits did come by the one day to show how they could hop on one foot and shake their fluffy little cottontails on command, but less than appear from a single Instalink.  Nor were there any Instalinks to VP in January to skew things upward, though there was one to AG.  What happened was that two weeks after seeing there were no negative effects on traffic from the end of the column, I added a link to VP from AG for the first time.  The unexpected increase in January almost entirely comes from that little modification to the AG layout.  Go figure.

What I learned is that while there is a significant amount of overlap between the two blogs, as anyone who recognizes the regular commenter names can tell, there is rather less than I assumed.  I never bothered linking the one from the other because I thought that everyone who went to AG was already a VP reader.  That was initially the case, I’m sure, but it is clearly no longer true, especially in light of the emails I’ve received from AG readers who were clearly surprised to discover the existence of this blog.  I’ve said from the start that because the human interest in all things socio-sexual is considerably greater than in pretty much anything else, AG would eventually surpass VP.  That hasn’t happened yet, but at the present rate, it should take place within two years even though, as the chart shows, VP is still growing at a reasonable pace itself.

So, it would appear that I was wrong and those of you who said WND was no longer doing anything material for me from a readership perspective were correct.  I admit it.  You may commence the crowing now.

While the sole purpose of this blog remains the Amusement Imperative, which concerns entertaining myself in whatever manner happens to strike me at the moment, I do appreciate the way in which the Dread Ilk continue to contribute to the discourse here in their inimitable manner.  It’s remarkable how even the class of anklebiters has gradually improved over the years.  They may still be nipping at the sweet, sweet taste of my ankles, but at least they are aware they are doing so and not operating under the illusion they are gnawing through the foundations of Western Civilization or the last remaining supports of the Patriarchy.

Alert the OED

Roissy coins a new term:

When men are men and women are women, the sex is more frequent. And
probably hotter, too. When men are scalzied manboobs and women are
manjawed feminists, the bedroom is an arid wasteland of dashed passion.

Sexual polarity — the primal force that adheres the cosmic cock to
the celestial snatch — is the truth of truths that belies every feminist
assertion ever made in the history of that insipid, leprotic ideology.
May the losers of the world quake and fall to their knees before its
divine directive.

This isn’t a truth borne of social constructs, or of cultural
conditionings, or of privileges of privilege. It’s a truth woven into
the fabric of our origin atoms, the glue that binds our helical
commandments and reaches outward to breathe life into the monolith of
our souls.

It is what is.

The man is a wordsmith of uncommon skill and violence.  He takes words and makes them his own in much the same way McRapey informs us he treats women.  And speaking of McRapey, it was more than a little amusing to see Roissy utilize the term “scalzied” in a sentence.

But precisely what does it mean for someone to be scalzied?  In the context given, I can only conclude that it means for a man to have become accustomed to assuming a servile and inferior demeanor in relation to women based on a mistaken impression that doing so would curry favor with them.  Naturally, I defer to Roissy if I have somehow failed to grasp his neologism in its entirety.

As for the study that is the main subject of his post, I’ll address it on Alpha Game tomorrow, since a considerable number of people have been kind enough to bring it to my attention.  Translation: thank you and you can stop emailing it to me now….

UPDATE:  Johnny is very bravely keeping a smile on his face and attempting to pretend that he thinks this is all so very much fun and adorable.  Which is great, because I certainly find it amusing too and I’m more than happy to continue to amusing him and his fellow rabbits accordingly. The thing is, he appears to be under the misapprehension that I had anything to do with whatever it was that inspired his latest inspirational message.  Unfortunately, I can’t take any credit for it.  Strangely enough, I’m responding to a post he wrote about me describing how I frequently write about him when I hadn’t, in fact, done so.  This is all beginning to get a little meta.


“Folks, as you may know, out there on the Internets there is a Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit who at the moment has an adorable mancrush on me. This means that he can hardly go a day or two without saying something about me on his Web site, usually something which reflects his own deep and abiding personal insecurities. And of course, this is his prerogative; if it makes him feel better about himself and pumps up his social status with his clutch of equally insecure racist sexist homophobic dipshit admirers, then by all means he can spout as much garbage about me as he likes. It does no harm to me (as noted before, no one outside his little huddle of bigots gives much mind to anything he has to say about anything, much less anything  he has to say about me) and I suppose it keeps him from playing in traffic. So, fine.”

Isn’t it wonderful that everyone is fine with it?  It should certainly be fascinating to see McRapey attempt to pretend The Chateau is as trivial and little-regarded as Vox Popoli.  I wonder what clever name he’ll come up with for Roissy?  I am, after all, but a humble superintelligence, while Roissy is the one of the true geniuses of our generation.

Race-based contraception

This contraception scandal in Israel is rather timely news in light of the recent discussion concerning racism:

The director of the Ministry of Health in Israel, Roni Gamzo, has
issued a formal directive instructing that gynaecologists should not
inject women with the contraceptive Depo-Provera without their knowledge
or consent.

The directive, issued last week, comes after around 30 Ethiopian Jews
who had emigrated to Israel said they had been told that they would not
be allowed into the country without receiving the contraceptive drug.  Within Israel, Ethiopian Jews make up the majority of those given the
drug, according to a report published in 2010 by Isha le’Isha, a
women’s rights organization; 57 percent of women who had received the
drug in Israel are Ethiopian Jews, although they account for less than 2
percent of the overall population.

I found it to be particularly interesting in light of how American Jewish support for third world immigration is largely based on their parents’ and grandparents’ experience in America.  Perhaps the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is deeply concerned with all things even potentially racist, will find the time to look into who is responsible for this involuntary contraceptive program.

Vaccine “safety” and the swine flu vaccine

I find it tragically unsurprising how even with more than 800 confirmed cases of something as rare as teenage narcolepsy staring them in the face, the vaccine providers are still staunchly holding to their usual position of “no causal link”:

Emelie is one of around 800 children in Sweden and elsewhere in Europe who developed narcolepsy, an incurable sleep disorder, after being immunised with the Pandemrix H1N1 swine flu vaccine made by British drug maker GlaxoSmithKline in 2009.

Finland, Norway, Ireland and France have seen spikes in narcolepsy cases, too, and people familiar with the results of a soon-to-be-published study in Britain have told Reuters it will show a similar pattern in children there.

Their fate, coping with an illness that all but destroys normal life, is developing into what the health official who coordinated Sweden’s vaccination campaign calls a “medical tragedy” that will demand rising scientific and medical attention.

Europe’s drugs regulator has ruled Pandemrix should no longer be used in people aged under 20. The chief medical officer at GSK’s vaccines division, Norman Begg, says his firm views the issue extremely seriously and is “absolutely committed to getting to the bottom of this”, but adds there is not yet enough data or evidence to suggest a causal link.

Perhaps, as supposed to be the case with the increase in autism, what we’re seeing here is nothing more than a sudden increase in the parental awareness of narcolepsy…. What one always has to keep in mind when hearing the pro-vaccine parrots squawking “no causal link, no causal link” is that the standard they use for a causal link would eliminate the link between “being shot in the head” and “death” in the vast majority of lethal shootings.

In most cases, unless someone keels over dead after receiving a vaccination while still in the doctor’s office, the vaccine propagandists will claim that there is no link between the administration of the vaccine and the resultant harm that has been suffered by the individual receiving it.  Of course, having personally witnessed an individual collapse unconsciousness within two seconds of receiving a vaccine and hearing the doctor exclaim “oh, no”, I tend to have a considerably more skeptical outlook concerning the purported safety of vaccines and the vaccine schedule than the average individual.

The undeniable fact of the matter is that vaccines are not entirely safe, nor as they as safe as the vaccine advocates claim they are.  The precise degree to which they are unsafe is completely unknown, by either side, because no real and replicable scientific experiments have been performed concerning the current U.S. vaccine schedule.

Furthermore, we also know for an absolute fact that the vaccine manufacturers cherry-pick their statistical studies purporting to demonstrate the safety of the products they are selling.  The only rational position one can take concerning the safety of vaccines is a cautiously skeptical one, particularly in light of the legal immunity granted to those who manufacture, sell, and administer them.

To be clear, I am not against all vaccines.  I even received a tetanus shot when my kneecap was torn open on the soccer field a few years ago.  But it is also perfectly clear to me that not all vaccines are equally safe, or equally necessary.

Triple-dip

Not that the BEA figures actually matter any more than any other fiction being published these days, but now that Obama has been safely re-elected, the economic bad news can be released again:

A stunner out of the BEA which just reported a Q4 GDP of -0.1% that
was leaps and bounds below the 1.1% estimate, and a plunge from Q3’s
3.1%. The factors: Private Inventories, Exports and Government
Expenditures all of which contracted, by -1.27%, -0.81%, and -1.33%. The
silver lining was in Personal Consumption Expenditures which added
1.52% to the negative print, most of it however driven by a surge in
spending ahead of the fiscal cliff. Ironically, this was the biggest
government-driven detraction from growth since Q1 2011, when GDP led to a
-1.49% cut in the GDP, same in Q4 when government spending on defense
fell the most since 1972. The solution is simple: print moar drones. Enter Mali. And since everything is now AMZN-ing, we can’t wait for the spin that the GDP’s margins were actually better than expected, leading to a 200 point surge in the DJIA.

How many recessionary dips will it take before the mainstream financial media admits that we’ve been in a depression since 2008?  My guess is five.

I am still not a conservative

Ed Trimnell is operating from a fundamentally flawed logical foundation in his defense of what he calls conservatism:

Today I read a piece on Vox Day’s blog, entitled “Women ruin everything.” (Vox Day bills himself as a conservative.)

Leaving the title aside, most of the blog post deals with the excesses of the radical gender  politics that have arisen in collegiate sports since the passage of Title IX. In other words: the excesses of leftwing, political feminism. This portion of the post is generally reasonable, and generally conservative.

But then Vox ends his post with a non sequitur:

 “Do you really think it was an accident that women were never permitted any voice in the governance of the Roman Republic or the great historical democracies such as Athens, Thebes, Imperial Britain, and Revolutionary America?  Do you really believe it to be a mere coincidence that many modern democracies, including Germany, Italy, and the member states of the European Union, were not able to survive even 100 years of female suffrage?”

What about Jeane Kirkpatrick–and Margaret Thatcher? Would Vox seriously deny these women the vote? (A true conservative would not apportion any political privileges or penalties based on race or gender. Once again–that is the game of the Left and the Democratic Party.)

The implication in Vox’s post is that members of one gender are inherently wiser than those of the other. And there is one gender which–by virtue of being that gender–“ruins everything,” in his words.

This is exactly what the radical feminists say–only in reverse.

Conservatives cannot fight irrational gender politics by becoming sexists ourselves, just as we cannot fight the tribal politics of the race card by becoming racists. Conservatism is for men as well as women–and for people of all races and ethnicities. (Let us not forget that most of the welfare states in Europe are essentially the creations of white males, while there are some fairly astute Asian capitalists. And yes–some of them are women.)

The logical flaws in Vox’s “Women ruin everything” post are obvious. What is not so obvious is how this sort of rhetoric plays into the hands of Obama and the Obamaites.

One phony conservative can do more damage to the conservative movement than all the prattling leftwing lemmings on The Daily Kos and John Scalzi’s Whatever combined.

I will begin by pointing out that Mr. Trimnell’s reasoning is generally sound, as evidenced by his observations concerning the material difference between Vox Popoli and the warren that is Whatever.  However, his reasoning happens to go significantly awry here because it is built upon false foundations and erroneous assumptions.

First, I do not bill myself as a conservative.  I am not a conservative.  Neither am I a Republican.  I have never claimed to be either since I first began writing political op/ed in 2001.  While I did briefly belong to the Young Republicans in 1988 and attended both the national convention in Houston as well as the inaugural ball, I have never voted for a Republican for President. To the best of my recollection I registered as a Libertarian in 1992 and have only ever voted for Libertarian presidential candidates.  It may be worth noting that my blog is repeatedly listed as one of the top libertarian sites and my positions on the drug war, the foreign wars, immigration, the banks, and free trade, among many others, are considerably different than the conventional conservative positions.

Second, the connection between the observed and incoherent evils of Title IX and female suffrage is far from a non sequitur.  It may be ironic and unexpected that feminism can ruin even the most notable fruits of feminism, but it was both anticipated and predicted by many brilliant past writers that women’s suffrage would bring about both “the despotism of the petticoat” better known today as liberal fascism as well as the eventual demise of those societies that were foolish enough to embrace it.

In answer to his question, I would absolutely deny women such as Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Margaret Thatcher the vote if the responsibility was given to me.  (It may interest some to know that I’ve actually met both women; I even have a picture of me with Mrs. Kirkpatrick around here somewhere.)  While Mrs. Thatcher was a great woman of genuine courage, she betrayed her country in the end.  And she did so for the very reason women would not be permitted to vote in any society that wishes to sustain itself: she was taken in by the lies of dishonest men.

“We had to learn the hard way that by agreement to what were
apparently empty generalizations or vague aspirations we were later held
to have committed ourselves to political structures which were contrary
to our interests.”
– Lady Margaret Thatcher, “The Downing Street Years”

Third, while one “gender” is not wiser than the other, gender being a grammatical construct, it is an observable, provable, statistical, and scientific fact that the two sexes possess different brain structures, different thought patterns, different hormonal balances, and different time-preferences.  By a timely coincidence, I happened to address this very subject on Alpha Game earlier today.

“[I]f one is able to understand how women’s cumulative socio-sexual
preferences affect the housing market and the economy, how is it
possible that one is not able to understand that those preferences will
also affect the governance of a nation as well as the scope of human
liberty deemed legally permissible.”

What Trimnell fails to realize here is that he is inadvertently attempting to undermine everything from insurance premiums to science and human reason, which I would characterize as a profoundly unconservative act.  Due to its false foundations, his “conservatism” is not only neither rational nor coherent, it is more firmly in accordance with the egalitarian ideals of the French Revolution than anything that can be credibly identified with conservative thought dating back to Athens.

Once he claims that “Conservatism is for men as well as women–and for people of all races and ethnicities”, it should be eminently clear that he is unwittingly preaching the same sort of revolutionary equalitarian nonsense that real conservatives, who have always understood that there are fundamental differences of race and culture, have rejected for centuries.  It is pure equalitarianism, which is based on an intellectual foundation every bit as credible and materially substantive as unicornology and leprechaunics.

As for fighting tribal politics, I would submit that they cannot be understood, much less engaged, without becoming what he describes as “racist” and what I would describe as “scientifically and historically observant” or even “sub-speciesist”.  It is a little ironic that men like Mr. Trimnell are still trying to argue that race does not exist when genetic science has demonstrated that humanity is not even made up of the same sub-species.  As it no doubt justifies its own detailed debate, I shall set aside, for now, the obvious observation that to not be sub-speciesist is absolutely and necessarily equivalent to denying human evolution.

In summary, I recommend Spengler, the real Spengler, to Mr. Trimnell, as well as Aristotle’s Rhetoric, as a corrective.  He is an intelligent man, so I have little doubt that even a modicum of exposure to such classic works will prove an effective palliative to the equalitarian propaganda in which he, like me and most of the readers here, was steeped throughout his intellectually formative years.

Since I am not a phony conservative, or indeed, a conservative of any kind, I hope that Mr. Trimnell will understand my concern for any potentially negative effect upon the “conservative” movement is a matter of complete and utter indifference to me.  I should also note that  for once, I am in complete accordance with Mr. Trimnell’s commenter, as Hunt correctly notes: “I think it’s important to say that you should not feel as if you are in
any way obligated to account for anything VD happens to think or say….
VD would
probably not pledge any allegiance to the conservatism that you support.”

I am, of course, entirely willing to defend my positions from Mr. Trimnell’s assertions, be they reasonable and compelling or not.  I hope it is readily apparent that I am only attacking what I see as the deficiencies in his ideas, not his character.