Tag: society

Abortion is slaughter

In case the advances in technology haven’t made it perfectly clear yet to the morally challenged, the case of Kermit Goswell should suffice to demonstrate to even the most avowed feminist that abortion is pure and simple murder.  Note that this link is safe, but you may wish to be careful about reading through the court documents or looking at any of the pictures, as they are downright stomach-turning.

Abortion provider Kermit Gosnell, 72, is charged with killing a woman patient and seven babies allegedly born alive, and with performing illegal, late-term abortions at his thriving inner-city clinic. Co-defendant Eileen O’Neill, 56, of Phoenixville, is charged with billing as a doctor and participating in a corrupt organization.

Eight former employees have pleaded guilty, some to third-degree murder, and have testified this month about bizarre, often-chaotic practices at the clinic.

Ashley Baldwin spoke Thursday of starting there at age 15 through a high school training program, and soon assisting with abortions and administering intravenous drugs. Baldwin, now 22, said she worked nearly 50-hour weeks, often well past midnight, when abortions were routinely performed.

No doubt this case will spark protests that Not All Abortion Clinics Are Like That as it gradually leaks into the public consciousness despite the best efforts of the media to keep it contained.  But that is akin to claiming that there was nothing wrong with Bergen-Belsen because, after all, things were worse at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Let’s make it perfectly clear.  If you are a doctor or a nurse who performs abortions, you are every bit as bad, every bit as purely evil, as the SS-Totenkopfverbänder who slaughtered people in the National Socialists’ extermination camps.  And if you are a woman who aborts her child, you are every bit as bad, every bit as disgusting, as the SS guards at those camps, who may not have bloodied their hands themselves, but were complicitcollaborated by making the killing possible.

And if you simply support the so-called “right” to legal abortion, you are no better than a card-carrying member of the National Socialist German Workers Party.  In fact, you are even worse.  For all their many flaws, the National Socialists at least had a substantive cause: the preservation of a defeated and economically devastated German nation.  Your cause is mere female convenience, rendering you even more repellant and abominable in the eyes of anyone who values human life.  Their symbol was the reversed Swastika, but yours should be a pyramid of infant skulls.

I understand you have your rationalizations and your justifications.  I am aware that you firmly believe that an unborn, or partially born, or newly born, child is either not human or is for some reason or another unworthy of the same right to life possessed by adult human beings who hate racism, support sexual equality, and voted for Barack Obama. I appreciate that you are absolutely convinced that acting to terminate the life of a genetically unique individual who is dependent upon his mother for his continued survival is no different than cutting one’s hair or trimming one’s nails.  I know you assert that because it is a woman’s body, she can do whatever she wants with it, all the various trespassing and drug and flasher laws notwithstanding. Or perhaps you have a different reason, in which case feel free to make your case for it here.

But remember this: the Nazis had their justifications too. And those justifications were considerably more soundly rooted in science, history, and logic than yours are.

I assure you, I guarantee you, that future history is going to remember feminists and everyone else who supported the 20th-21st century Holocaust of the Unborn with every bit as much disgust and horror as today’s progressives regard 18th-19th century slavers and 20th century Nazis.  The tide is already beginning to turn, as many feminists have finally realized a few of the unforeseen, but retrospectively obvious consequences of their so-called right and begun lobbying for laws against sex-screening and the free exercise of their unholy “right” for officially unapproved reasons.

So, I call on you to rethink your stance, truly rethink it, and repent. Redeem yourself by turning against this evil practice you have supported and speaking out against it. Ask for forgiveness from God and from the millions of innocents whose deaths you rationalized and even encouraged.  What is done cannot be undone, but it is never too late to turn away from evil and refuse to continue walking along its dark path.

Stop all the endless rationalizations and justifications. Just stop. They are pointless. You know, in your heart of hearts, they aren’t convincing anyone.  They aren’t even convincing you.

Educated White Woman: the VIP credit card

I’ve been thinking of a way to explain to educated white women how life works for them, without invoking the dreaded phrase “female imperative” to which they react like vampires being slipped into a Hervé Léger bandage dress woven from silver thread. It’s not that the concept of “female imperative” is incorrect, it’s that it’s not their word. When confronted with “female imperative” they point their fingers and shriek “misogynist”, start crying about how they were once near-raped in college, then threaten not to have sex with anyone in the near vicinity.

So, the challenge: how to get across the ideas bound up in the word “privilege,” in a way that your average educated white woman will get, without freaking out about it?

Ladies. Imagine life here in the US — or indeed, pretty much anywhere in the Western world — is a massive department store, like Macy’s or Saks. Let’s call it The Real World. You have entered The Real World and are about to start shopping, but first you go have to decide what credit card you are going to use while you are shopping. Got it?

Okay: In the department store known as The Real World, Educated White Woman is the VIP credit card. It is an American Express Centurion card with an unlimited credit limit.

This means that almost all the employees in the store are more deferential to you than they would be to anyone else. They carry your bags for you. The prices are lower and you’re given discounts without even asking for them. You don’t have to stand in line at the register. You are simply given entry to some departments that others have to wait to get into, or are simply denied access. The store is easier to walk through, automatically, you don’t have to wait for a changing room, and when you need help, by default it’s easier to get.

Now, once you’ve chosen the “Educated White Woman” card, you still have to decide how much you’re going to spend, and on what you’re going to spend it, and that will make a difference. If you only spend $250, and you spend it all on a big-screen TV as soon as you walk in the store, well, then you may be kind of screwed. If you spend $2,500 on earrings in the jewelry department, well, then you’re probably fine.

As your shopping trip progresses, your object is to buy stuff, figure out a way to carry it, and move on to the next department. If you spend all your time trying on swimsuits, or choose poorly and buy bulky things you can’t easily carry, then you probably won’t end up with much. But because you’re shopping with the “Educated White Woman” card, buying things and bypassing the lines at the register will still by default be easier for you, all other things being equal, than for another shopper using a less elite card.

Likewise, it’s certainly possible someone shopping with a lesser card is buying more, and more valuable, stuff than you are, because they know where everything is, or they are the perfect size 4, or they have an employee discount, or simply because they don’t spend half an hour dithering over every decision. It doesn’t change the fact you are still shopping with the VIP card.

You can end up buying nothing with the VIP card, but the VIP card still lets you buy more, and better, stuff than anyone else can possibly buy. The shopper who chose the “Straight White Male” card? That’s not even a proper credit card, that’s a Sam’s Club membership! If Straight White Male gets caught in the lingerie department trying on a pretty little thong, they’re not going to sell it to him, they’re going to call security.

And maybe at this point you say, hey, I’m not greedy, I don’t want a massive credit card bill at the end of the month and I don’t need any special treatment, I can make do with a regular VISA or Mastercard with a sensible limit.  Well, here’s the thing: In The Real World, you don’t ever have to pay off your balance! And you only get to shop there once. So why not make the most of it while you’re there? Your goal is to get as much of the best stuff as you can, not economize.

Oh, and one other thing. Remember when I said that you could choose what credit card you use in The Real World? Well, I lied. In fact, the store chooses what card you’re going to get when you walk in. You don’t get a choice; you just get the card given to you at the start of the game, and then you have to deal with it.

So that’s “Educated White Woman” for you in The Real World (and also, in the real world): The ultimate VIP treatment. All things being equal, and even when they are not, if the department store — or life — assigns you the “Educated White Woman” card, then sister, you’ve caught a break.

Of course, there is just one little problem with the “Educated White Woman” card.  It expires and you never know exactly when.  Just be sure that you’re done with your shopping before the employees start ignoring you, you have to stand in line at the registers, and no one is willing to carry your bags for you anymore.

Is reality misogynistic?

This was an interesting exchange over at Susan’s place.  Mike C asked her if  something I wrote merited being described in a certain manner:

Does this language from Vox Day also count as misogynistic? I am trying to figure out if this also falls into your categorization of misogynistic? 

“Because women are collectively more short-sighted and more
self-centered than men, giving them an equal voice in society is
tantamount to a slow-motion execution for any society. This is not
theoretical, it is observable, as the equalitarian societies of Europe
are already demographically in demise and in the process of losing their
democracies and their property rights.

I understand that many people believe women’s rights are important.
But are they more important than property rights? Are they more
important than democracy? What those who support women’s rights are
understandably reluctant to accept is that equalitarianism necessarily
requires the elimination of democracy, property rights, freedom of
movement, and even, in the end, capitalism and most of the tenets of
Western civilization. But like it or not, that is the choice that has
been made, and is being made, even today.

The Founding Fathers of the USA were no more mindless sexists than the Conscript Fathers of the Roman Senate. They
knew full well what would happen if sexual equality was ever granted.
It is not a coincidence, still less ironic, that those who built the
greatest and freest human societies have always vehemently opposed
women’s rights, while the totalitarians who most avidly sought to curtail human freedom it have tended to support them.”

To which Susan replied:  “Totally.”

I don’t think this is correct.  I don’t think it’s even possibly correct, in fact, I will assert that the notion is a simple category error. To claim that the observable, demonstrable, and provable
contradiction between women’s rights and the rights upon which Western
civilization were historically founded could even theoretically be described as misogynistic is tantamount to setting oneself
against logic, against history, and against reality itself.

As the Castrate said, it is so or it is not so.  If women’s rights contradict the rights of natural law, or the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, then they contradict them.  If I am correct, and they do, then it is a simple matter of fact and neither my feelings about women or Susan’s feelings about Martians have anything whatsoever to do with the matter. The idea is not misogynistic for the same reason it is not romantic or anti-semitic or happy or purple. The term simply cannot apply, not even hypothetically.

But no one need take my
word for this.  I plan to methodically prove it, conclusively, in a
series of forthcoming posts.  As I mentioned on her blog, I’d even welcome Susan’s contribution, if she would care to provide
me with what she would consider to be the definitive “women’s rights”.

I would also welcome a comprehensive list of “women’s rights” as they are distinguished from simple non-sexually based rights from anyone, male or female, who considers himself to be a feminist or even just a defender of “women’s rights”.  I can, of course, simply resort to Wikipedia, but I would prefer to utilize the list provided by a self-professed champion of them.

Women’s rights are anti-freedom

The truth tends to reveal itself over time. Over the last ten years, I’ve observed that the intrinsically anti-freedom authoritarianism of feminism is increasingly out in the open. At this point, only those who aren’t paying attention can still pretend to buy into the idea that feminism and women’s rights are even remotely compatible with Western civilization or resemble anything that the Western intellectual tradition would consider legitimate rights.

Consider the words of one Barbara, who isn’t shy about speaking for all women when she quite seriously argues “we should be able to make you not offend us”:

I think that I can speak for all women when I say that this very
important because we cannot offend science fiction fans of other
religions. The right to free speech is irrelevant to women’s rights and
freedom of religion. People need to understand that being offended is a
really big deal and that we should be able to make you not offend us.
And science fiction cannot be sexist or minority-phobic either. This is
what it is. Period.

That is the true heart of feminism.  As I wrote when I pointed out that feminists are sub-civilized: “This is what the feminist’s vaunted concept of equality means.  This is
what it has always meant: the legal protection of a woman from all and
any consequences of her actions.  This includes a woman’s ability to
break any contract at will, to steal from anyone as she pleases, and
murder even the most innocent without having to even hear a whisper of
protest to make her uncomfortable.”

Barbara helpfully adds an element that I neglected to include, which is that women “should be able to make you not offend” them. Being intellectually incoherent and unjustifiable in the eyes of every rational observer, feminism is necessarily an ideology of force. This is why it has to be resisted every bit as strenuously as other such ideologies, including communism and National Socialism.

And a science fiction that cannot be sexist or minority-phobic is not science fiction at all, but a dogmatically limited sub-genre in which all literary value is necessarily subservient to ideological whimsy.

Mailvox: the failed metaphor

Congratulations to A. Man, who is the 150th commenter in the last five years to announce that I have, yet again, jumped the shark.  It’s amusing how often that metaphor has been heard from overly optimistic critics during the time when the readership has grown from 240k to 930k per month, especially when these critics are often the very same individuals who demand to know where they can find any indication of the economic and societal collapse I have predicted:

“Feminists are objectively worse than Nazis”

It’s nice to see that you were able to fully clear the shark.

“This
is what the feminist’s vaunted concept of equality means. This is what
it has always meant: the legal protection of a woman from all and any
consequences of her actions. This includes a woman’s ability to break
any contract at will, to steal from anyone as she pleases, and murder
even the most innocent without having to even hear a whisper of protest
to make her uncomfortable.”

The odd thing is that you know this
isn’t true, you know this statement cant be defended…and yet you make
it still. How does that work? What kind of reconciliation do you do in
your mind?

First, feminists are objectively worse than National Socialists.  I have demonstrated this in both logical and empirical terms.  The unborn and the recently born are much more helpless than international Jewry. The cost in human lives of feminism is quite clearly greater than the cost of National Socialism or Fascism ever was.  It could be debated whether feminism or communism has been more costly in those terms, but the mere fact that the matter is debatable suffices to prove what a terrible and evil ideology feminism is.

Second, the statement not only is true, but it can be easily defended. There is no reconciliation necessary to defend it because it is based on straightforward observation.  I direct the following questions to A. Man.

  1. Did American women not demand, and do they not presently possess, the right to break marital contracts at will?
  2. Have feminists not defended the right of women to kill men who abuse them?
  3. Does the feminist definition of abuse include non-physical abuse?
  4. Have feminists called for ban on actions that make a woman feel uncomfortable?

“Men have gone berserk”

Who could have possibly seen the likelihood of young men going berserk in a society where sex ratios are increasingly out of whack?

Ranjana Kumari of the Centre for Social Research think tank said there had been 127 rape cases registered in Delhi alone since the fatal December assault on the student.

“It is absolutely shocking and speaks volumes on how Indian society is treating women. The men have gone totally berserk. We’re feeling frustrated and in despair. What must we do to change their mentality? Women are becoming more vulnerable,” she said.

Women were being attacked even when they were with their husbands or male friends – and foreigners, previously regarded as less at risk, are also being targeted…. This latest gang rape is one of dozens reported in the Indian press since the December rape and murder shocked the nation and plunged it into a period of national soul searching.

It came just days after the Indian cabinet supported a new law to impose tougher sentences for rape and sexual assault, including the death penalty for cases where the victim dies or is left in a persistent vegetative state. 

Note that the problem in India is actually getting considerably worse despite the advance of sexual equality in Indian society that the feminists believe will solve everything.  As we’ve learned to expect, feminism wreaks societal devastation even in the process of supposedly offering a means of improvement.  In this case, it is the pro-abortion position that is leading to more rapes in India.

“According to the decennial Indian census, the sex ratio in the 0-6 age group in India went from 104.0 males per 100 females in 1981, to 105.8 in 1991, to 107.8 in 2001, to 109.4 in 2011. The ratio is significantly higher in certain states such as Punjab and Haryana (126.1 and 122.0, as of 2001).”

Anyone with more than half a brain has been expecting serious problems out of China and India since Western technology gave them abortion and the means of prenatal sex identification.  The world is quite fortunate that India’s excess male population appears to be inclined to occupy itself in pursuit of gang rape, considering that the more customary outlet is foreign invasion.

Of course, John Scalzi doesn’t rape due to sex ratios, John Scalzi rapes women, because, as he explains: “I will tell you one of the details about why I do it: I like to control women and, also and independently, I like to remind them how little control they have.”

Land of the Not-so-much-Free

The USA is not the least free country in the world.  But it is becoming increasingly obvious to everyone that it isn’t even close to being the most free country in the world that many Americans have always assumed it be:

So, in just a week’s time, the political elite in the Land of the Free gave us bills which:

1) ensure the government cannot assassinate its own citizens with drones
2) impose price controls with insurance premiums
3) award the government with more power to initiate biosurveillance operations
4) create a quota system in the labor market

It really makes me wonder… how much more will it take for people to notice how rapidly they’re losing freedom, or how destructive the political leadership is? 

The problem is that too few natives genuinely want freedom anymore, and virtually none of the immigrants from Asia, Africa, or South and Central America place any value upon it at all.  The USA may only be a quasi-democracy, but in the end, the people will get the government they are willing to tolerate, and one of the prices of modifying the population is that the government one group of people are willing to tolerate is usually at least moderately different than the government another group of people, with different history, cultures, and tradition, are willing to tolerate.

The important distinction is that the determining factor isn’t what sort of government people actually want, but rather, what sort of government they are willing to tolerate.

The high discourse of Twitter

Captain Beagle: Which is worse, work or rape? I know 2 women who were raped. Go fuck yourself #sorrynicepplhadtohearthat

VD: Hey, talk to @johnscalzi not me. I certainly didn’t rape them.

Captain Beagle: no your article suggested an increase in rapes was less harmful than women handing out resumes. Insensitive & absurd

VD: I didn’t suggest it, I proved it. By what metric do you claim that rape is more harmful to society than women working?

Captain Beagle: I was unaware one needed statistical data to prove rape is harmful.

VD: You need something, at any rate. What is your basis for claiming rape is worse for society than female employment?

Captain Beagle: thanx for this fascinating study in hyperbolic misogyny. I’m thinking of using you as the template for my next villain.

Mailvox: impeccable girl logic



How can one possibly hope to refute these fiendish adversaries?  Or to confound their impeccable and diabolically clever arguments?  And seeing as how Miss Paradis is not only breaking out logic, but Latin, I can only conclude she must be a witch!  In fear and desperation, I attempted to dismantle her argument, but there were simply no flaws to be found!

  1. I did, indeed, write that widespread rape makes a society uncivilized whereas widespread female employment makes a society demographically unsustainable.
  2. And in doing so, I did, without question, show a certain lack of empathy.
  3. And furthermore, this dreadful dearth of empathy did inspire the Paradis sisters to collect THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY FIVE DOLLARS from similarly disgusted individuals and give it to an incest charity… in my name!

Thereby proving, beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt, that my thesis concerning the demographic unsustainability of widespread female employment and the relative damage it causes to society vis-a-vis widespread rape can only be completely and totally incorrect.

I stand corrected.  Quod sherat demonstrandum.

UPDATE:  Miss Paradis expounds upon her dialectical approach: “I’m not attempting to refute an illogical argument. The argument is
based on false premise and was meant only to be inflammatory, either
that or your ‘super intellect’ has no understanding of capitalism.”

Why regulate?

What is the point of regulating anything, given the difference between theoretical regulation and its actual results?

 In the 120 samples labeled red snapper and bought for testing nationwide, for example, 28 different species of fish were found, including 17 that were not even in the snapper family, according to the study, which was released Thursday.

The study also contained surprises about where consumers were most likely to be misled — sushi bars topped the list in every city studied — while grocery stores were most likely to be selling fish honestly. Restaurants ranked in the middle.

Part of the problem, said the study’s chief author, Kimberly Warner, is that there are quite simply a lot of fish in the sea, and many of them look alike. Over all, the study found that about one-third of the 1,215 fish samples bought, from 2010 to 2012, were mislabeled. 

I understand why people like the idea of regulation.  But if it fails nearly one-third of the time, is it actually doing anything?  What would happen without all the expense and effort of government regulation, would everyone be eating cod-oil infused vegetables instead of fish instead of only one-third of the people getting the wrong fish?  Would anyone even notice if the SEC employees weren’t keeping their eagle eyes on internet pornthe markets?