Tag: society

I found the following statement by the New York Times about the latest Charlie Sheen incident to be intriguing:

Why did the two parties decide now was the time to toss Mr. Sheen asunder? His vaguely anti-Semitic comments about the “Two and a Half Men” creator Chuck Lorre likely didn’t help (Mr. Sheen repeatedly called Mr. Lorre “Chaim Levine”; his given name is Charles Levine), but what probably pushed them over the edge was that Mr. Sheen became too much of a public relations burden.

I’ve noticed that when people are supportive or indifferent about something I have written, they invariably refer to me as Vox Day. On the other hand, when they are offended by it or opposed to it, they often elect to refer to my given name. But apparently, this is racism, so I shall be sure to call them on their anti-Anglic insensitivity in the future. It’s also interesting to see that Wikipedia features articles on Chuck Lorre and Charlie Sheen rather than Charles Levine and Carlos Estevez whereas the Wikipedia article devoted to me is not listed under Vox Day. I can only conclude that Wikipedia is rife with anti-Anglic racists.

Newsflash: people don’t like them:

St. Louis is losing residents, according to U.S. Census figures released Thursday, and the population decline goes deeper than being another blow to the proud city’s image.
The drop will mean a financial loss that could cost the already cash-strapped Gateway City millions of dollars. Figures from the 2010 census were a bitter disappointment, as the city’s population dipped to 319,294. That’s down more than 29,000 – a staggering 8 percent – from 2000.

The social planners can show multiracial socializing on every commercial, television show, and music video they like, but that’s never going to overcome basic biological preferences. As times get harder, the need for tight-knit communities will spring to the fore and that’s when the forced vibrancy will start to turn increasingly ugly. Remember, it wasn’t that long ago that the French were drowning Algerians in the Seine. And the people most responsible for the bloodshed won’t be those fighting it out, but those who consciously encouraged the creation of the multi-ethnic societies in full knowledge of the historical record.

Assuming, that is, that you want them to be fat little bastards:

American researchers found that children in the sixth grade – aged 11 or 12 – whose mothers who were employed either full or part-time were six times more likely to be overweight…. According to the latest figures one in three children is now overweight by the time they leave primary school, aged 11. A fifth are classified as clinically obese, so fat that their health is at risk.

This isn’t surprising when you think aboout it. I’d noticed that kids with working moms didn’t tend to be as involved with sports, although I can’t say that I ever realized that they were so prone to being overweight. This means that in addition to reducing average wages, lowering the marriage and birth rates, and increasing the divorce and illegitimacy rates, feminism is also creating an obese population. Regardless of whether you are a man or a woman, with 40 years of its observable effects now recorded by history, you have to be almost willfully stupid to still support feminism in any way.

The politicians have run out of the middle class’s money after spending it all on the bankers, the immigrants, and the poor… who, it occurs to me, can be described more succinctly as “the non-working class”:

I watch countless news stories about people who are criminals (illegal aliens, felons) liars, cheats, or just stupid getting help with their mortgage loans because they “need it”. And people getting free medical services because they “need it”. And people declaring bankruptcy because it’s just too hard to pay the bills, they “need to”. All the while I see my government crushing people like me–expecting us to just keep doing, just keep paying, just keep being responsible in order to make up for all of those people who were not.

The American middle class is on the verge of collapse, at which point it will almost certainly revolt in some manner. It will likely be less spectacular than the burning buildings in Cairo, but there is no way that the confluence of collapsing bubbles in real estate and education are not going to have a significant effect on middle class behavior once it becomes sufficiently obvious to everyone how they have been played for suckers and financially raped by the banks with the full connivance of the state and federal governments. The middle class revolt is going to start with a refusal to continue paying its debts for mortgages, credit cards, and college degrees. As for where it’s going to end, who can say?

This comment on an old post by Laurence Auster is too succinct to miss as it addresses the natural state of Man.

I would also disagree with the idea that somehow family is the natural state of mankind. In reality, the natural state of mankind is a mother and her children (as the feminists claim). The family, instead, is the natural state of civilization. The monogamous marriage of patriarchal control and exclusive sexual access guarantees each man a woman and thus gives him a stake in the civilization around him. This reduces one major source of conflict and allows men to cooperate more easily. In fact, this exclusive sexual access is a hallmark feature of Western Civilization and a major reason why it surged ahead against the various polygamous societies of Africa and the Middle East.

What women want today is a polyandryous society that still maintains a “Sex and the City” civilization. They somehow expect to limit sexual access to the five percent of men they find attractive while the rest toil away to make life easier and more comfortable for them. It ain’t gonna happen.

This summarizes the decline of the West in a nutshell. Every great civilization has not only been patriarchal, but has been necessarily patriarchal as an intrinsic aspect of its foundation. This is logical, because if you think about it, in order to exist, a great civilization must somehow arise from the morass of tribal barbarism that is the human norm. This can only be accomplished if the aggressive drive of the male portion of the population can somehow be successfully harnessed in a manner that builds up a civilization.

Women have successfully attacked the concept of patriarchy under the guise of the equality myth. It has few defenders these days. But, as I have declared on numerous occasions, there is no such thing as equality in any legal, material or spiritual sense. It does not exist and one might as legitimately criticize patriarchy on the basis of rainbow unicorns or sparkly vampires. Unfortunately, what most of these equalitarian women do not realize is that they have been attacking the very core of civilization itself. The collapse is coming, most likely within decades, and the reality is not going to be much fun for anyone, but especially not for women.

It is understandable that the sheltered children of the West cannot fathom the brutality of barbarism and the pointlessness its mindless horrors. Even now, with the barbarians within the gates, they do not quite recognize it. But once the barbarians reach a critical mass, there will be no mistaking that the end of yet another great civilization has arrived. And they will. No civilization ever survives the attempt to replace its children with imported substitutes.

“According to Guttmacher, 35 percent of all U.S. women will have had an abortion by age 45. Guttmacher also reports that 93 percent of all abortions occur for “social reasons” such as a mother’s decision that the child is unwanted or “inconvenient.””

I tend to doubt the historians of the future will find it terribly difficult to determine the cause of the decline and fall of America. Some Christians still like to think that America is a nation for which God has a close regard. I tend to imagine that Americans would do well to hope that the God who has such harsh promises for those who corrupt the young hasn’t been paying close attention lately.

Children have to belong to someone who is responsible for their upbringing. For centuries in the West, they belonged to the father. Thanks to feminist family law, they are now generally assumed to belong to the mother by default. Here’s how well that has worked out:

Welcome to 2011: post-morality and stigma-free. One in eight children under five will never meet the man who donated half their genes. Seventy per cent of young offenders were raised in a lone-parent home. It’s an anguished statistic. “I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father’s protection,” said Sigmund Freud. Yet, in some of the poorest parts of the UK, families have been without fathers for three generations. For every feckless Keith, there is an uncertain young dad who would love a chance to be near his children if only their ex-partners would let them. Panorama asked a 20-year-old single mother if she thought her two little boys would miss out by not having a dad around. She could not have been more bemused if they’d offered her a crinoline and a horse-drawn carriage. For young mums like her, fathers are an extinct species. The dadda is deader than the dodo.

The solution is as simple as it is obvious. First, all children must remain in the full legal and financial custody of their genetic fathers regardless of the marital state of the mother and father. Second, no public money will be allotted to the private maintenance of children or their mothers. If private charities and churches wish to provide assistance, they are of course welcome to do so. But either the subsidizing of socially destructive reproductive behavior will end or society itself will collapse. The author’s inevitable recommendation of “education” is as feckless as the reproductive behavior of her poster boy. And if you think the measures I recommend are too harsh, then contemplate the alternative of maintaining the present course.

A CBS News poll reveals the spineless nature of the sons and daughters of the American Revolution:

while three in four Americans say violence against the government is never justified, 16 percent say it can be justified — the same percentage that said as much in April. Twenty-eight percent of Republicans said such violence can be justified, compared with 11 percent of Democrats and independents.

Government is founded upon violence, which is why the Founding Fathers, who quite clearly believed that violence against the government was justified, also believed it was vitally important to limit government very strictly. And it is why no one who believes that violence against the government is never justified should be permitted to vote in America, hold political office, or work as government employee. It is an intellectual position that is about as fundamentally un-American as it is possible to hold.

Remember, the present U.S. government is asserting it has the right to assassinate American citizens without trial or even arrest, the U.S. Constitution notwithstanding. This naturally leads to the obvious question: if one accepts that the federal government possesses the right to murder Americans that it presently asserts, (and which is clearly not limited to it under the Constitution), on what rational grounds can anyone complain about individuals like Jared Loughner exercising exactly the same right?