ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, August 03, 2013

Losing the Cold Peace

I find it interesting that so many self-proclaimed devotees of science readily resort to sophistry in defense of imaginary homosexual rights:
Three months before Russia’s parliament unanimously passed a federal law banning the propaganda of “non-traditional relationships” — that is, same-sex ones — the bill’s sponsor went on the country’s most respected interview show to explain her reasoning.

“Analyzing all the circumstances, and the particularity of territorial Russia and her survival…I came to the conclusion that if today we want to resolve the demographic crisis, we need to, excuse me, tighten the belt on certain moral values and information, so that giving birth and raising children become fully valued,” lawmaker Yelena Mizulina told Vladimir Posner, Russia’s Charlie Rose.

Mizulina heads the Duma’s committee for family, women, and children and has become the stern face of Russia’s campaign against gays. But she would never call it that. Russia’s new laws — banning same-sex foreign couples from adopting Russian children in addition to banning LGBT advocacy — are part of the country’s very search for survival, according to her.

On the one hand, there’s its physical survival — Russia’s birthrate plummeted in the wake of the Soviet collapse and encouraging baby-making (through government grants as well as rhetoric) has been one of Vladimir Putin’s hallmarks. And then there’s its moral survival; if Russia is to survive as Russia it needs to reject the corrupting influences of the West.
The author claims that the first reason is "populist bluster" without bothering to offer any support for that position.  But, as anyone who has read Juvenal will recall, there is at least a partial correlation between societies that permit legal and open homosexuality and societies that are in a steep demographic decline.  This correlation doesn't mean the relationship is causal, of course; I tend to believe that Ms Mizulina is correct in seeing homosexuality as a symptom of the larger problem, which is the abandonment of traditional values and moralities.

So, here is the interesting question.  Can anyone think of a historical society which openly endorsed legal homosexuality, which permitted men to marry men and women to marry women, which was not in steep demographic decline?  The history of homosexuality has never been an interest of mine, so I don't actually know, but perhaps some of those who advocate homosexual rights have based their opinions on actual facts rather than feelings and can present some evidence in favor of their position.

Because, as it stands, most of the evidence of which I am aware is clearly in favor of the new Russian laws.  Note that the bans were unanimously adopted and are much more democratically popular than homogamy is in the United States. Regardless, the pendulum is clearly in the process of beginning to swing back, and if Russia's nationalists manage to reverse the nation's demographic decline, it will be a powerful argument against the sexual equalitarians, especially if the West whose corrupting influences it has rejected continues to decline.

The West won the Cold War because its economic values were in line with reality and the Soviet Union's were not.  Perhaps having learned from past mistakes, Russia appears to be more likely to win the Cold Peace because its moral values are in line with reality and the West's are not.

Labels: ,

93 Comments:

Anonymous Daniel August 03, 2013 1:09 PM  

The Shakers are actually an excellent proxy society to study, if only for their prohibition on marriage and procreation. They had to rely on recruitment and society adoption through orphanages to perpetuate growth.

At its height of popularity, it had 6,000 members, all committed to a lifestyle that prevented the natural birth of children.

Although orphans can no longer be adopted by religious societies (individuals only) I believe a Shaker society in the unbroken chain still exists today.

It has 3 people in it last I heard, and they were all older than 70.

Homosexuals, as a cultural contributing body, will have to rely on recruitment and adoption to perpetuate any illusion of growth.

Anonymous Sensei August 03, 2013 1:16 PM  

Perhaps having learned from past mistakes, Russia appears to be more likely to win the Cold Peace because its moral values are in line with reality and the West's are not.

In general I gather from a variety of sources that Russian culture is in pretty strong decline, with all the decay we'd associate with the West. It will be curious to see if the Kremlin can legislate morality back into the culture.

But regardless of how much it would benefit Russians, isn't this kind of top-down approach anathema to libertarians?

Anonymous The other skeptic August 03, 2013 1:22 PM  

CA's demographic problem is evident here.

Anonymous HongKongCharlie August 03, 2013 1:24 PM  

I've always belonged to the group that believes you can't legislate morality. It will be interesting to watch the Russian efforts. I do believe they will fail.

HKC

Anonymous The other skeptic August 03, 2013 1:27 PM  

I've always belonged to the group that believes you can't legislate morality.

I don't think they are legislating morality, just discouraging behavior that hinders their demographic situation.

Anonymous HongKongCharlie August 03, 2013 1:36 PM  

"I don't think they are legislating morality, just discouraging behavior that hinders their demographic situation."


And my belonging to this group has bearing on what you think?

HKC

Anonymous Cinco August 03, 2013 1:40 PM  

I certainly understand the need for Russia to crack down. I can still remember from Death of the West, that Russia's population is projected to fall from 200 mil to 100 mil by the year 2100. That is a long term economic death sentence.

Putin is playing the long run, and he is smart enough to realize that Russia's best interests are not going to be served by importing Africans and Arabs.

However, we must also realize that homosexuals probably aren't going to be the best parents anyway. Encouraging or forcing homo's to breed probably isn't going to produce a master race, now is it? Russia would be far better served by removing/reducing taxes on actual Russians, and tapering back inflation.

Da Svidanya!

Anonymous Matthew Walker August 03, 2013 1:46 PM  

@Daniel, the Sabbathday Lake community in New Gloucester, ME must be the one. Last I heard, they had a newish member in his fifties, and the other two or so members were elderly, as you heard.

I don't imagine I agree with very much of what they believe, but I'll be sad to see them go. They have open house on weekends. It's worth a visit, if you're susceptible to handcrafts, old working farms, or scenic hilltops in rural Maine.

Anonymous Rigel Kent August 03, 2013 1:51 PM  

@HKC

I'm not a fan legislating morality either, but that doesn't seem to be what the Russians are doing. The law in question seems to be focused on stopping people from promoting what some would call immorality, and what others would call an alternative morality.

I don't have any strong moral position on homosexuality myself, but I have to admit I'm curious as to what the results of this law will be. It will be interesting to compare the results of their approach to homosexual rights to that of the US.

Blogger buzzardist August 03, 2013 2:00 PM  

But regardless of how much it would benefit Russians, isn't this kind of top-down approach anathema to libertarians?

There are libertarians, and there are libertarians. The label puts one on a pretty broad spectrum. Social libertarians may well be aghast at legislating against homosexuality. Some civil libertarians and small-government libertarians who still maintain conservative social viewpoints might have reason to wring hands, depending on how the government acts, but Russia's move would not necessarily be "anathema." Ideally, for many libertarians, marriage should not be a matter of government legislation at all, but should be left to churches and families, as historically marriage has always been defined. The intervention of government to sanction marriages marked a huge shift in the historical treatment of marriage. The ban on LGTB advocacy certainly is a slap to free speech, but the ban on gay couples adopting? That is simply a refusal to intervene as a government to create special civil categories that have never existed in society before and that do not serve society's interests.

In this case, society's interests are the propagation of children, which is a fundamental component of marriage in any traditional society. In many cultures, a marriage is not a marriage unless it is consummated, unless there is at least a potential for producing offspring. Two people with zero potential for producing offspring simply cannot marry.

Of course, if a libertarian buys into the newfangled notion that the basis for marriage is "love," which is really a very modern invention, then perhaps the propagation of children becomes less of a concern. That declining concern in children is certainly what we have seen happen in Western societies as they have increasingly married for love instead of to produce children. Not surprisingly, marriages for love have also ended in considerably more unhappiness and divorce.

So does a refusal on the part of government to intervene to create special, new categories of marriage constitute legislating morality? I'm skeptical that it does. Ideally, the whole matter of marriage might be a societal concern kept separate from governmental regulation, but given the unlikelihood of ending the practice that all modern states license marriages, Russia's move to not validate gay marriage is perhaps anathema only to the most radical purists. Do whatever you want in your private life, so long as you do not harm others, but do not seek governmental recognition for a lifestyle that goes hand-in-hand with the demographic collapse of the society--this seems quite consistent for many libertarians.

Anonymous Godfrey August 03, 2013 2:10 PM  

Oh, is basic biology now an political ideology? I thought it was a science?

Blogger Doom August 03, 2013 2:12 PM  

Unfortunately I don't think Russia can turn that boat around. While they are limiting one of the factors, it isn't a factor of the West or even a major factor. Actually, it is their monsters coming back to haunt them... the part of it that is from the West. They actively encouraged the spread of chaos through the support of everything from homosexuality to pedophilia, the general destruction of many churches through acceptance of immorality leading to the death of the family here, taking over institutions and turning them into hellholes, such as academia, even libraries, medical associations, etc. This was, in great part, a successful if delayed hit from their days as the USSR.

What they failed, and continue to fail, to understand is that they murdered morality long ago and have never sought to revive it. Whether a governments believe in religion or not, the choice comes down to supporting religions which supports the family, preferably of the non-cult variety, or dying. *cough* islam *cough* A state religion, however, fails as well. *cough* Britain *cough* It becomes too much a party of and to the state.

I don't think Russia will survive to 100 million people. They will lose to muslims in country who do breed. Turning the propaganda tools they used on us loose on muslims is the only chance they have to survive another decade or two as hedonists, pagans of the state, atheists, or secular (depending on how you see things). They have no soul, their flesh is forfeit.

Anonymous civilServant August 03, 2013 2:12 PM  

Can anyone think of a historical society which openly endorsed legal homosexuality, which permitted men to marry men and women to marry women, which was not in steep demographic decline?

If there were then the homosexuals would be advertising them as being the kind of society to which we should aspire. Since we hear nothing of the sort and since we may assume they have researched the matter heavily one may conclude there were and are none. Their appeal to homosexual marriage rests entirely on the notion of expanded equal rights and nothing else.

Anonymous Godfrey August 03, 2013 2:12 PM  

And here I thought I understood the basics of the digestive and reproductive processes.

I certainly know how the digestive process ends. I experience it at least once daily.

Blogger mmaier2112 August 03, 2013 2:13 PM  

The history of homosexuality has never been an interest of mine, so I don't actually know, but perhaps some of those who advocate homosexual rights have based their opinions on actual facts rather than feelings and can present some evidence in favor of their position.


I'd bet $20 no faggus advocatus can do so.

Anonymous MrGreenMan August 03, 2013 2:18 PM  

One must remember that, despite the best intentions of the Godless Soviets, there is still a very strong union between church and state in Russia and the Russian psyche.

There appear to be a couple obvious threads in the Bible that I'm sure Herr Putin can see as at least sufficiently explanatory:

- The wages of sin are death.
- Nations can die just the same as individuals; nations are judged and put under judgment no different than individuals.
- Homosexuality and sexual perversion are the symptoms of a people given over to sin and their cultural death.

Now, they are treating a symptom, but given that the general problem is outside their bailiwick, treating the symptoms is probably the best the Russian state can do. From the long view of survival of the Russian nation, it is better than the headlong march to the grave, and Mr. Putin has more than enough Tartars and other -Stanis that he could import if he believed that the Russian soil imparted Russian values to anyone who occupied it, Mr. Rubio's theory about America.

Anonymous Godfrey August 03, 2013 2:20 PM  

I guess if you can convince some dummy to put on a uniform and murder women and children in foreign countries for no good reason, I guess you can convince some other dummy that sodomy is rational behavior.

The wealthy elites must laugh their asses off at their exclusive parties. They can convince the poor ignorant dumb masses of anything.

Anonymous MrGreenMan August 03, 2013 2:26 PM  

Can anyone think of a historical society which openly endorsed legal homosexuality, which permitted men to marry men and women to marry women, which was not in steep demographic decline?

I remember people used to point to the Theban Sacred Band a lot. I haven't heard many people mention it in a while now that it is more generally known that the Band only existed for about 40 years, that they were pederasts (which is troublesome to too many PC people who continue to assert somehow that man-boy love is somehow not a part of classical homosexuality and Islamic homosexuality and Catholic Church homosexuality today, yet have no problem saying normal guys like jail bait), and they were crushed utterly by the "barbarians" from Macedonia.

Anonymous Brandon August 03, 2013 2:34 PM  

All law is someone's morality legislated. What the hell do you think demoncrazy is?

Blogger Tracy Coyle August 03, 2013 2:37 PM  

First, it is much easier to encourage positive behaviors than to discourage negative ones - as long as you make the consequences of negative ones less painful (coddling drinkers and druggies). So, encouraging marriage instead of discouraging 'living together', or even gay marriage would likely work better.

As for the historical...since human society continues to exist, I assume you mean historical 'culture', you'd probably have to provide some parameters - no culture has survived over time - you'd have to determine the cause of their collapse and determine how many had gays and how many had none (in my opinion, there have always been gays, so the point would be 'openly accepting' of gays).

If 98, or 97, or 90% of the population is hetero and continues to marry and have children, any society can tolerate the nun, or the priest, or the gay that chooses not to procreate. My partner and I did not procreate, but our (combined) seven siblings have created 17 children. My partner and I raised one child left abandoned by 'a hetero', (we have no way to know if it was a couple or a single woman). (BTW, one sibling is severely handicapped and will not marry or bear children.)

As suggested before and elsewhere, 'gay acceptance' is not the cause of failure, but a symptom of failure in the hetero society to maintain coherence. A strong society can survive and thrive and even tolerate individual liberty....

Anonymous Anonymous August 03, 2013 2:39 PM  

"Can anyone think of a historical society which openly endorsed legal homosexuality, which permitted men to marry men and women to marry women, which was not in steep demographic decline?"

No I can't, but what scares me more then demographic decline, is where will women stand in such a society? Life is challenging enough when you have sexual and reproductive value, what happens when you don't even have that anymore? At that point we take on the same value as men and yet we are forced to compete with an entirely different set of tools? Whatever happens, it doesn't sound like it's going to be good for me.

Blogger Jack Black August 03, 2013 2:52 PM  

The only time I'm aware of homo marriage existing before this is was in the madness of a few of the Caesars. In fact the concept of love marriage dates back to the 15-16th century. Everywhere else marriage is defined as a ownership system of women or a system for production and caring for children.

Russia desperately needs to cut off western propaganda and more importantly they need to drastically lower the status of women. If they reduce women to having almost no rights outside of their father's home or their husband then their population rates will recover very quickly. Sparta had recovered to full strength with in 3 generations once they abolished women's rights.

Anonymous DonReynolds August 03, 2013 2:55 PM  

To use the term "homosexual rights" would suggest that there are rights that homosexuals have that heterosexuals do not. Of course, that is nonsense....there are no such rights.

Anonymous David August 03, 2013 2:59 PM  

"No I can't, but what scares me more then demographic decline, is where will women stand in such a society?"

Of course it does, and being an average woman, you focus on what affects you more than what affects civilization. Of the two, the demographic decline is the more dangerous for long-term survival of Western civilization. Society can survive "the oppression of women", it can even thrive, what it cannot survive is a total collapse in its birth-rate due to any combination of factors. The treatment of women will not be worse than it's ever historically been in the Christian West.

"Life is challenging enough when you have sexual and reproductive value, what happens when you don't even have that anymore?"

Life is not challenging when you have said value, on the contrary, it becomes significantly easier. When you don't have this value, you're left exactly where most men are for the beginning decades of their lives: in a state where you have to fight and improve and build yourself up to demonstrate some worth to society.

If it sounds scary, its not, it's just the way it is.

"At that point we take on the same value as men and yet we are forced to compete with an entirely different set of tools?"

Hey thanks! Equality's a bitch, ain't it?

Look, women are very pragmatic when it comes to their self-interest. If there were some type of societal catastrophe that made grrl power vanish in an instant, they would immediately revert back to the norm, namely, falling in line behind a man who will protect and provide for them. You won't have to compete, not unless millions of American men begin going abroad for women, then you'd have a problem. And that's not likely to occur.

Fact is, American women are more likely to start lowering their standards when life gets a teeny bit scarier than their used to, rather than attempt to take the hardship head on. The threat of going it alone is not appealing to most girls anyway, so a gentle nudge from widespread societal decline will push them in the right direction.

Fear not, your sisters won't be left in the cold. Huge numbers of men "without sexual and reproductive value"? They will be, but...meh, who cares, right?

"Whatever happens, it doesn't sound like it's going to be good for me."

I commend you for this very honest and solipsistic remark. As I recall, you're already married. What exactly are you worried about?

Blogger wrf3 August 03, 2013 3:00 PM  

One might argue that the Israelite (and other ancient) proscriptions against homosexuality were due to their low technology and, in the case of Israel, hostile external societies. The two most important components of continued Israeli society were children and land.

Technology, however, changes the game. If homosexual couples want children, then gay men could adopt, and gay women could use in vitro fertilization. So the question becomes not "can they reproduce naturally?" but "do they even want to reproduce?"

That I don't know the answer to. Pointing to the survival (or not) of pre-technological societies is irrelevant to this question.

Of course, when TSHTF, technology is a poor substitute for biology.

Anonymous Dan in Tx August 03, 2013 3:01 PM  

Regarding demographics, I believe demographic projections out to years like 2100 are probably largely irrelevant. As long as Russia resists importing large numbers of foreigners, at some point their people will start reproducing again. When they do, their heirs will inherit a Russia that is still Russia, not Russbekustan or some shit. They have nuclear weapons. The only way they will be invaded and fail to survive as a nation and as a people will be if their leaders invite the invaders in via immigration.

Blogger rcocean August 03, 2013 3:13 PM  

Of course Vox won't get an answer to his question, just a lot of vaporous blah, blah.

Blogger Doorstop August 03, 2013 3:23 PM  

yttik, thank you for sharing your female perspective. Even though it does sound solipsistic, and it also shows you still associate with Team Woman despite considering yourself an outlier, it's still refreshing honest.

Anonymous B Lewis August 03, 2013 3:26 PM  

All law is legislated morality. Murder is illegal not for any practical reason (a society can withstand any number of murders) but because human life is sacred and it is immoral to destroy something that is sacred. Rape is illegal not for practical reasons (rape itself will not cause societal collapse) but because it contradicts the natural dignity of the human person, which is likewise sacred. And so with laws against theft, fraud, perjury, usw.

I reapeat: all law is "legislated morality". The only question is: do we legislated based upon the natural moral order of the universe (i.e. the natural law) or upon an artificial moral order (legal postivism)? Natural law jurisprudence is the legal tradition of the West, but since the so-called Enlightenment, legal positivism has increasingly replaced it. Thus all our troubles with government.

Please note also that no such thing as a "natural right" can exist. No one has a "natural" right to anything, not even life. A person or a society defines their "rights" by naked physical violence -- "might makes right" -- and nothing but.

Human beings do have natural duties, which are essentially to love God and His natural order, and to love one's neighbor as oneself. It is the function of just government to use force in order to motivate its citizens to perform these duties.

Traditional, Western government is based upon oaths of personal loyalty and corresponding duties to one's lord. One owes the King fealty because the King is loyal to God. Secular, constitutionsl government in the Enlightenment mode is by contrast based upon nothing but words and the definitions of words. A government that rules "by the people", rather than a government that holds power "by the Grace of God" will always decay into chaos as one power group vies with another to control the meanings of these words.

A house built upon sand cannot help but fall; a society based upon mere words cannot help but decay into a game of words. Ecce the West.

Anonymous The other skeptic August 03, 2013 3:33 PM  

Meanwhile, Twitter is all a twitter about rape threats or something

Hmmmm, haven't there been pointed statements about certain men needing to be raped in prison? Maybe I am mis-remembering.

Of course, this will be used to overrule the first amendment here soon.

Anonymous Liberal. August 03, 2013 3:58 PM  

Civilizations which openly endorse homosexuality in some form fall? Really? Wow. Just Wow. This guy doesn't know any history. wOW. jUST WOW. WOW JUST WOW. really? REALLY? REALLY? SERIOUSLY??

Hrmmmph. Umm...ROME ANYONE? Umm GREECE ANYONE?

euthyphroOOOOO anyooooNNNNEE??

Dipshit.

Blogger Tracy Coyle August 03, 2013 3:59 PM  

I dispute 'all law is legislated morality'. The moral imperative of smoke detectors, 3' windows, 8' parking spaces? There is no law - thy shall not murder - except in Scripture. We have legislated the punishment for the act of murder to various degrees. Laws punish infringements upon rights, but themselves are infringements upon rights.

Women (the vast majority, 99%?) would fall in behind a man in a collapse of society, but the vast majority of men (98%?) would also fall in behind a man(or men) that agree to provide for their protection - such was feudal society. It is our nature to band together under strong leaders, whether it be men following men, women following men.

Anonymous Martin August 03, 2013 4:03 PM  

Don't you guys realize how racists the Russians are for wanting to exist?
Jesus died for all of us so it doesn't matter if the Russians disappear because there are plenty of Africans and Chinese to replace them.

1 in 5 people in Russia are muslims, that's 23 million who average 8.1 children per family. Meanwhile the Russians themselves are 16–48% non-religious barely averaging a 1.7 fertility rate, just like for the others Europeans, there's no future for these people, they don't even believe in one anyway.

Paying people to have children will more likely benefit the muslims at the expense of the Russian taxpayer, and suppressing homosexual rights will just make life harder for the last few Russians who are gay.

Blogger Crude August 03, 2013 4:08 PM  

I'm glad to see this come out expressly. I was talking with a gay jewish friend of mine recently, and he started to talk about how 'homophobic' Russia was. I explained: they are dying, pal. They are dying, and they know it, and they are absolutely desperate to stop this. This isn't a case of 'those mean Christians' - a lot of this is pragmatic. They need men and women marrying and having families, large families, if they don't want their country lost and overrun. They need the cultural attitude towards sex and family to drastically reverse.

I think, for a moment, he understood why the Russians behind this legislation were doing what they were. (He's not the sort to say 'just import immigrants!' since he's poorer and lives in a community that's already quite vibrant.)

Anonymous realmatt August 03, 2013 4:11 PM  

Meanwhile, Twitter is all a twitter about rape threats or something

Freedom of speech on the internet fading away...

WOMEN

RUIN

EVERYTHING


Who the hell let women on the damn internet?? They tricked us by acting like attention whores. They were all like..

"HEY GUYZZ ANYONE WANNA CHAT?! I'M DOING A HAND STAND! I TOTALLY LOVE VIDEO GAMES! WOOO LEROY JENKINS!"

And the men were all like

"OMG HI 2U"

Then WHAM! Pinterest and Speech Police.

Anonymous Will Best August 03, 2013 4:16 PM  

I don't understand all the hubbub over Russia's ban on advocating for homosexual behavior. I thought all cultures were equally valid.

Regarding demographics, I believe demographic projections out to years like 2100 are probably largely irrelevant.

Managing a population decline isn't problematic if you let it occur naturally or are willing to be nasty about it. The problem is that western civilization created old person preservation programs create a negative feedback loop as resources are extracted from the fertile lowering reducing their ability to maintain fertility rates.

Anonymous Matthew Walker August 03, 2013 4:22 PM  

@Liberal., learn to read, dipshit. He said "marriage", dipshit. You're the poor dumb dipshit who said "in some form".

You dumb dipshit.

@Tracy Coyle, stupid lefties think smoke detector laws are as much a moral imperative as lighting candles before dark on Friday is to an orthodox Jew. The regulatory State is their Talmud.

Except of course that orthodox Jews think their rules apply only to them, and the left thinks their rules apply to everybody BUT them. But both share the craze for pettifogging rules and the lack of any sense of proportion.

Blogger Markku August 03, 2013 4:25 PM  

Now, I am as amused by the narrative as any of you. But you don't know Russkies like we know Russkies. We have a saying, ryssä on ryssä vaikka voissa paistais = A Russky is a Russky even if you fry him in butter.

A Russky is extremely proficient in wooing you. And then he will betray. 100% of the time. Remember that you heard it from me.

We will discuss this again when Obama has made a good enough an offer for Putin, and Snowden is in Gitmo.

But until then, I'll enjoy the narrative.

Anonymous Cinco August 03, 2013 4:25 PM  

@real Matt

That was possibly the best women ruin everything rant in this blogs history.

Anonymous VD August 03, 2013 4:25 PM  

No I can't, but what scares me more then demographic decline, is where will women stand in such a society?

Yes, we know. It's called "female solipsism". This may surprise you, but "how will it effect women" is not the primary concern of men on every single subject.

Anonymous realmatt August 03, 2013 4:26 PM  

@Liberal., learn to read, dipshit. He said "marriage", dipshit. You're the poor dumb dipshit who said "in some form".

You dumb dipshit.


Hahahahaha it's fun pretending to be someone you're not, because even if you write a comment in such a way that makes it glaringly obvious it's satire, some poor bastard doesn't get the joke.

Blogger Markku August 03, 2013 4:27 PM  

N.B. Snowden is still a hero, even though that is going to happen. You just can't expect a present-day American to know Russkies. He did the right thing, and couldn't have been expected to know what we know.

Blogger Justthisguy August 03, 2013 4:30 PM  

Nah, Realmatt. It's the Normal wimmin on the Internet who are the problem. I get on just fine with those who are Strange Like Me. Neurotypical wimmin frighten me.

Anonymous Cinco August 03, 2013 4:38 PM  

@ Dan in Tx

Regarding demographics, I believe demographic projections out to years like 2100 are probably largely irrelevant. As long as Russia resists importing large numbers of foreigners, at some point their people will start reproducing again. When they do, their heirs will inherit a Russia that is still Russia, not Russbekustan or some shit. They have nuclear weapons. The only way they will be invaded and fail to survive as a nation and as a people will be if their leaders invite the invaders in via immigration.


Why would people who are overtaxed, unable to afford children, and have no religious motivation to breed start pumping out kids? Just because a country begins devolving doesn't mean reproductive rates magically increase. Ther needs to be a motivation for such things to occur, either religious or agrarian work on the family farm, etc.. Destitution is hardly a reason for procreation. And don't point to Africa, the 85 I.Q. Crowd isn't Even smart enough for coitus interruptus. :-)

Anonymous PA August 03, 2013 4:41 PM  

A fundamental difference between Russia and Western countries is that in Russia, Russian men rather than others own the public space. In America. that would be called "racism." We've been stripped of our right to community and with it, of a sense of ownership of our public space.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1fb_1369524978

The video is confusing at first. Two Africans are scuffling with each other, and then with the Russian taxi driver and young Russian men. At the 2:00 minute mark, the Russians lose their patience. Later, the Russians ask the calmer of the two Africans the kinds of questions a white man in the Anglosphere would not think of asking.

Blogger RobertT August 03, 2013 4:55 PM  

"you can't legislate morality"

An old wives' tale. You can certainly create an atmosphere in which it will blossom, or not.

Anonymous realmatt August 03, 2013 5:03 PM  

Later, the Russians ask the calmer of the two Africans the kinds of questions a white man in the Anglosphere would not think of asking.

I would like to think the reason for this is that they are Russians in Russia, from Russia, living where they always lived (most likely) and not many people would argue with the people accepted as Natives protecting their own country.

But as we see in Germany, England, and most ridiculously, in the Nordic countries, this is not the case. In the US we might hear the stupid argument that we have no right to say those things to immigrants because we are immigrants and blah blah, but that's not the reason.

The reason is humans are violent and warlike and every act committed by the most violent and warlike of us is an act of conquest. Every single tiny victory given to an immigrant, whether it's letting him cut you off in line because "It's just not worth it" - and often it isn't worth it*, depending on where you are - or letting behave in a disgraceful manner as if this is his home and always was, is a victory for all of them, in their eyes. They need to learn to submit or face the consequences. Anyone who believes "I pay taxes! I am an American/Englishman/Swede/whatever !" needs to be dominated immediately.

*I take the bus home and at the ferry terminal where I catch it, there is usually some sort of police presence and I just can't imagine it would go well for me, beating the Hell out of some monkey for cutting the line for the bus. Who knows how the media would try to spin it, with my Spanish last name. Vox...would you send me a care package?

Blogger Tracy Coyle August 03, 2013 5:05 PM  

RobertT....you consider Madison to be an 'old wife'? Our Constitution is for a moral people because you can't legislate morality without tyranny.

I repeat, the issue is culture - humanity is increasing it's size just fine. It is specific cultures that are failing and homosexuality isn't doing the heavy lifting (more like along for the ride). How many people in this country that 1) are Christian, 2) are at least 2 generations removed from having immigrated, 3) are conservative are raising 3 or more children? Fundamentalists and Mormons. Liberals are dying off. Immigration from Latin America is breeding like rabbits - but are generally liberal in the greater society (but conservative within family and community - but certainly not politically). Muslims are breeding like crazy too. Our 'culture' and 'morality' are being bred out...

And if that is true, laws based on 'morality' will soon be based on tenents of Islam....

Blogger Random August 03, 2013 5:12 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Joe Doakes August 03, 2013 5:33 PM  

Legislation is the codified morality of the lawmakers for the simple reason people cannot agree on any other basis for law.

Killing a man isn't always illegal, we don't prosecute executions, assassinations or self-defense because there is a basis for the exemption in the moral code held by the legislators.

No society has permitted gay marriage and thrived because no moral code has been able to integrate gay marriage and simultaneously been adopted by enough members of society.

Because they died off too soon. Not necessarily causation, but an ominous correlation.

Anonymous The Dude August 03, 2013 5:42 PM  

Surely there must be some gene therapy that will selectively reduce the fecundity of people with certain alleles that are ... umm ... incompatible with a modern first world economy.

Perhaps some wealthy benefactor like Bill Gates could offer a hundred million dollars or so for someone who was willing to invent a treatment for over-fecundity. A genetic X-Prize, so to speak.

One could pick the combination of alleles that one wants to suppress the reproduction of and turn it loose in the wild, put it in the water supply, something like that.

No one gets hurt, they just find they cannot conceive as easily as they used to.

Think of it as a reverse-fertility gene therapy.

One could market it (and the research leading up to it) as a boon to mankind. An orally administered birth control that is good for months (or years, or decades).

Pitch it as self-empowerment: "The drug companies want to milk you for monthly birth control charges. We on the other hand, want you to have the freedom and security of a one dose birth control pill that last a month (or a year, or a decade, or life)."

Anonymous Anonymous August 03, 2013 5:53 PM  

David, I actually don't dispute this,

"Of course it does, and being an average woman, you focus on what affects you more than what affects civilization."

Of course I do. I believe it is deliberate part of my design and therefore, not likely to change soon. I have seen how myopic women in charge of the world can be, first hand. The problem I have is, unless men plan on staging an armed rebellion and taking over the world, the message, "we really aren't concerned about how things will affect women," is not a great selling point. I also can't follow the logic of it, since you seem to bemoan demographic decline and yet ignore the fact that half of the equation is going to have to involve women. Unless you're proposing artificial wombs or something? What concerns me is that that is exactly what many feminists want, too, women completely out of the reproductive equation. So, no? You plan to deal with demographic decline by brute force? Repealing gay marriage laws?

Blogger tz August 03, 2013 6:01 PM  

EVery law that does not prevent violence, theft, or fraud is a legislation of morality in the bad sense. There are sins and there are crimes. When the nation is righteous, there need not be legislation against sins. When the nation is not righteous, the legislation will be against righteousness and not sin, although they will call themselves righteous.

Rational and reasonable men have agreed on a basis for law, the Tao of CS Lewis "Abolition". But democracy gives irrationality an equal vote. That is Vox's point about Women's suffrage. There are irrational men, and rational women, but it takes effort, and giving the vote to a large group of irrational (or uneducated, or greedy moochers) is a recipe for destruction.

It was not the social status of women - Women as MOTHERS in a house where the man was the head - was functionally hypergamy even if the man was blue-collar or a low-level white collar employee. And the majority of women weren't oppressed and unhappy. There were many inequalities, but there are worse sets now and everyone is unhappy.

You don't need repression or prejudice to fix things, just a return to the recognition that Motherhood is one of the most valuable vocations any human can aspire to, and men aren't equipped for it. Women can be taught to let themselves be used for sex, or wait until a man respects her enough to become a Mother. (Or as someone has pointed out the biology, eggs are expensive - but also wombs and milk).

If you want to see why simply lowering the status of women won't work, just stop over at Chateau Heartiste - about once a month Roissy bemoans the demographic slow suicide of whites, yet the rest is to become higher status than women and use them as sex objects where Motherhood is NOT desired.

Within the household, the man can be the Alpha, and the woman the Matrona, have many children, and it won't be all roses, but that is the model for happiness.

Asking if a potential spouse would make a good parent is a better and more profound question than if you are sexually attracted.

We will see in China - the women who manage to tag a man might not be "leftovers", but if they don't have children, and the 1 child policy is having an effect. DINKS? (double income no kids).

Anonymous Anonymous August 03, 2013 6:03 PM  

Okay, so I didn't mean to come across so snarky. Apologies. Seriously, this evening I have to go walk in the world of women, speak to the myopic ones, and my message is going to be, "perhaps how will it effect women should not be our primary concern on every subject?"

I can hardly wait. This is going to go over so well. We'll see if I live through the evening.

Anonymous biff August 03, 2013 6:19 PM  

>Can anyone think of a historical society which openly endorsed legal homosexuality?

Buddhist monasteries. India, China, Southeast Asia- Hakluyt thought they were dens of sodomites. Prejudice? Maybe.

Anonymous Anonymous August 03, 2013 7:13 PM  

Okay, let me address this and then I'll go away for a while:

"Fear not, your sisters won't be left in the cold. Huge numbers of men "without sexual and reproductive value"? They will be, but...meh, who cares, right?"

I do care. I have always cared. I did not marry a man and birth four children for no reason. I believe in something here, in a higher calling.

There's a saying in feminist circles meant to humiliate you back into the hive called, "..but what about the men?" If you hear that, you bad. It means you've slipped off script and started thinking about how this will impact men, rather then women. I have been on the receiving end of it many times. My bad. I have always considered how things may impact men.

Blogger Phoenician August 03, 2013 7:22 PM  

But, as anyone who has read Juvenal will recall, there is at least a partial correlation between societies that permit legal and open homosexuality and societies that are in a steep demographic decline.

Remind us again which peer-reviewed journal this was published in, dipshit?

You friggin' moron.

Anonymous Sigyn August 03, 2013 7:28 PM  

No I can't, but what scares me more then demographic decline, is where will women stand in such a society?

Replaced by women from other ethnicities.

Life is challenging enough when you have sexual and reproductive value, what happens when you don't even have that anymore?

How would that be different from today, exactly? Sexual value has been hyperinflated due to oversupply of cheap convenience goods, and reproductive value isn't even a factor anymore.

At that point we take on the same value as men and yet we are forced to compete with an entirely different set of tools?

That's okay. The gubmit fills our toolbox with Title IX and affirmative action, and to the most ruthless and unscrupulous go the spoils.

Whatever happens, it doesn't sound like it's going to be good for me.

Why, what do you think your husband is going to do, or fail to do?

Anonymous Sigyn August 03, 2013 7:33 PM  

Remind us again which peer-reviewed journal this was published in, dipshit?

Excuse me?

Are you seriously saying that your Western science-based methods of arriving at truths are superior to the methods of pagan cultures? What are you, against diversity or something???

Anonymous a_peraspera August 03, 2013 7:44 PM  

"Peer-reviewed" lol. Look folks, this fool thinks that still means something! *points and laughs hysterically*

Anonymous David August 03, 2013 7:55 PM  

"Of course I do. I believe it is deliberate part of my design and therefore, not likely to change soon."

It is, and it's not something I'm arguing against. A nation of women being as ready to race headlong unto death and glory as your average soldier or guerrilla fighter would not last very long. Which is why the "welfare of women" is not something men who build, maintain, and run Western civilization should concern themselves with. It comes as a result of civilization being created and sustained, not by making it the focal point of one's concern.

"I have seen how myopic women in charge of the world can be, first hand. The problem I have is, unless men plan on staging an armed rebellion and taking over the world, the message, "we really aren't concerned about how things will affect women," is not a great selling point."

There's no point in staging an armed rebellion when it's going to happen soon anyway. Why start something early when you can best spend your time preparing? At any rate, how this sells to women is also not of great concern, since it's going to happen whether women approve of it or not. It's only a matter now of "when", "how bad", and "for how long"?

"I also can't follow the logic of it, since you seem to bemoan demographic decline and yet ignore the fact that half of the equation is going to have to involve women."

Yes somewhere along the line i managed to forget women were involved in the child-bearing process too. Silly me, right

"Unless you're proposing artificial wombs or something? What concerns me is that that is exactly what many feminists want, too, women completely out of the reproductive equation. So, no? You plan to deal with demographic decline by brute force? Repealing gay marriage laws?"

Step back from your emotions for a second sweetheart, you're assuming things that weren't even in the same subject of this conversation. Women will fall back in line as they're faced with a new system that doesn't give the slightest most insignificant whiff about how many degrees they have or how "kick ass" they were in college. And by system, i mean men. Who do you think is going to be doing all the dirty work when the shooting finally starts?

The only way this present system even tolerates that type of idiocy is by the threat of government firepower showing up on the businessman's doorstep and forcing him to comply. Beyond that it's a charade we've put up with for forty years, and really it began in earnest in the mid-80s.

And as for gay marriage, repealing the laws will not help at this point. The moral rot began years ago and has fully matured to the point where very little, if anything, can be done. And nothing can stop the economic meltdown. It's like pushing a boulder off the side of the mountain; you stop the boulder, maybe if you had enough concerted help, but after enough time it'll start causing a lot of damage...and when the rest of the mountain starts rumbling you know the avalanche is coming. And that's when you're completely...totally...and unequivocally...fucked.

Blogger tz August 03, 2013 8:45 PM  

@Phony Remind us again which peer-reviewed journal this was published in, dipshit?

Phony, you forgot to use the full title and include McRapey's "Racist Sexist Homophobe" prefix. I'm disappointed. You are even not being a very good troll.

Classical Literature. The ultimate peer review is the test of time. Or as Chesterton put it, "The democracy of the dead".

Things that were not deemed true or valuable were not copied. Juvenal was. Everything more than a millennium in vintage which has been passed down (instead of being discovered preserved buried in some ancient public toilet as material to read while defecating) has to be valuable by definition.

Others:

No I can't, but what scares me more then demographic decline, is where will women stand in such a society? In the corner.

Mike Shedlock (mish, Mish's global economic analysis) frequently talks about robots replacing everything. Prostitutes should be worried. Prostitutes and shrews should worry about Sexbots (Oooh, Tonight, Adafruit has the regular "Ask an Engineer" and "Show and Tell" before it... I so feel like testing the "Lady" in Ada). Sexual value will be fleeting. Reproductive will remain, whatever is left of fertility after the cock carousel.


Anonymous kh123 August 03, 2013 9:26 PM  

"which peer-reviewed journal this was published in"

I'm thinking AAAS is a good benchmark for an idea's legitimacy, since they've been on the up and up recently in the news.

Didn't even need a hockey stick, radiometric date, or cholesterol count for that one.

Anonymous TheMadItalian August 03, 2013 9:47 PM  

@Markku:

I loved your quote. I found an older version of the quote and have two questions. Who is the author of the quote? And how do you translate "cream shine"? Is that an older phrase for butter?

"Rossija (Venäjä) säilyy Rossijana vaikka kermassa paistaisi!"
~Tsaarien isänmaallinen tunnuslause, Venäjän vaakunateksti 1800-luvulla

Anonymous Anonymous August 03, 2013 10:05 PM  

Vox, you wrote: **So, here is the interesting question. Can anyone think of a historical society which openly endorsed legal homosexuality, which permitted men to marry men and women to marry women, which was not in steep demographic decline? The history of homosexuality has never been an interest of mine, so I don't actually know, but perhaps some of those who advocate homosexual rights have based their opinions on actual facts rather than feelings and can present some evidence in favor of their position.**

Vox, it's an interesting question, but it's also what is known as a 'leading' question, in that the question itself contains one or more assumptions that aren't necessarily proven. In this case, your question makes the assumption that a drastic increase in open homosexuality will cause the decline of a society. There's a couple other possibilities that need to be addressed:

1. Will a society that is in decline will affect people in such a way as to cause an increase in homosexuality (or other behaviors which are normally more rare). Autism is also going up in 21st century America. Are autistics responsible for the decline of our society?

2. When a society is in decline, do the politicians who caused that decline find it convenient to use minority groups as a distraction/ scapegoat to turn people's attention away from the actions of the politicians that actually caused the decline? Could this include encouraging the minority group(s) used as a distraction to actually engage in more outrageous behaviour than they normally would.

For instance, suppose the decline of our society is caused by the use of fiat currency. It would be very convenient for the politicians who created and benefit from fiat currency (at the expense of everyone else), if every time too many people question what is going on in the national mints, they can distract people with some sort of 'gay scandal'.

Doing prep work in this regard, for instance, putting agent provocateurs in the gay community to promote outrageous behavior and demands that the gays would not normally think to do or demand of their own accord (at least not very often) would be a good idea from the politician's point of view to make sure that there is always going to be a gay scandal or issue of some sort that can serve as a convenient distraction to the results of fiat currency.

Anonymous Anonymous August 03, 2013 10:11 PM  

David wrote: "Unless you're proposing artificial wombs or something? What concerns me is that that is exactly what many feminists want, too, women completely out of the reproductive equation. So, no? You plan to deal with demographic decline by brute force? Repealing gay marriage laws?"

David, as a biologist, I'd say the widespread use of artificial wombs as a substitute for women being pregnant is a very bad idea. An ability that is not used and/or needed tends to be lost over evolutionary time periods(this is why there are eyeless fish and other eyeless animals in caves). Taking an action that would mean over thousands of years that an increasing amount of women might no longer have the ability to reproduce (since it would no longer be needed). Then, what happens to the human race if some disaster causes technology to decline to the point where artificial wombs are no longer feasible?

Now, if you want to propose that we should genetically tinker with the human race to make birth easier on women (I can think of a couple ways that could be done), that would make a lot more sense.

Blogger James Dixon August 03, 2013 10:27 PM  

> No one gets hurt, they just find they cannot conceive as easily as they used to.

Considering he declining birth rates of first works countries, what makes you think this hasn't been done?

Anonymous David August 03, 2013 10:45 PM  

Ann Morgan, you're thinking of yttik, I proposed no such thing

Anonymous Julia August 03, 2013 10:58 PM  

Here is a link showing how Russabia is a myth and an exaggeration that isn't currently happening nor will happen in the future --> http://darussophile.com/2013/07/08/from-russia-to-russabia/

Anonymous Harsh August 03, 2013 10:58 PM  

Remind us again which peer-reviewed journal this was published in, dipshit?

You friggin' moron.


Hey Phoney, VD schooled you on your ridiculous and mistaken comments about epidemiology. Care to comment, idiot?

Anonymous Anonymous August 03, 2013 11:07 PM  

One interesting thing about this discussion is that everyone overlooked the effect the burgeoning AIDS rate's having on Russian demographics. From what I've been hearing it's a race between which will ultimately do Russia in first, declining reproduction & AIDS.


Cassandra (of Troy)

Blogger Doom August 03, 2013 11:09 PM  

Brandon,

All law is someone's morality legislated. What the hell do you think demoncrazy is?

While that is true, it only holds if one assumes all morality is equal. It is not. I won't bother suggesting what morality is. Either you know it or you don't. Then again I think most know it, it's just that most reject it as too hard, if often without ever having tried it.

Anonymous fnn August 03, 2013 11:13 PM  

Here is a link showing how Russabia is a myth and an exaggeration that isn't currently happening nor will happen in the future.

Jews/neocons really hate the Russians.

Anonymous Sigyn August 03, 2013 11:20 PM  

Artificial wombs? I'm sure the government wouldn't try to regulate who can use them and who is allowed to be produced by them, especially not now that they have their hands up to the elbows in health care.

What could POSSIBLY go wrong with making it a business transaction instead of a matter of natural rights???

Anonymous Godfrey August 03, 2013 11:24 PM  

Convince the dumb monkeys to screw each other up the ass and you'll have fewer monkeys in the long run. It's a great plan for reducing population levels.

You'll notice that the wealthy elites reproduce. What are we on now? David Rockefeller IV or V?

Anonymous Sigyn August 03, 2013 11:29 PM  

I'm sorry that that last was so OT, but someone brought it up so I felt like pointing and laughing. Continue as you were, gentlemen.

Anonymous Ah, The Sweet Smell Of Elitism August 03, 2013 11:31 PM  

“Within the household, the man can be the Alpha, and the woman the Matrona, have many children, and it won't be all roses, but that is the model for happiness.”

You're making an arbitrary requirement of absolute knowledge, which requires omniscience, which is not a sustainable condition for any judgment we can make, because it's unattainable.


“There's no point in staging an armed rebellion when it's going to happen soon anyway.”

It's been quite apparent you are fully capable of accepting illogical propositions.



“The threat of going it alone is not appealing to most girls anyway, so a gentle nudge from widespread societal decline will push them in the right direction. “

According to your subjective standards, yes.


“Women will fall back in line as they're faced with a new system that doesn't give the slightest most insignificant whiff about how many degrees they have or how "kick ass" they were in college.”

Imagination does not constitute as evidence, so these comments are therefore baseless. And all your assumptions about the motivating character of females is false.

Anonymous Sigyn August 03, 2013 11:33 PM  

Convince the dumb monkeys to screw each other up the ass and you'll have fewer monkeys in the long run. It's a great plan for reducing population levels.

You'll notice that the wealthy elites reproduce. What are we on now? David Rockefeller IV or V?


Now you've got me curious. Is this sterility commonplace across the lower classes or more so among the middle class?

Because I could see pushing this as part of a bigger, multi-pronged attack on the middle class. No group is more of a threat to the power structure than those pesky hard-working, social-climbing, genius-producing middle-class people...

Anonymous Sigyn August 03, 2013 11:37 PM  

You're making an arbitrary requirement of absolute knowledge, which requires omniscience, which is not a sustainable condition for any judgment we can make, because it's unattainable.

Even if your source for this knowledge is, in fact, absolute and omniscient?

I will now go to bed, and when I come back, I will discover that you responded by denying the existence of God--absolute knowledge which requires omniscience, which is unattainable to you, but you will assert it anyway because you are fully capable of accepting illogical propositions.

Anonymous fnn August 03, 2013 11:40 PM  

All law is someone's morality legislated. What the hell do you think demoncrazy is?


I recall some of the arguments over the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Moderate pro-segs said "You can't legislate morality." Integrationists said "We legislate morality all the time, morality follows the law."

Blogger Markku August 03, 2013 11:49 PM  

@Markku:

I loved your quote. I found an older version of the quote and have two questions. Who is the author of the quote? And how do you translate "cream shine"? Is that an older phrase for butter?

"Rossija (Venäjä) säilyy Rossijana vaikka kermassa paistaisi!"
~Tsaarien isänmaallinen tunnuslause, Venäjän vaakunateksti 1800-luvulla


You probably got it from Hikipedia, which is the Finnish equivalent of Uncyclopedia. In other words, it is misinformation for purposes of comedy, usually the sort where you have to know a bit about the subject to understand Teh Funneh.

As for the origin of the real quote, I don't know. It's practically a part of the national consciousness now. When Russkies betray someone, or someone is contemplating trusting them in something, we say it almost reflexively, like the British would comment on the weather.

There's also another, older one from Eastern Finland, mikään eläin ei ole niin ihmisen näköinen kuin ryssä = There is no animal that looks quite as human as a Russky.

Blogger Markku August 03, 2013 11:58 PM  

Jokes always lose Teh Funneh when you explain them, but the point is that "ryssä" has about the same amount of negative connotations as "nigger". And that fake sentence is construed in such a way that it puts a positive spin on the real one. The joke is that the (fake) writer is carefully analyzing the sentence from many different aspects, without realizing the most important thing about it - that it is extremely offensive.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2013 12:01 AM  

"...No I can't, but what scares me more then demographic decline, is where will women stand in such a society?"

"In the corner."

Okay TZ, you made me laugh and snort soda.

“The threat of going it alone is not appealing to most girls anyway, so a gentle nudge from widespread societal decline will push them in the right direction."

Oh. That possibility didn't even occur to me. It sounds quite plausible. I certainly have no desire to go it alone.

Thank you all for taking the time to explain it. I was becoming concerned about being left to roam around aimlessly in some new homosexual culture where I have no value.

Blogger Markku August 04, 2013 12:03 AM  

As for the word nigger itself, we have the word nekru, but it isn't quite as offensive. If we really want to get the message across, we say mutakuono which translates to "mud snout".

Blogger Tracy Coyle August 04, 2013 12:42 AM  

Yttik....the idea that 2-4% of the population might create a 'dominant homosexual culture' is silly...

Anonymous Mudz August 04, 2013 3:24 AM  

@ Sigyn

Haha, " Ah, The Sweet Smell Of Elitism" is just some weirdo going around copy pasting from my comments to other people, under various names. Guess he felt he'd have better luck in his arguments this way.

Kind of flattering to have my own plagiarist. Hope it helps him.

Anonymous Roundtine August 04, 2013 3:27 AM  

I don't buy the demographic argument as the sole justification. The aim of the law is to reduce degeneracy by banning the advocacy of degenerate lifestyles to minors, on that point there is the demographic argument because the law only says "non-traditional sexual relations." They will eventually expand this to sodomy.

The other issue is foreign influence. The alphabet soup of "non-governmental agencies" operating in Russia are American front groups spreading Western decadence. The Cold War never stopped for these people. The CIA was in bed with socialists during the Cold War and used them as a weapon against the communists; they are still trying to spread Western ideas and "values" into Russia. You see things like the "Pussy Riot" case and invariably there is a Western front group behind them.

You can be as cynical about the Russians and Putin as you want, but the Russians are smart. They understand cycle theory. They have a fast growing Muslim minority population that is violent. They need the Russian Orthodox Church to stand as a bulwark. They see the decadence in the West and, if Russia is forever to be the opposite pole to America, it makes sense in this age for Russia to oppose the U.S. morally, tapping into Christian opposition. The socialists have forsaken Russian, but it can find American allies on the right this time around.

Blogger James Dixon August 04, 2013 7:26 AM  

> Integrationists said "We legislate morality all the time, morality follows the law."

Yeah, how has that worked out?

They have it exactly backwards. The law is supposed to follow morality.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2013 7:32 AM  

"Yttik....the idea that 2-4% of the population might create a 'dominant homosexual culture' is silly..."

Really? Because I think that's what's happening right now. We're halfway there already. Sometimes it seems as if 2-4% of the population's special snowflake needs seem to be more dominant than the needs of anyone else.

Anonymous Godfrey August 04, 2013 8:44 AM  

@Tracy Coyle August 04, 2013 12:42 AM
"Yttik....the idea that 2-4% of the population might create a 'dominant homosexual culture' is silly..."


The plan of the elites is to promote the behavior in an attempt, among others, to reduce population levels. In a few decades the 2-4% will triple.

Anonymous Godfrey August 04, 2013 8:48 AM  

@Sigyn August 03, 2013 11:33 PM
"Now you've got me curious. Is this sterility commonplace across the lower classes or more so among the middle class?"



I would speculate it's more common among the middle-class. It seems the middle-class isn't paid to have children, instead they're seem to be financially punished.

Anonymous Sigyn August 04, 2013 9:35 AM  

Tracy, considering that they want to fold into their numbers the deformed, the adulterous, the curious, the confused, children, and the people who aren't interested in anyone at all...well, that's not quite 2-4%.

I've been watching the creep of the term. It's gone from "gays and lesbians" to LGBT and now LGBQTIP. You don't start trying to recruit unless you want more numbers, and the only thing I've ever seen liberals want numbers for is to get more power.

Anonymous Thomas Malthus August 04, 2013 7:37 PM  

"The socialists have forsaken Russian, but it can find American allies on the right this time around."

Rountine, you are an idiot. The desire by Russian authorities to raise their birth rate is rooted in Socialism. “Free stuff” in the form of housing and education, direct cash payments to women who pop out more chilluns (and even adjusting their work schedules to meet maternal demands!), programs to dry out the Vodka swilling man-childs running amok, and (gasp) relaxing immigration laws!

It is worth pointing out that a society in which individuals are induced to have children by governmental intrusion is not a free society, unless you are a closet librul who advocates these forms of welfare and social engineering.


"The plan of the elites is to promote the behavior in an attempt, among others, to reduce population levels."

Godfrey, the course of action taken by the Christian libertarian intelligentsia is to "gently" remind whites of their "duty" to pop out kids like a Pez dispenser as a counter to niggers and spics breeding like rabbits, right?

Can't afford them? Don't want them because rearing kids is not a priority? Tough, it's all a demographic thang!

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts