| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| The Monster and the Nursery |
| 2005-01-15 |
| Monsters, like leftists, don't reproduce naturally. Ordinary uncontraceived heterosexual relations do not create little vampires and zombies. Monsters perpetuate themselves through blasphemous acts, like assembling dead body parts into human form, or sharing ancient curses through biting. Indeed, much of the pathos inherent in horror movies and fiction springs from the parasitic manner in which monsters absorb non-monsters into their unholy fold. It's bad when George Romero's zombies rise from the dead to eat you, but when their bites transform your friends and your wife and, eventually, you into a zombie ⊠that's scary. And Dracula is just a weirdo with a fang fetish until his nocturnal prowlings turn your fiancée into the Bloofer Lady. Deformation is creepier than plain ol' death. Exceptions exist, of course. Jason and Freddy and Pinhead don't reproduce - they just kill. But all of those characters have evolved (degenerated?) into semi-sympathetic anti-heroes - avatars of an adolescent will to power. And it's true that Godzilla ended up in a family way, but that exception proves the rule: Godzilla had his son in the late sixties and early seventies, at which time he discarded the whole disguised-symbol-of-American-nuclear-aggression vibe in favor of a more mellow, dim-witted-defender-of-Japan-against-poorly-adjusted-monsters approach. When monsters start appearing in movies that have the word "Vs." in the title, they aren't really monsters anymore. Generally, though, monsters reproduce by hijacking the bodies and souls of the living - or by crafting perverse facsimiles of themselves that inevitably turn against them. Just like the Left! By now, it's a right-wing pundit cliché to point out that birth rates on the Left are plummeting rapidly. Over in flawlessly liberal Europe, the non-Arab population treats childbearing the way the Atkins diet treats carbohydrates. Here in the states, the reproduction rates among the Religious Right - and in the red states generally - greatly outpace the reproduction rates of our over-educated latte-sipping superiors. But in one-man one-vote democracies, small populations either discard their political power, or discard democracy. Moreover, history teaches us that children are the most successful way to ensure that your cultural and ideological preferences survive after you depart. Eventually, the Greatest Generation and the Baby Boomers will die, and their preferences for big government and laissez-faire social morality will die with them. If, in 50 years, the home-schooled and Sunday-schooled outnumber the boarding schooled and Ivy Leagued, who can doubt that conservatism will own the future? What's a non-reproducing leftie to do? Discarding leftism is out. Having more ⊠ick ⊠children ⊠with their stinky diapers and expensive college educations and drain on the world's limited resources and whiny tantrums right in the middle of All Things Considered ⊠is out, too. So the Left is, er, left with two options for ensuring the survival of their ideology: the Bride of Frankenstein option and the Dracula option. The Bride of Frankenstein option is immigration. By importing hordes of proto-citizens unassimilated into the prevailing culture, the Left hopes to create an overclass of ethnic leaders dependent on affirmative action and government jobs to maintain their mandarin status. In turn, those ethnic leaders will keep the underclass immigrants dependent upon welfare handouts and government-enforced language barriers - and, thus, wedded to leftist economic policies. If the mass of immigrants is big enough to exercise appreciable political power, and if the prevailing culture is sufficiently indifferent to assimilating new arrivals, this strategy can work for a time. Indeed, in just this fashion, the Left has kept a stranglehold on black and Hispanic votes for decades. And, best of all, immigrants reproduce in large numbers, so you don't have to! The problem, of course, is that the Bride of Frankenstein reviles the monster it was created to marry. The Europeans are learning to their horror that their Arab immigrants detest and revile the socially liberal ideology that their presence permits. Similarly, the American left is discovering that most blacks and Hispanics want no part of the radically heterodox morality that leftist intellectuals promulgate. Whereas the left wants to reform (or, in the extreme, abolish) bourgeois middle-class American morality, most American minorities want to embrace that morality more fully. As the '60s generation of minority leaders passes away, a new, independent-minded, and conservative-friendly generation of leaders is coming to take their place. And this new generation of leaders will not be bought off as easily as their parents were. The innate social conservatism of American minorities will push them to the social Right - not as quickly as conservative immigration cheerleaders would have you believe, and not before contemporary minority leaders inflict serious damage on America from the Left, but soon enough to dash the hopes of a liberal legacy. The remaining option is the Dracula option: the hijacking of little red-state kids through academia and the mass media. It's the lament of conservatives since time out of mind, and it's the plot of Tom Wolfe's latest novel: every year, conservative families spend outrageous sums in order to send their smartest, most capable children to elite colleges, wherein radical leftists brainwash them into newly-minted blue-staters. And the less-capable red-state kids hear the siren call of leftist values every time they flip the "on" switch on the idiot box. Prime-time television and the network news highlight the glamour and appeal of liberal places, beliefs, and lifestyles, while conservative values are either ridiculed ("dumb old Dad"), reviled ("The priest did it? The businessman was corrupt? Who'd've guessed?"), dismissed ("We at CBS News stand by our story"), or ignored (insert any aspect of religious life here). The old song is still mostly true: How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen a TV show about Paree? In the movies and in the book, Dracula dies when a stake is driven through his heart. Sadly, we won't be staking Harvard or CBS anytime soon. But there's another way to kill a vampire: starve him. Without fresh blood, vampires wither into irrelevance. At the beginning of Bram Stoker's Dracula, Dracula was weak and enfeebled for want of fresh blood. Keep the fresh blood away, and the vampire ceases to be a problem. The process of starving the leftist vampires is already underway. The readership of mainstream newspapers is declining, even as the major networks suffer drops in their ratings. Cable TV and the Internet allow ordinary people to enjoy news and entertainment free of the vampiric taint. Similarly, the massive rise in college tuitions will eventually compel red-state America to find alternatives to the elite college monopoly. In the next 20 to 30 years, Internet schooling will grow more effective, more affordable, and more selective. We will soon see Internet universities with competitive acceptance. Red-state community colleges and commuter schools will improve their ability to provide practical, no-frills, undergraduate-focused educations at reasonable prices that the bloated blue-state schools cannot match. As more and more middle-class red-state parents send their sharp kids to local and/or Internet-based colleges, the stigma attached to those colleges will be broken - and the power of the Academic Left to produce bright new leftists will decline precipitously. Monsters never truly die, of course - there's always room for a sequel. Leftism will reappear in every generation. But the leftism of tomorrow will be a leftism compatible with the mores of the socially conservative children who will win the Darwinian sweepstakes, even though those kids don't believe in Darwin. If the Left means to survive in its current form, it will need a better Bride, or a better way to bite us in the neck. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #86 And Aris, I am going to be visitng Greece this summer - seeing the places where early Christianity first had its hard tests. Remind me of what part you live in so this old man can either avoid it, or kick your ass personally. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-15 5:46:29 PM |
| #85 Here is your atempt to change what you said: " actually I only attacked the person who first made that instruction" You said "all religious commandments opposing contraception been. The desire of powermad individuals to outnumber the competition." The pope and others and peopel of faith like myself are not powermad. And your words didnt mention the "person who made that instruction". For to a beleiver, that "person" is God Himself - those are His words. Your weasel attempt requires us to disbeielve that those are Gods word recorded in our scripture, meaning you fundamentally slander our religion, going back to the days of pre-history. All your lame attempts at equivocation after the fact do not change it: you LIED and you are a bigot against religious people. YOU LIED Note the qualifier you used. ALL. I simple showed that the term "all" did not apply. You, as predicted, tried to wist away, and weasel away from your own words. Then you tried to attack the person pointing out your lie. You even questioned the definition odf a lie, picking a convenient one, but not the truest wone. Given your anti-religious bigotry, your words were meant to decieve - your use of "All" is such an obvious unthinking and blanket condemnation that it shows your bigoted intent. Secondly, the most common definition is to knowingly make a statement that is not true, not your slanted definiton that requires intent to decieve. A lie is ismply making a statment that you know not to be true. And you KNEW that it is not the intnt of ALL religious to outpupulate others, as well as you KNEW that a vast majority of religious are NOT :pwermad". SO you deliverately made a known false statement. Aris: you lied no matter how you shade it or try to weasel away. ANd you compun3ede they lie by refusing to admit it, and further indicating your anti-religious bigotry. These are classic responses from liars like you. Admit it. And apologize for it. Your statement was bigoted and a lie. And you will be forgiven. If not, I will call attneiton to you as a Liar and Bigot every time you post to this board. I will make it the mission of either me or some software to remind everyone that ever sees a post by you that you are a unrepentant, decetptive equivocating liar and anti-religious bigot. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-15 5:42:54 PM |
| #84 Aris, you are a liar. "all religious commandments opposing contraception been. The desire of powermad individuals to outnumber the competition." WRONG The Catholic Church follows the Bible and God's instruction in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply. And natural law for the consequences of that set of instructions from God. Its a matter of religious beleif not cold political calculation - you reveal your cynicism and constant political and anti-religioud bias by your very making of such a lie in a public forum. Remember (as you woudl if you bothered to actually understand the issue before shwoing yourself to be a lair), up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Churchâs teaching condemning contraception as sinful. The Anglican church was the first to fold and other protestants followed. Its all based on the doctrine of Humanae Vitae, had you the integrity to actually read the belief and basis for opposition to birth control. Its based on the ancient philosophy of Natural Law. The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The view opf the Church is that the pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children. And to avoid the possibility of procreation is to thwart God's will and Natural Law. This doctrine is not new in the Church - you can look up the writings of Clement of Alexandria in 195AD, The council of Nicea, St Augustine, and from the protestant side even Martin Luther and John Calvin address this. And the reason is not to "outpopulate" anyone - it is a moral issue, as said by Pope Paul VI: "Let them consider, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality.Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that menâespecially the young, who are so vulnerable on this pointâhave need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion" " Note how precient he is - look at the Rap culture and its treatment of women as "Bitches And Ho's", the surge of teen pregnancy (since birth control is imperfect at best), and the huge number of men who take no responsibility for the children they create, using the woman as a piece of facility, not as a properly lived partner for life. Face it Airs - this is a moral opposition, and you slandered all the religious peole in your outright lie. The Pope and the Church were right. The consequences predicted are there, right in your face. And the reaonsing behind the opposition to Contraception is plaingly NOT "powermad", but very moral. Finally: You may not agree with the reglious, philosophical and moral points I presneted, but that is not the issue here. So before you do your usual weasel act and try to change the subject or twist your words, let me remind you: The issue is that you lied when stating that all religious opposition to birth control was intended as a tool for the "Powermad" to "outreproduce" the others. I've shown quite the opposite. Apologize, NOW, Aris, for being a liar, as well as a bigot. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-15 1:14:06 PM |
| #83 And Aris, I am going to be visitng Greece this summer - seeing the places where early Christianity first had its hard tests. Remind me of what part you live in so this old man can either avoid it, or kick your ass personally. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-15 5:46:29 PM |
| #82 Here is your atempt to change what you said: " actually I only attacked the person who first made that instruction" You said "all religious commandments opposing contraception been. The desire of powermad individuals to outnumber the competition." The pope and others and peopel of faith like myself are not powermad. And your words didnt mention the "person who made that instruction". For to a beleiver, that "person" is God Himself - those are His words. Your weasel attempt requires us to disbeielve that those are Gods word recorded in our scripture, meaning you fundamentally slander our religion, going back to the days of pre-history. All your lame attempts at equivocation after the fact do not change it: you LIED and you are a bigot against religious people. YOU LIED Note the qualifier you used. ALL. I simple showed that the term "all" did not apply. You, as predicted, tried to wist away, and weasel away from your own words. Then you tried to attack the person pointing out your lie. You even questioned the definition odf a lie, picking a convenient one, but not the truest wone. Given your anti-religious bigotry, your words were meant to decieve - your use of "All" is such an obvious unthinking and blanket condemnation that it shows your bigoted intent. Secondly, the most common definition is to knowingly make a statement that is not true, not your slanted definiton that requires intent to decieve. A lie is ismply making a statment that you know not to be true. And you KNEW that it is not the intnt of ALL religious to outpupulate others, as well as you KNEW that a vast majority of religious are NOT :pwermad". SO you deliverately made a known false statement. Aris: you lied no matter how you shade it or try to weasel away. ANd you compun3ede they lie by refusing to admit it, and further indicating your anti-religious bigotry. These are classic responses from liars like you. Admit it. And apologize for it. Your statement was bigoted and a lie. And you will be forgiven. If not, I will call attneiton to you as a Liar and Bigot every time you post to this board. I will make it the mission of either me or some software to remind everyone that ever sees a post by you that you are a unrepentant, decetptive equivocating liar and anti-religious bigot. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-15 5:42:54 PM |
| #81 Aris, you are a liar. "all religious commandments opposing contraception been. The desire of powermad individuals to outnumber the competition." WRONG The Catholic Church follows the Bible and God's instruction in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply. And natural law for the consequences of that set of instructions from God. Its a matter of religious beleif not cold political calculation - you reveal your cynicism and constant political and anti-religioud bias by your very making of such a lie in a public forum. Remember (as you woudl if you bothered to actually understand the issue before shwoing yourself to be a lair), up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Churchâs teaching condemning contraception as sinful. The Anglican church was the first to fold and other protestants followed. Its all based on the doctrine of Humanae Vitae, had you the integrity to actually read the belief and basis for opposition to birth control. Its based on the ancient philosophy of Natural Law. The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The view opf the Church is that the pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children. And to avoid the possibility of procreation is to thwart God's will and Natural Law. This doctrine is not new in the Church - you can look up the writings of Clement of Alexandria in 195AD, The council of Nicea, St Augustine, and from the protestant side even Martin Luther and John Calvin address this. And the reason is not to "outpopulate" anyone - it is a moral issue, as said by Pope Paul VI: "Let them consider, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality.Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that menâespecially the young, who are so vulnerable on this pointâhave need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion" " Note how precient he is - look at the Rap culture and its treatment of women as "Bitches And Ho's", the surge of teen pregnancy (since birth control is imperfect at best), and the huge number of men who take no responsibility for the children they create, using the woman as a piece of facility, not as a properly lived partner for life. Face it Airs - this is a moral opposition, and you slandered all the religious peole in your outright lie. The Pope and the Church were right. The consequences predicted are there, right in your face. And the reaonsing behind the opposition to Contraception is plaingly NOT "powermad", but very moral. Finally: You may not agree with the reglious, philosophical and moral points I presneted, but that is not the issue here. So before you do your usual weasel act and try to change the subject or twist your words, let me remind you: The issue is that you lied when stating that all religious opposition to birth control was intended as a tool for the "Powermad" to "outreproduce" the others. I've shown quite the opposite. Apologize, NOW, Aris, for being a liar, as well as a bigot. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-15 1:14:06 PM |
| #80 #66 OS - You go, guy! :-D |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-01-15 11:25:44 PM |
| #79 It's not surprising that many people reject religion - the churches have done as poor of a job as teaching to truth as Jessie Jackson has done teaching about civil rights. All religions teach the lessons of the death bed - nobody ever says, "I wished I'd gotten that job or worked harder" but they do realize that family, love, forgiveness, and having lived a decent life, without hurting others is important and what REALLY makes you happy. Religion - (jury's out on Islam) with it's focus on family and doing right is advice on how to live a good life. If you do this...you will get good results. As for life advice, Liberals are offering the grapefruit diet - conservatives are offering eat less and exercise more. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-01-15 7:02:45 PM |
| #78 indeed , mine too . |
| Posted by: MacNails 2005-01-15 6:35:45 PM |
| #77 frankly, I vow to disappoint him - my last post on this "subject" :-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-15 6:30:01 PM |
| #76 and goodnight :) |
| Posted by: MacNails 2005-01-15 6:23:00 PM |
| #75 hehe Frank , for once i think 'we agree to disagree '. Take care and I'll read and mull over my rantings tomorrow morning over a fresh pot of coffee ... Take care my friend . I hope to see a 100+ post count in the morn :) |
| Posted by: MacNails 2005-01-15 6:21:53 PM |
| #74 G'nite Mac - a different day - a different Mac... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-15 6:14:06 PM |
| #73 G'Night Mrs.Davis I hope you have sweet dreams . |
| Posted by: MacNails 2005-01-15 6:12:30 PM |
| #72 bleh whatever Tom . At least i have an excuse to sign off m8 . Your arguements diminsh quickly without alcohol . And prolly evaporate just as fast too . |
| Posted by: MacNails 2005-01-15 6:11:28 PM |
| #71 G'night Mac. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-01-15 6:06:56 PM |
| #70 Okay, MacNails, you already admitted to being drunk (on the Graner thread). You had best sign off before "your own abilities" deteriorate even more. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-01-15 6:04:55 PM |
| #69 hmm looking back on history , has religion hindered or progressed humanity ? I would have to say to advance humankind then in the early stages of non global communications then it had some beneifts , but ffs in todays society , there isnt anything religion can bring to the table at all .. |
| Posted by: MacNails 2005-01-15 6:04:09 PM |
| #68 religion sucks? I'd disagree. Most of your societal norms came about through religion, social compact, or fear of a higher power. Otherwise we'd all be visigoths :-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-15 5:58:49 PM |
| #67 nothing wrong with being an anti religious , Old Spook , bigot or not . Religion sucks, Knowledge of your own abilities doesnt . Intel teaches folk that . |
| Posted by: MacNails 2005-01-15 5:49:19 PM |
| #66 And Aris, I am going to be visitng Greece this summer - seeing the places where early Christianity first had its hard tests. Remind me of what part you live in so this old man can either avoid it, or kick your ass personally. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-15 5:46:29 PM |
| #65 Here is your atempt to change what you said: " actually I only attacked the person who first made that instruction" You said "all religious commandments opposing contraception been. The desire of powermad individuals to outnumber the competition." The pope and others and peopel of faith like myself are not powermad. And your words didnt mention the "person who made that instruction". For to a beleiver, that "person" is God Himself - those are His words. Your weasel attempt requires us to disbeielve that those are Gods word recorded in our scripture, meaning you fundamentally slander our religion, going back to the days of pre-history. All your lame attempts at equivocation after the fact do not change it: you LIED and you are a bigot against religious people. YOU LIED Note the qualifier you used. ALL. I simple showed that the term "all" did not apply. You, as predicted, tried to wist away, and weasel away from your own words. Then you tried to attack the person pointing out your lie. You even questioned the definition odf a lie, picking a convenient one, but not the truest wone. Given your anti-religious bigotry, your words were meant to decieve - your use of "All" is such an obvious unthinking and blanket condemnation that it shows your bigoted intent. Secondly, the most common definition is to knowingly make a statement that is not true, not your slanted definiton that requires intent to decieve. A lie is ismply making a statment that you know not to be true. And you KNEW that it is not the intnt of ALL religious to outpupulate others, as well as you KNEW that a vast majority of religious are NOT :pwermad". SO you deliverately made a known false statement. Aris: you lied no matter how you shade it or try to weasel away. ANd you compun3ede they lie by refusing to admit it, and further indicating your anti-religious bigotry. These are classic responses from liars like you. Admit it. And apologize for it. Your statement was bigoted and a lie. And you will be forgiven. If not, I will call attneiton to you as a Liar and Bigot every time you post to this board. I will make it the mission of either me or some software to remind everyone that ever sees a post by you that you are a unrepentant, decetptive equivocating liar and anti-religious bigot. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-15 5:42:54 PM |
| #64 Not unlike China. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-01-15 5:04:51 PM |
| #63 ignore my typos , been boozing with a very old friend . |
| Posted by: MacNails 2005-01-15 5:04:40 PM |
| #62 I for one was a young teenage father , my son is an intelligent hard working youth with much to give the world and no bitterness at all alos i come from a poor background but am not *cough* ethnically challeneged in any way , and eerm i found the style in which this article was written quite offensive , damn poorly constructed and weakly executed . For once I am half heartedly sticking up for Aris in the way this article was WRITTEN . Even reading between the lines , its a load of bollocks , badly constructed bollocks at that . Valid points = zero . post count = laughable . |
| Posted by: MacNails 2005-01-15 5:03:51 PM |
| #61 AC - I've had thought along the same lines before, although not to anything like the same depth, I'm sure. A sort of unintentional conspiracy that serves to inflate expansionist Islam like a balloon. It may look impressive while it grows, but in truth it's insubstantial, and keep pumping it up and it's going to pop... |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-01-15 4:36:59 PM |
| #60 and unaware of it? Arrogance is a vice, isn't it, as is assuming moral superiority where none exists. I'm a sinner, and I know it |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-15 3:32:49 PM |
| #59 Is every one in Greece over educated and under experienced? |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2005-01-15 3:13:06 PM |
| #58 I forgot that conservatives place great value on the life of infants only *before* they were born, they don't care about how likely they are to mysteriously die afterwards. And you wonder why people dislike you. Ah well, it just reinforces the bozo bit I've set on you. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-01-15 3:03:43 PM |
| #57 In my more conspiratorial moments, I examine the idea that the current media culture is really some sort of racist plot to incite third-worlders to a premature test of power and their resulting annihilation. In minimizing the faults of Islamic society, exaggerating its accomplishments, and championing its crude propaganda, the media follow a pattern that is applied to all expanding populations and third world issues. The real weaknesses of these societies are ignored and tend to grow and fester in a permissive cultural environment, fatally weakening them even as their numbers grow exponentially. Further, media empowerment of the authoritarian environmental movement, which is often openly genocidal, serves to further undermine any effort to cope with these dangerous trends. In inciting third world populations and affirming their delusions of power, the institutional media and their agents are simply fattening them up for the slaughter. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2005-01-15 3:02:03 PM |
| #56 Demographic analysis is the reason I think current trends will end in a Malthusian catastrophe, of war rather than of starvation. Thanks to technology, our ability to feed people has managed to keep pace with increasing population. The problem is that culturally backward and aggressive elements are the ones most likely to have the highest birthrates, and they are utterly heedless of the consequences, seeing numbers as the road to power. The Demographic invasion of Europe by Muslims has been discussed many times here. Numbers alone will not bring power, however, and the illusion that they will is extremely dangerous. I think it will lead to hubris and a premature showdown. The forces of the Enlightenment will inevitably prevail, but billions, not millions, will perish in the process. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2005-01-15 2:48:56 PM |
| #55 Short, and to the point. aris katshitris, you're a dumbass. |
| Posted by: Dudley Doright 2005-01-15 2:47:08 PM |
| #54 Alright Aris, I'll admit it. I'm going to keep f*&^ing until the world is a@#hole deep in deer hunters and NASCAR fans. Happy now? |
| Posted by: whitecollar redneck 2005-01-15 1:34:06 PM |
| #53 As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a Greek geek going hysterical approaches one. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-01-15 1:29:42 PM |
| #52 Face it Airs - this is a moral opposition, and you slandered all the religious peole in your outright lie. No, actually I only attacked the person who first made that instruction, not the ones who blindly follow it. The Catholic Church follows the Bible and God's instruction in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply. And natural law for the consequences of that set of instructions from God. And who wrote the bible? And who chose to ignore Paul's much later instruction that it's preferable to be agamous and childless than married with children? Yes, sure the Catholic Church follows religious instruction. But sorry, this non-believer here won't believe said religious instruction was God-written. NOW, Aris, for being a liar, as well as a bigot. I don't think you comprehend the concept of a lie, which is "words meant to deceive". I said that all such religious commandments were the desire of powermad individuals with the wish to overpopulate the competition. If I slandered anyone that'd be people like Moses and Mohammed, not the people who follow their instructions out of foolish faith. And since I genuinely believe both Moses and Mohammed to have been powermad murderers, there was no lie in stating their commandments to have been created of powermad individuals. If I apologize to anyone, it'll have to be them, after they convince me they honestly didn't have any such powermad desire. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-15 1:29:38 PM |
| #51 It's a disgusting attitude that treats children (and people in their entirety) as if they were nothing more than demographics, foot-soldiers for a never ending war, and a tool for politics. Rather than have politics a tool for the service of people. Idealism is nice. Unfortunately it doesn't last long against reality. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-01-15 1:29:37 PM |
| #50 Is there a Greek corollary to Godwins law? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-01-15 1:26:37 PM |
| #49 Godwin's law was broken about 20 threads ago as well. |
| Posted by: whitecollar redneck 2005-01-15 1:23:34 PM |
| #48 Can we put up another pinata yet? This one's looking a little ragged. |
| Posted by: whitecollar redneck 2005-01-15 1:19:41 PM |
| #47 Aris, per your request re #25, here are three places that I posted yesterday that you didn't: http://rantburg.com/poparticle.asp?HC=Main&D=2005-01-14&ID=53619 http://rantburg.com/poparticle.asp?HC=Main&D=2005-01-14&ID=53693 http://rantburg.com/poparticle.asp?HC=Main&D=2005-01-14&ID=53692 See, you are wrong again. I'm not "stalking" you or "obsessing over" you. I'm just pointing out your foolishness. And you would bite bait even if it was labeled "BAIT" in six inch bold letters. Now stop whining to Fred and STFU about *my* presence *your* threads. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-01-15 1:19:29 PM |
| #46 2xstandard, notice who first mentioned anything about race (wasn't me). And when I disputed a data-point about the racial makeup, I only did it with the note that the point wasn't important anyway, and explained my reasoning why -- once again see #14. Yes, I'm talking about conservative culture, but never cared to say anything about *white* conservative culture in specific. As for the black and the Hispanic communities, you are repeating the very points I made. This is about conservatism on "moral traditions", which related to reproductive practices in those communities. Those communities nonetheless mostly vote Democrat for *other* reasons (like financial and racial issues), not the "moral traditions" issues which affect reproduction. "Conservatives are associated with small government, individual resourcefulness, so un-assimilated underclass Third World minorities aren't going to vote for a party that is not in their best interests" When you talk about why people *won't* vote for them, I think you should also mention the *negative* points they are associated with, things like "serving the purposes of the plutocracy and big business". |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-15 1:19:26 PM |
| #45 Aris, you are a liar. "all religious commandments opposing contraception been. The desire of powermad individuals to outnumber the competition." WRONG The Catholic Church follows the Bible and God's instruction in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply. And natural law for the consequences of that set of instructions from God. Its a matter of religious beleif not cold political calculation - you reveal your cynicism and constant political and anti-religioud bias by your very making of such a lie in a public forum. Remember (as you woudl if you bothered to actually understand the issue before shwoing yourself to be a lair), up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Churchâs teaching condemning contraception as sinful. The Anglican church was the first to fold and other protestants followed. Its all based on the doctrine of Humanae Vitae, had you the integrity to actually read the belief and basis for opposition to birth control. Its based on the ancient philosophy of Natural Law. The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The view opf the Church is that the pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children. And to avoid the possibility of procreation is to thwart God's will and Natural Law. This doctrine is not new in the Church - you can look up the writings of Clement of Alexandria in 195AD, The council of Nicea, St Augustine, and from the protestant side even Martin Luther and John Calvin address this. And the reason is not to "outpopulate" anyone - it is a moral issue, as said by Pope Paul VI: "Let them consider, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality.Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that menâespecially the young, who are so vulnerable on this pointâhave need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion" " Note how precient he is - look at the Rap culture and its treatment of women as "Bitches And Ho's", the surge of teen pregnancy (since birth control is imperfect at best), and the huge number of men who take no responsibility for the children they create, using the woman as a piece of facility, not as a properly lived partner for life. Face it Airs - this is a moral opposition, and you slandered all the religious peole in your outright lie. The Pope and the Church were right. The consequences predicted are there, right in your face. And the reaonsing behind the opposition to Contraception is plaingly NOT "powermad", but very moral. Finally: You may not agree with the reglious, philosophical and moral points I presneted, but that is not the issue here. So before you do your usual weasel act and try to change the subject or twist your words, let me remind you: The issue is that you lied when stating that all religious opposition to birth control was intended as a tool for the "Powermad" to "outreproduce" the others. I've shown quite the opposite. Apologize, NOW, Aris, for being a liar, as well as a bigot. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-01-15 1:14:06 PM |
| #44 good and on the mark points, 2X and AC. As usual, the topic and content of the post have little to do with his pontificating. I'm a little more pessimistic about the lessening of indoctrination than you are, AC. When the left feels their power lessing through accountability in schools and academia, they will strike back, hard, in desperation. Have to keep the spotlight on them....they work best in the dark |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-15 1:13:29 PM |
| #43 I said that racial demographics don't matter actually. Err, Aris, you were the one you threw out the red herring about conservatives and their white teen baby making machines. Aris racial demographics do matter. In America, despite the outrage expressed by black ministers about moral values, most blacks still voted Democrat. Ditto for Hispanics- the majority still vote Democrat, though GWB experienced a slight increase in both groups due to the gay marriage thingey that translated into "moral values." Leftist "multi-cultural propaganda" will keep blacks and Hispanics in the underclass indefinitely, which liberals love, because underclass groups will always vote for the political party that promises them the most government entitlements. In Canada, visible minorities imported from Third World countries always vote Liberal Party because with each successive wave of uneducated immigrants, their low wages go even lower and they and their children need to stay on the dole. Conservatives are associated with small government, individual resourcefulness, so un-assimilated underclass Third World minorities aren't going to vote for a party that is not in their best interests. |
| Posted by: 2xstandard 2005-01-15 1:04:28 PM |
| #42 Aris I think the analogy to fictitious monsters is valid in this case and your moralizing about "dehumanization" is a strawman. It is not equivalent to Nazi rhetoric that directly characterized others as vermin and animals. You have adopted the classic left-authoritarian tactic of disputing the modes and symbols of expression to divert attention from the ideas expressed. The author's contention is that media and academic indoctrination, and lax immigration policies, are methods of demographic and political manipulation. There is really no doubt of this, in contrast to the blood libels and other fantasies that circulated among the Nazis, and that are still current among their latter-day imitators in Europe. The author has rightly condemned, not endorsed, these practices, and has cited them as a danger. The behavior is monstrous on its face. The allusion to folkloric monsters is illustrative, and is not intended to be persuasive on its face (unlike the demonization of Americans commonly found in Euro-bigot culture). Failure to address this monstrous practice of subornation would be the endorsement you seek to condemn. The author has not done that. He has done the opposite. Simply expressing a fact, or a perceived fact, does not imply endorsement, except to those who follow the doctrines and methodology of the late Dr. Goebbels. You claim that dehumanization is absent from European discourse, what of the characterizations of Bush as a monkey, or of Sharon as an ogre devouring Palestinian children, or the many representations of American soldiers as pigs and beasts, or the common characterizations of Jews found in practically every mosque on the Continent? As for reducing children to political pawns, political demographics is an actual science, no different from the consumer demographics that drive the institutional media. Your concern for human dignity is laudable, but what kind of dignity is advanced by condemning the rational analysis of verified facts? Personally, I do not agree with the article's contentions, since the media and academic comlexes are rapidly losing their power to suborn and indoctrinate. This process will eventually spread to the rest of the world, which is what the prevailing power-structures of those areas fear most. That does not make the contentions monstrous or dehumanizing themselves, any more than the prosecution of a crime makes one a criminal. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2005-01-15 1:02:58 PM |
| #41 I think torture is necessary but only when responding the Aris's 'tortured' logic. ;o) |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-01-15 1:02:29 PM |
| #40 I forgot that conservatives place great value on the life of infants only *before* they were born, they don't care about how likely they are to mysteriously die afterwards. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-15 12:54:25 PM |
| #39 strawmen need no logic, Muckster |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-15 12:46:04 PM |
| #38 I think you should reconsider the suitability of teenage mothers to *be* teenage mothers ? |
| Posted by: muck4doo 2005-01-15 12:41:58 PM |
| #37 come to think of it, your whole teenage argument is a strawman. The article is discussion on healthy v/s unhealthy lifestyles. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-01-15 12:40:02 PM |
| #36 "They've done it for millions of years. What's so different now?" You forget that for most of those millions of years, human quality of life has been severely worse than it's now. Also our babies die less often early in life, are more likely to live full lives, we don't need to start as early just in order to get our replacement number of two. How's that for demographics? Not to mention that little girls are less often handed over to dirty old men. How's that where demographics are concerned? "Trillions" of people? Reminds me of when a greek singer had said that Greece had been a Christian nations for millions of years. And when "babies of teenage mothers" are among the high risk groups for "sudden death infant syndrome", I think you should reconsider the suitability of teenage mothers to *be* teenage mothers. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-15 12:37:05 PM |
| #35 Aris - expert on all things American - like divorce |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-15 12:29:21 PM |
| #34 Yes. They've done it for millions of years. What's so different now? Trillions of people have had started their families as teenagers and lived happy, productive lives. The point of the article is that people who want to do what humans do - raise a family - want to raise them in a healthy environment. You're voting issue is a strawman. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-01-15 12:29:12 PM |
| #33 2xstandard, even back in #14 I said that racial demographics don't matter actually. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-15 12:27:31 PM |
| #32 there is nothing wrong with teenage pregnancy if the family stays together - which gets to the point of this artice. So, you feel that people that aren't mature enough to vote, are nonetheless mature enough to have a family of their own. And as I said, it's in the liberal places where families seem to have a better chance of sticking together. According to statistics anyway. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-15 12:24:35 PM |
| #31 Aris, the most recent data from the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics show teenage motherhood is disproportionately black and Hispanic, with these two minority groups accounting for more than half of all teenage births. Although whites (what the census bureau calls ânon-Hispanic whitesâ) are approximately 60 percent of the American population age 17 and younger, their birth rate declined to 29, whereas the birth rates for teen blacks and teen Hispanics as of 2002 were 68 and 83 respectively. Check the handy dandy little graphs on this site. http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/teenpreg04/teenpreg04.html |
| Posted by: 2xstandard 2005-01-15 12:24:15 PM |
| #30 Even the rhetoric to the point of "red-state kids" and the like, indicates he sees kids as nothing but an expression of their backgrounds. Oh Lordy, Aris. This is a discussion abouyt demographics, what we have come to know the 'Roe' effect.' And your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, it is a real phenomenom, one which is rapidly consuming Europe to the point where it could well become a Moslem superstate in my daughter's lifetime. And despite what you believe, there is nothing evil about falling inlove, marrying, having a few kids, buying a nice car and a nice house, and hoping to Christ your kids don;t turn into simpering, whimpering socialists. Its all anyone can ever ask for. Honest, Aris. There is no evil here. It's really only love. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-01-15 12:22:16 PM |
| #29 Bulldog> So you combine blacks and hispanics as a single group? Very well, instead of "most teenage moms are white" I should have said "the largest group of teenage moms belongs to the 'white' population". You are right. In Utah, they marry young, but the families stay together Divorce rates: http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS2.shtml Utah is actually slightly above the average in divorce rates, having a 4.7 rate compared to a national 4.6. Most conservative places like Texas, Alabama, Mississipi and so forth are even worse. The places where families stay together are liberal ones like Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. It's conservative places where families seem to tend to break, according to statistics anyway. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-15 12:21:08 PM |
| #28 Good catch BD - now let's talk percentages and that will really blow it away. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-01-15 12:20:22 PM |
| #27 there is nothing wrong with teenage pregnancy if the family stays together - which gets to the point of this artice. Those who are interested in doing what humans have done since the beginning of time - raise a family - are sick of the morals being imposed on them by the left. To have a healthy family and community requires values. The 10 commandments are simply a time-tested formula for achieving just that. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-01-15 12:16:09 PM |
| #26 Wrong actually: Most teenage moms are white. http://www.fastennetwork.org/Display.asp?Page=TeenPregnancyStats You're wrong as usual, Aris. You can't even competently analyse your own source. Numbers of Teenage births in 2000 White: 204,056 Hispanic: 129,469 Black: 118,954 Total Black/Hispanic: 248,423 Was this an example of intentionally dishonest debating? |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2005-01-15 12:12:37 PM |
| #25 And yes, I post on threads you don't Care to point me to three of them? "An unfair characterization of the article." You may think so. I don't. Even the rhetoric to the point of "red-state kids" and the like, indicates he sees kids as nothing but an expression of their backgrounds. Collectivist. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-15 12:10:44 PM |
| #24 And how many fans did Mladic have throughout Europe, "dickwad"? Did his words have pan-European appeal? Apparently enough so, Europe didn't want to intervene to stop the Srbs. Yesterday you were trying to claim "nobody in Rantburg supports the use of torture" -- which was bullshit as I easily gave you several examples of Rantburgers and a ready thread, when you accused me of misrepresenting people. You are off topic. Do try to stay on the same page and on subject, s'il vous plait. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-01-15 12:10:32 PM |
| #23 BTW - Aris, outside the cheap paperbacks you've masterbated over, teen motherhood is WAY down, for all races and classes IN AMERICA, a place you know absolutely nothing about |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-15 12:10:27 PM |
| #22 2x - good post. Aris - if most teenage moms are white because the majority of the population is white. Kind of a duh, don't you think? The question isn't so much race, as it is economic status and immigrants tend to be poor. Besides, it's not so much "teenage" pregnacies that are the problem, but broken families that need welfare support. In Utah, they marry young, but the families stay together thus "teenage pregnancy" = motherhood. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-01-15 12:07:52 PM |
| #21 Aris, let it go and be honest with yourself. You love it. :( |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-01-15 12:07:52 PM |
| #20 And how many fans did Mladic have throughout Europe, "dickwad"? Did his words have pan-European appeal? Were they even broadcast pan-*Serbia*? Or was it a mere dozen thousands out of a population of hundreds of millions of European that would find those words acceptable, a small segment of his native tribe? Stop playing your games, and stop obsessing over me, Frank. You are out of your league and hopelessly ignorant. Yesterday you were trying to claim "nobody in Rantburg supports the use of torture" -- which was bullshit as I easily gave you several examples of Rantburgers and a ready thread, when you accused me of misrepresenting people. Get a grip with reality, and *stop obsessing over me*. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-15 12:06:42 PM |
| #19 BOT - good point on the Left's obsession with illegal immigration as a voting gain, not a societal loss |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-15 12:05:18 PM |
| #18 "FRED, WHEN THE HELL WILL YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE ADMITTED CONTINUOUSLY PLAYING BAITING GAMES IN RANTBURG?" Oh, Aris, stop being such a smacked ass. If you don't like the way people treat you here, just get the hell out, you self-absorbed, thin-skinned, whining little jerk. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-01-15 12:03:59 PM |
| #17 *You* said "children and reproduction as nothing but a tool", Aris -- nobody else did. An unfair characterization of the article. Your "debating techniques", like this twisting of the words of others to an extreme, are juvenile. They throw the thread into a debate over your twist instead of what the article says (i.e., the thread gets Arisified). And yes, I post on threads you don't. [Another Aris twist attempt.] But if you are going to post such twisted nonsense, you can expect me to comment on it. Why do you feel entitled to exclude me from a thread just because you start Arisifying it? |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-01-15 12:03:22 PM |
| #16 Are such examples of rhetoric "they are not really humans, they are monsters in disguise and living vermin" still considered acceptable in America? Because in Europe I believe such rhetoric has been out of style since the fall of the Nazis. really, dickwad? What do you think Mladic told his troops? What did the european killers hear before Srebrenica? Pep talks? Riiiggghhtt |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-15 11:58:23 AM |
| #15 FRED, WHEN THE HELL WILL YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE ADMITTED CONTINUOUSLY PLAYING BAITING GAMES IN RANTBURG? Fred, I'll settle this: Tom, you bad boy! Go to your corner and stick your nose in the corner until you hear the bell ring. When it does ring, you can come out and beat the living sh*t out of Aris, |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-01-15 11:57:27 AM |
| #14 Aris, American "teenage moms" occur primarily in black and Hispanic population groups, which typically vote Democrat. Wrong actually: Most teenage moms are white. http://www.fastennetwork.org/Display.asp?Page=TeenPregnancyStats But it doesn't matter actually. Most Hispanics and black population may vote Democrat on economic and racial issues, but at the article itself says, in "moral traditions" they believe Republican. I guess it's because Hispanics often come from Catholic-dominated societies, and because of the role of the churches in the black communities. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-15 11:56:28 AM |
| #13 In America, most of us fall in love with another person, so much so we want to have children that has our and our partner's attributes. In my view, there is nothing wrong with that and indeed, it should be encouraged. I don't usually associate falling in love/marrying with sociology. I personally am not that cynical nor so far removed from reality I see a plot under every bed, the way you imply with your statement: 'Let's have lots and lots of children, because we Greeks are few, while Turks are getting too many". It's a disgusting attitude that treats children (and people in their entirety) as if they were nothing more than demographics, foot-soldiers for a never ending war, and a tool for politics.' Do try to acknowledge that many individuals' motives are not for ill but from factors no one will ever be able to conceive or digest. Subjects like politics and demographics will be more easily in your grasp if you do. Right now, you seem to have the problem of trying to find a cause behind everything you disagree with. Most times there isn't an explanation. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-01-15 11:51:48 AM |
| #12 Back with his stalking. Everyone else talking about the issue at hand, but TOM coming to talk about me. Have you ever participated in any thread where I've not been involved, Tom? Have you ever made a post that didn't include atleast one reference to me? FRED, WHEN THE HELL WILL YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE ADMITTED CONTINUOUSLY PLAYING BAITING GAMES IN RANTBURG? Leave it to Aris to twist "children are the most successful way to ensure that your cultural and ideological preferences survive" into "views children and reproduction as nothing but a tool to propagate the collective ideology". I'm sorry to say that it doesn't require much twisting at all. The two are the same. It requires quite a lot of twisting to pretend they are different, however. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-15 11:48:23 AM |
| #11 conservative" America, is the huge number of teenage moms in the latter Aris, American "teenage moms" occur primarily in black and Hispanic population groups, which typically vote Democrat. You may not like the author's style of writing but some of his points are well taken. Population is politics, and to suggest that only coarse Nazi-like conservatives would consider that relationship is dishonest. You don't have to look much further than Canada to see how the left (Trudeau and Chretien)ensured their party's power through the use of a high infusion of Third World immigration because otherwise their own anti-traditional family positions would cull their numbers of left wing voters in short order. The Liberals have almost completely limited Christian European immigration, and don't tell me that's by accident. |
| Posted by: 2xstandard 2005-01-15 11:46:53 AM |
| #10 Leave it to Aris to twist "children are the most successful way to ensure that your cultural and ideological preferences survive" into "views children and reproduction as nothing but a tool to propagate the collective ideology". Nothing but a tool? It doesn't say that. This thread has been Arisified. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-01-15 11:42:12 AM |
| #9 *sigh* It's all about the individual and the collective, badanov. This article (despite its claims that "lefties" are zombies) views children and reproduction as nothing but a tool to propagate the collective ideology, rather than individuals on their own right. I've seen the same attitude before. "Let's have lots and lots of children, because we Greeks are few, while Turks are getting too many". It's a disgusting attitude that treats children (and people in their entirety) as if they were nothing more than demographics, foot-soldiers for a never ending war, and a tool for politics. Rather than have politics a tool for the service of people. Romania's Ceausescu was the same way, and so have all religious commandments opposing contraception been. The desire of powermad individuals to outnumber the competition. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-15 11:33:45 AM |
| #8 intentionally being a dishonest debater That's an oxymoron. You cannot be dishonest and post material in an open forum without having intentions of being so. I wrote that demographics is politics, responding to your contention that child rearing isn't a part of demographics, which is an absurd leap of logic on your part. Child rearing and 'reproduction' are as inseperable as demographics and 'reproduction.' You acknowleged one but failed to acknowledge the other. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-01-15 11:18:30 AM |
| #7 No way I could tell a wife or a girlfriend carrying my baby that 'reproduction' is seperate from child rearing Except that I didn't say that. But no way would I ever tell her that 'reproduction' and 'childrearing' is nothing but a demographical data-point, as you seem to suggest. Or are you intentionally being a dishonest debater, using "demographics" as if it's the same word as "reproduction"? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-15 11:10:37 AM |
| #6 You are a brave man. No way I could tell a wife or a girlfriend carrying my baby that 'reproduction' is seperate from child rearing. Not worth the inevitable grief that will follow that spewage. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-01-15 11:06:35 AM |
| #5 Demographics may be politics, but child-rearing isn't. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-15 10:58:31 AM |
| #4 Aris, demographics IS politics. Just because you evaluate it with your Euro blinders doesn't make that salient fact any less the truth. |
| Posted by: badanov 2005-01-15 10:54:28 AM |
| #3 You know, I've never before seen such utterly shameless dehumanization of the political opposition, without a hint of even a caveat or self-mockery. Are such examples of rhetoric "they are not really humans, they are monsters in disguise and living vermin" still considered acceptable in America? Because in Europe I believe such rhetoric has been out of style since the fall of the Nazis. The person who'd use it would be seen as beneath contempt, same way I'm seeing the writer of this article now. Moreover, history teaches us that children are the most successful way to ensure that your cultural and ideological preferences survive after you depart. The difference between the liberal Europe and the "conservative" America, is the huge number of teenage moms in the latter. http://www.studentbmj.com/back_issues/0702/news/223.html In liberal Europe we don't tend to consider children as a "tool" for us to use in order to expand a parent's ideological or other power. But the article seems to enjoy the fact that the Christian Religious Right is the same in this matter as the Arab world, both treating reproduction as if children were pawns in a bid for power. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-15 10:49:01 AM |
| #2 It also ignores the possibility of a resurrection of the left. While the specifics of such a re-birth are unknown, the process might be revealed in what happened to the right during the ascendancy of the left. First of all, the right was co-opted by its extremists, then systematically excluded from power--and this is where the left finds itself today. Then for many years, the right found its greatest successes among its centrists, later called "country club republicans" (today, they are called "RINOs".) The centrists consistantly joined with the opposition, as long as they got a piece of the action. This action kept them in office and got them seniority and power in their party. And only after the republicans had philosophically reformed enough to have a powerful new movement "conservatism", were they able to overthrow these centrists in their own party, then overcome the democrat leftists, who were descending into rock bottom. The 20th Century time frame for this cycle began with the fall of the Wilson administration and republican ascendancy. This lasted until the collapse of Hoover, and the rise of the FDR democrat. The Eisenhower years were the height of the republican centrist years, with the continuing decline of the old republican extreme in the early 1960s, giving way to the conservative rise under Reagan, and the removal of the left from most seats of power, which took many years. We are now at a point where the democrats will have to be split between those willing to cooperate and those that are obstinate. The cooperative will ascend in the democrat party and remain in power until a new leftist philosophy comes along. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-01-15 10:48:57 AM |
| #1 I'm still mulling over my hypothesis that the left isn't as socially "liberal" as everyone thinks. In particular the western fringe of Europe. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-01-15 9:26:14 AM |