“Birthright Citizenship” And The Cheating Of America

“Birthright Citizenship” (A.K.A. Jus Soli) And The Cheating Of America

By Steve Sailer

You know it’s the dog days of summer when the MainStream Media permit debate on a sophisticated policy issue deeply affecting America’s future. In this case, it’s cheaters misappropriating the legal privileges of being an American.

What is commonly called “Birthright citizenship” is a legal loophole that has been discussed among patriotic immigration reformers for many years. But, given the extreme parochialism of our political elite, maybe the first time Senator Lindsey Graham (Scalawag-SC) heard of the issue really was independent-minded reporter Keith B. Richburg’s July 18, 2010 Washington Post article For many pregnant Chinese, a U.S. passport remains a powerful lure.

(See also Turkish “Birth Tourism” And Its Entrepreneurial American Enablers, Turkish Birth Tourism In New York, and Treason Lobby Does Damage Control On Birthright Citizenship, all on VDARE.com.)

Richburg described a Shanghai partnership that has charged 500 to 600 Chinese women $14,750 each to have their children born on American soil so they can later reap the benefits of being an American. Richburg observed:

“There are no solid figures, but dozens of firms advertise ‘birth tourism’ packages online, many of them based in Shanghai, and Zhao said the number has soared in the past five years.”

As Michael Kinsley liked to say, the real scandal is not what’s illegal, it’s what’s legal. Richburg went on:

“U.S. officials confirm that it is not a crime to travel to the United States to give birth so that the child can have U.S. citizenship. ‘You don’t deny someone because you know they’re going to the U.S. to have children,’ said a U.S. Embassy spokesman in Beijing,

Richburg wrote:

“Zhou and Chao insist that everything they do is legal, noting that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, says anyone born on U.S. soil has the right to citizenship. ‘We don’t encourage moms to break the law — just to take advantage of it,’ Zhou said.”

Richburg is an African-American, the author of the brave book Out of Africa: A Black Man Confronts Africa. I suspect he feels (quite correctly) that the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 to overturn the Dred Scott decision and guarantee citizenship to his ancestors and their posterity, e.g., Keith Richburg—not to bestow the blessings of American nationality on foreign con artists. Thus Richburg noted:

“Some argue that the 14th Amendment—aimed at guaranteeing citizenship rights to freed black slaves—was never meant to provide an instant passport to the children of people who are in the country illegally or who travel there expressly to gain U.S. citizenship for their child.”

Now, you knew and I knew that the current interpretation that anybody born here gets American citizenship (no matter what other country they pledge allegiance to) is a scandal. But the MSM has seldom called attention to this long-running abuse.

For example, Richburg reported that Chinese taxpayers are getting increasingly enthusiastic about having their offspring fleece American taxpayers:

“In their pitch to prospective clients, Zhou and Chao point out that as a U.S. citizen, a child has access to free public education from primary school through high school and that a full education in the United States can be much cheaper than at the top Chinese private schools and universities.”

Something Richburg failed to mention, however, is that abuse of the current American citizenship regulations permits bizarrely self-recursive forms of chain migration. For example, the Chinese scion born on American soil can eventually grow up to import his own parents as immigrants under our “family reunification” law. They, in turn, can bring in their own parents and plunk them in public housing for seniors and put their health care on Medicare’s tab. It’s like a Confucian conman version of that old Robert Heinlein science fiction story, All You Zombies, about a man with a time machine who turns out to be his own grandpa.

The effect of the “Birthright Citizenship” loophole is immense. The Pew Hispanic Center issued a report on August 11, 2010, Unauthorized Immigrants and Their U.S.-Born Children, stating that illegal aliens’ progeny comprised eight percent of all births in the U.S. in 2008. The way to put that into perspective is to think of it as a percentage of the entire population of 310 million. Thus, illegals in the US are having the same number of children as a group of 25 million Americans

Of course, the full effect is even worse than that because these immigrants are making the population grow beyond their own numbers. People cheat to get into the U.S. to have more children than they could afford to have in their own countries—far more than the replacement rate. The Pew Hispanic Center says:

“Data limitations do not allow for an analysis in this report comparing the fertility rates of the unauthorized with those of legal immigrants. However, the fertility patterns of other demographic groups are instructive. Overall, Hispanics who live in the U.S. have higher rates of fertility than do whites, blacks or Asians. And among Hispanics, the foreign born have higher rates of fertility than the native born (3.1 versus 2.3).”

And that likely understates the offspring-per-lifetime birthrate of illegal aliens. In contrast to the Pew number, demographer Hans P. Johnson of the Public Policy Institute of California pointed out in 2007 in Birth Rates in California:

“Fertility rates are higher in California than in any developed country in the world. This is partly due to the composition of the state’s population, which includes large numbers of foreign-born women, who tend to have more children than U.S.-born women. Thus, in addition to its direct contribution to state growth, migration also plays an important indirect role in its effect on fertility rates. Among foreign-born Latinas, total fertility rates—a measure of completed family size—average 3.7 children per woman. In contrast, the state’s lowest fertility rates are among U.S.-born Asians, who have an average of 1.4 children per woman.”

The low fertility rates for American-born women in California reflect in part the high cost of family formation (such as housing in an exclusive school district or private schooling) in a state crowded with illegal immigrants and their descendants.

And if the illegals were to get amnesty, their birthrate would go through the roof again—as it did after the 1986 amnesty, when the total fertility rate for foreign-born Latinas in California shot up from 3.2 in 1987 to an amazing 4.4 in 1991.

The cost of building hundreds of public schools for this Amnesty Baby Boom (and, now, their kids) has been a key, if unmentioned, factor in the breaking of California’s budget. John Seiler reported last week that, when capital costs are included, the Los Angeles Unified School District spends almost $30,000 per student per year. [LAUSD spends $30K per student, CalWatchDog.com, August 20, 2010] For example, converting the old Ambassador Hotel on Wilshire Boulevard into a school is costing $578,000,000.

These are not, however, the sort of thing you are supposed to think about. Because when you do think about how you are being cheated, you don’t like it. Human beings don’t like being taken advantage of. We understand, deep down, that rewarding the dishonest just increases dishonesty.

The Democratic Party is devoted to the current iniquitous system for one simple reason: it generates more Democrats. In other words, private cheating helps Democrats win in public. It is crucial to point this out whenever discussing the issue. No matter how much they swaddle themselves in their self-anointed righteousness, Democrats do not have a principled stance on this question—just a self-interest in seeing deviousness thrive.

Democrats can’t win a rational debate by defending the current system. It’s indefensible. You’ll notice that many of the more logical liberals, such as Kevin Drum and Matthew Yglesias, simply try to dismiss the entire subject out of hand: Why are Republicans even bothering to bring that up? They shouldn’t waste their precious political capital on that!

The only way Democrats can win on this is through obscurantism, soft-headed sentimental rhetoric, and character assassination.

That leads me to a few suggestions about terminology. As long as we can keep reminding the American public of the reality that they’re being ripped off, we’ll have the upper hand. Therefore, emphasize the dishonesty.

In contrast, be careful about using phrases full of positive-sounding words.

“Birthright citizenship” is a phrase loaded with good connotations. People tend to react well to the words “birth”, “right”, and “citizenship”. (Consider their antonyms—“death”, “wrong”. and “treason”.) The Boy Scouts award three merit badges with the word “citizenshipin the name. The Scouts emphasize the duties and obligations beholden in citizenship. That’s what “citizenship” sounds like to the average patriotic American: doing right by your fellow Americans. They need to be reminded that, to the Zhous and Chaos of the world, it’s just a sweet scam.

When you need a technical term for the current state of law, call it jus soli. That’s Latin for “law of ground”. Nobody has a warm and fuzzy feeling about a couple of words they aren’t sure how to pronounce. (It’s pronounced yüs-sō-lē.)

Similarly, let’s use “anchor offspring” rather than “anchor babies”. Babies are cute.

In contrast, we need to find an overgrown baby to make the poster child of nationality cheating.

For example, what about Major Nidal Malik Hasan—who in fact does look rather like an overgrown fetus? Although he murdered 13 Americans at Ft. Hood on November 5, 2009, he has yet to be tried. Indeed, he is still being issued his U.S. Army paychecks!

We know that Major Hasan was born in Virginia in 1970 to Palestinian immigrant parents. Were they legal or illegal immigrants? A little research shows that nobody seems to have bothered to ask this question. In modern America, it’s considered insensitive to inquire about the background of a mass murderer.

Or how about Major Hasan’s spiritual advisor, Anwar al-Awlaki? He also provided inspiration to the Christmas Day Underpants Bomber and three of the 9/11 hijackers. This al-Qaeda operative is a dual citizen of Yemen and the United States because he was born in New Mexico in 1971.

As these top-of-the-head examples show, it shouldn’t be that hard to find an incredibly unsympathetic figure to exemplify the issue.

Is jus soli protected by the 14th Amendment, or could it be modified by legislation (as happened in Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand)? Howard Sutherland argued in VDARE.com (on August 31, 2001!) that it should not require a Constitutional amendment to eliminate jus soli. (Weigh Anchor! Enforce the Citizenship Clause)

Now, I’m no legal expert, so I don’t know whether the law could be changed through legislation or whether it would require a Constitutional amendment. Yet I don’t see that it’s all that important of a political strategy question. Why shouldn’t both tracks be pursued simultaneously? (In fact, this is exactly what Congressman Ron Paul has advocated.)

In the 1970s, for example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg shamelessly argued both:

She was rewarded for talking out of both sides of her mouth with a seat on the Supreme Court.

A dual track attack on nationality cheating will keep generating news about cheating, which is all to the good.

Spending political capital to demonstrate how we are being conned just creates more political capital.

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA’S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA’S "STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is available here.]

The Jacksonian Club: A New Forum For New Right Activists

The Jacksonian Club: A New Forum For New Right Activists

A constitution that is made for all nations is made for none.

– Joseph de Maistre

There was a time in which men of the British tradition, including their American, Australian, New Zealand and Canadian cousins, understood that a central plank of that tradition was that any abstract principle, no matter how highly valued, taken to extremes would result in real social and political harm. This notion was one of the leading insights that kept the British political tradition apart from the endless theorizing on the Continent, where each nation’s brilliant philosopher engaged in a race to see who could carry adherence to abstract principle to its purest expression.

Examples of this fundamental British moderation, of this refusal to completely surrender the examples of tradition and the needs of practical governance to an abstract and untried grand theme which will usher in a new earthly reign of justice and prosperity while, at the same time, remaining guardedly open to the gradual and sensible reform of tradition and practice to remedy an immediately or imminently evident evil, abound. The most classic example cited to educated people everywhere to illustrate this principle is Edmund Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France.”

That esteemed book, and its learned author, do indeed impart that lesson, a lesson which many would do well to take to heart even if Mr. Burke did not happen to have been startlingly prescient about the direction the French Revolution was to take.
As Englishmen, the American Founders imbibed this fundamental precept of British political philosophy with their mother’s milk. To be sure, it was even then under attack, most notably by the likes of Thomas Paine. And belief that the old moderation of political ideas was an outdated and outmoded line of thought that needed to be jettisoned in favor of the needs of a new world then being born was one that found a vast and willing audience among the American aristocracy, the leading exemplar of men of this kind being Thomas Jefferson.

The contours of the resulting debate over the nature and constitution of the new United States of America are well-known to all educated men. Leaving aside the connected, but still fundamentally separate question of what to do about American Negroes bound in slavery, the central political struggle that marked the founding of the United States of America followed very closely the warring tribes in their putative enemies in Parliament. Their Conservatives, and ours, stood for the ancient British liberties, the majesty of the tried and true common law and were leery of social experimentation, barring the one side’s adhesion to the principles of Republicanism. Their Whigs, and ours, thought the old ways increasingly outdated, especially in a new age of global economy, and argued that justice and Christian values demanded more popular involvement in the affairs of state and, above all, civic equality among men of stature.

These two fundamentally different views had (and have) at their root radically different views of the nature of men and how best, given those natures, governments may be instituted among them to secure their peace, order, prosperity, ingenuity and happiness. While this conflict revealed itself if myriad ways, the same thread can be found at the root of each matter.

That said, however, it is of critical importance to note something that is not often remembered these days, let alone taught: while now, with the hindsight afforded us by hundreds of years of British and Anglosphere history this secret, burning thread appears to us to shine. In fact, in most modern treatments of our people’s history, this fundamental conflict is presented as overwhelmingly obvious. However, it was not so obvious to the men engaged in building that history at the time. To them, the matter appeared serious, but not so serious as to lead either side to conclude that the other side of the house was occupied by something other than Englishmen.

For those whose American History on the Founding is a bit hazy, a nice whiskey on the rocks and a copy of HBO’s recent mini-series “John Adams” is in order. This excellent production, besides proving that even culturally Marxist geese lay the occasional golden egg, also shows men who, while officially on opposite sides of the great divide described above, still saw enough common ground between them as to be able to come to compromise over essential language.

One of the earliest products of this fruitful collaboration was the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is, today, a badly understood document and not just by the rabble produced by up to now three generations of progressive educational theory. It is chiefly misunderstood by the very educated among us, including our new meritocratic elite, for reasons that will soon become apparent.

A full discussion of the liberal era’s reinterpretation of the Declaration will have to wait. For now, all that needs concerns us on our present business is one famous passage:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Just as no one at the Founding found this language to contain within it the seeds of future discord (except, of course, for the expected and desired discord with Great Britain), no school child up until about forty years ago would have found anything herein other than what was meant by the drafters.

For when Jefferson wrote those words, he did not mean to suggest that each man is the equal of every other man, let alone that massive government programs should be instituted to ensure such equality and enforce it under penalty of law if need be. No, the truth of the matter is much less remarkable. The master of Monticello meant just this: that while men may be born to different stations in life and be in possession of talents and disabilities as God saw fit to disburse, all men, as creations of God, share certain rights, given to them by their Creator, which are not subject to human whim or conditioned on the grant of any government and that, among these special rights that are the properties of all men are our lives, our ancient liberties and our right to pursue a virtuous life as conscience dictates.

There is, in there, only a twinge of something that any decent Conservative of the time could possibly have noticed enough to object to, and that Conservative would have had to have been extremely foresighted to have detected it.

But no historical event occurs in a vacuum and while the Founders were certainly well aware of the history of the Roman Republic and its ultimate fate, on the question of the ancient drive for actual equality—for leveling—our most noble generation is mostly silent. The story of egalitarianism did not start with the Conspiracy of Equals and Babeuf, despite what your French History professor told you. Instead, the drive for leveling appears from the most ancient times, indeed from the very Iliad itself, as an offended Achilles resented King Agamemnon and declared him to be no more worthy of command than any other.

And so, our Declaration entered not just into the stream of a particular tributary of political history, but also into the wider human story of hierarchy and egalitarianism, two forces at endless war with each other.

Fortunately for us, there still must exist somewhere a true Englishman, still adhering to the British way of thinking about politics who can help us out here. Arising in a tattered tweed coat, setting down the port and the cigar, he may admonish us here for losing our way.

“Yes, yes, yes,” he says, “but each of these ideals are simply social goods. That either may be perverted if taken too far is obvious. The key is to approach each with moderation and decide within reason which level of each is best for the nation.”

Isaiah Berlin is right to remind of us of this basic point, but it does us little good if one or the other has already managed to slip its leash and begun to wreck havoc on the body politic and on our society. British moderation and resistance to slavish abstract principles is a defense, but saves us not at all once the evil it intends to prevent has already occurred.

That this has happened in our United States is beyond question. There are a whole host of reasons for this, each more complicated than the next, but the basic outline of the causes of the unleashing of egalitarianism can be outlined in brief. Each of these points could merit their own treatise, but we will have to make do with contenting ourselves with the basics. I ask the historian’s patience in advance for omissions, as we focus here only on the main events.

First, the establishment of Republican government leveled social distinctions among American citizens.

Second, the disestablishment of the Anglican Church leveled cultural and religious distinctions among competing churches in the New World.

Third, the problem of slavery and the imperative of New England religion gave rise to abolitionism, leveling distinctions among the races present in the United States.

Fourth, the intense argument over the proper powers and scope of the Federal Government gave rise to the Civil War, leveling distinctions among the powers of the several states in favor of a new and much more powerful central government.

Fifth, the opening of the West to settlement gave Americans the opportunities to become masters of their own land, creating a new class of yeoman freeholders, leveling the distinctions among property holders.

Sixth, the egalitarian impulse’s influence among women gave rise to the early Suffragette movement, beginning the process of leveling the difference among the sexes.

Seventh, the Spanish-American war left the U.S. in position of large populations of non-European peoples, which our leaders sought to bring the blessings of the American political system, working under the now-commonplace idea that the rights enshrined in the Declaration and given voice in our Constitution were the natural property of all men and not just White Americans.

Eighth, our late entry in World War I left the U.S. in a position to partially dictate peace terms, which the U.S. based on the same principles of the right to self-governance of all nations in line with what had by then become known as American ideals.

Ninth, the emergency of the Depression gave rise to a Federal Government of new and novel powers, reducing the role of the citizen to that of the dependent, all equal in need of the providing and guiding hand of our government.

Tenth, the aftermath of the horrifically destructive World War II left the United States as the unquestioned and unmatched world power, which was used to urge and to create new governments that worked from the basic premise that all men are equal and are entitled to equal political rights and a chance to participate in the political process.

Eleventh, the international emergency of the Cold War required the U.S. to loudly proclaim its ideals as universal, so as to match the challenge of the claimed universal appeal of Communism. This further led to the enshrinement of extreme individual autonomy and equality as the centerpiece of the American Way.

Twelfth, the obvious and painful contradiction between our internationally-trumpeted values and the situation of American Blacks led to the Civil Rights Movement, which resulted in watershed legislation under which the U.S. Government proclaimed that there was no distinction whatsoever between any American citizen on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.

Thirteenth, the newly-established principles of the Civil Rights Movement, alongside historical breakthroughs in birth control technology, led to the re-invigoration of the Woman’s Movement, leading the U.S. to amend its legislation further to proclaim absolute equality among the sexes.

Fourteenth, the growing globalization of markets induced business to throw its weight behind legal and actual equality, as every business needs and desires a standardized market, to the best of its ability to create one.

Fifteenth, the above revolutions in social affairs became hardwired in government, academia, media, business and entertainment, portraying any dissenting view as socially backwards, defective, oppressive and reactionary.

Sixteenth, with the egalitarian principle now fully established, the overwhelmingly White makeup of the United States was seen as backwards and, more importantly, a visible sign of its fundamental failure to live up to its values and fulfill its promises. As a result, world-historical levels of non-White immigration was both legislated and allowed to occur through knowing and willful lack of enforcement of immigration law.

At each step along the way, egalitarianism advanced to the detriment of any competing social value. Today, the United States finds itself—at home and abroad—in the vanguard of an egalitarian revolution that reaches into the smallest American town and the most remote nations of the Earth.

But instead of ushering in a new era of sweetness and light, the harsh reality of the true nature of human affairs has begun to reassert itself—as it should and as it must. Under this reassertion, the incoherence of the Liberal Revolution has started to result in massive contradictions, sowing disorder and chaos, unease and violence, and, most startling to its adherents, widespread human unhappiness. For despite the efforts of our betters to bring us the best of all possible worlds, record numbers of American and British adults and children are on anti-depressants. And while globalization has brought uncountable consumer goods into our homes, with each succeeding generation we seem to find the concept of home or community more remote.

In short, there is a sense in the land that something wrong, something very wrong, has happened. For the first time since the days leading up to the Civil War itself, major writers in major publications are speaking of the possibility of a national crisis that could test the durability of the American experiment itself.

Vast numbers of White Americans find themselves swept up in a social experiment they didn’t ask for and didn’t want, while they watch each succeeding generation sink deeper into ignorance, bad manners, worse taste and devastating debt. They search for answers, in this or that Republican candidate, or listen to Rush Limbaugh and hope that adult supervision is coming to our rescue, to set the Republic back on the right track.

One can understand such longings, but they are naive. The historical forces at work, outlined above, have done more to America than simply amend legislation or start social programs that can be terminated. Instead, the egalitarian impulse has gotten so far out of hand that it has become intertwined in the very concept of America itself, a type of parasitic cancer that cannot be removed without killing the host.

The good news is that with each passing year more and more of the leading commentators in the free right are beginning to notice this key fact, a fact which if not recognized renders all analysis moot. There are many examples of this recent awakening among mainstream conservatives. When a state cannot even think of enforcing immigration law without facing the full weight of the Federal Government, while churches and cities have been able to get away with providing sanctuary to illegal aliens for decades without so much as a peep…well, even the smart guys at National Review Online start to notice.

In short, the U.S. is running a global liberal empire that is woefully ineffective, widely resented and leading to bankruptcy. U.S. business is running a global capitalist empire that provides cheap goods at the cost of massive social disintegration and an increasingly under- and unemployed American workforce that looks to the taxpayer to make ends meets. U.S. education is running a lowly regarded system that barely meets the needs of the lowest common denominator, in a world economy that cares little for our compassion for “kids left behind.” U.S. entertainment is engaged in a race to the bottom and has lost all concept of an aesthetic of beauty or nobility. U.S. media also must peddle to a very low common denominator and has become a shout box for orthodox opinion. U.S. law has become hopelessly complex as the massive procedural reforms it has undergone in the name of “fairness” has reduced the actual administration of justice to a well-known joke. U.S. finance is an obvious racket, where profits can be pocketed and losses covered by the taxpayer via a simple weekend meeting with the White House, Congress and the big boys of Wall Street.

In short, gentlemen, egalitarianism has done its work and is in the process of leaving what our forefathers built a ruin. Not only that, but a ruin that in a very real way will have its cities and once beautiful streets trod upon by barbarians.

Unlike the usual right-wing commentator, I am not here just to deliver you the news and my views. On the contrary, this blog is nothing less than a call to action. It is my intention to gather together as many good men as I can find with the immediate goal of forming Jacksonian Clubs in as many of our towns and cities as possible. Like the leftist Jacobin Clubs of old, the purpose of the Jacksonian Clubs will be to bring us together in a spirit of fraternity, to provide an alternative space for us to speak, think, plan and act.

And act we shall.

Let us return to the words of Jefferson:

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

“It is their duty”, gentlemen. Duty.

CONTACT US: albertjacksonian – at – gmail

World Without Men: The Forgotten Novel of Totalitarian Lesbiocracy

World Without Men: The Forgotten Novel of Totalitarian Lesbiocracy by Charles Eric Maine

World-Without-Men.jpg

The blurb on the thirty-five cent Ace paperback likens Charles Eric Maine’s 1958 novel World without Men to George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’sBrave New World. Ordinarily – and in consideration of the genre and the lurid cover – one would regard such a comparison skeptically.  Nevertheless, while not rising to the artistic level of the Orwell and Huxley masterpieces, World without Men merits being rescued from the large catalogue of 1950s paperback throwaways, not least because of Maine’s vision of an ideological dystopia is based on criticism, not of socialism or communism per se nor of technocracy per se, but rather of feminism.  Maine saw in the nascent feminism of his day (the immediate postwar period) a dehumanizing and destructive force, tending towards totalitarianism, which had the potential to deform society in radical, unnatural ways.  Maine grasped that feminism – the dogmatic delusion that women are morally and intellectually superior to men – derived its fundamental premises from hatred of, not respect for, the natural order; he grasped also that feminism entailed a fantastic rebellion against sexual dimorphism, which therefore also entailed a total rejection of inherited morality.

In World without Men, Maine asserts that the encouragement of sexual hedonism, the spread of pornography into the mainstream of public culture, and the proscription of masculinity are inevitable consequences of the feminist program, once established. The fifty years since the novel’s publication – as a thirty-five cent paperback – have vindicated Maine’s notable prescience as a social commentator.

Although World without Men might not measure up fully to 1984 or Brave New World, Maine, a talented storyteller, worked on a higher level than most of the genre writers represented in the Ace catalogue. Indeed, in its narrative structure, World without Men trades in at least one formally modernistic gesture. It gives glimpses out of chronological order of a progressive biological and cultural catastrophe so that the reader must reshuffle events into their actual, causal sequence. Part one or “The Man” takes place in the Seventieth Century, and part two or “The Monkey” late in the Twentieth. Part three or “The Girl” takes place perhaps seventy-five or a hundred years after part two. Part four or “The Patriarch” takes place sometime in the indefinite far future, but before 7000 AD. (References to Christ as having been born “seven thousand years ago” permit specification of the date.) Part five or “The Child” recurs to 7000 AD and shares certain personae with “The Man.” Thus “The Man,” “The Patriarch,” “The Girl,” and “The Child” are long-term sequels to “The Monkey,” which chronicles the development of a birth-control drug called Sterilin, while probing the consciences of the pharmaceutical researcher, a man, who creates it and the corporate mogul, a woman, who aggressively markets it.

I. “The Man” immediately places the reader in a world of disturbing oddity, doubly disgruntling because its exclusively female denizens take it dogmatically for granted. To the normal sensibility of 1958, Maine’s fictional future would have constituted a shocking prospect even though its hedonism and conformism reflect forecasts of an coming inversion of morality going back as far as Charles Baudelaire’s “Femmes damnées” and renewed in the critical discourse of Oswald Spengler and José Ortega y Gassett. In “The Child,” in a Khrushchev-like secret speech, a dogmatic authority figure called by the moniker of “the Mistress” refers to monosexual society candidly as having the form of a “perversion neurosis” that has achieved “equilibrium.” That which the doctrine calls “equilibrium,” and which the authorities wish to preserve, corresponds in an objective analysis, however, only to static malaise. The gynocracy maintains itself in status quo partly through the psychological-political conditioning of its citizenry not to notice the society’s unnaturalness and partly through constant police-state surveillance of nonconformity including the arrest and liquidation of dissidents; the polity also mandates births and implements euthanasia under the euphemism of “mortic revenue.” That the world of “the Man” and “The Child” shocks the perceptive mentality of 2010 less than it probably shocked its original readers attests powerfully to Maine’s prescience – and to our own jaded sensibility.

“The Man” concerns the discovery at the North Pole of a rocketship, frozen in the ice for thousands of years, that contains the cryogenically preserved body of a male person. The state has recovered the body to a research facility in “Lon” (London) for dissection and analysis. Maine’s point-of-view character, Aubretia Two Seventeen, works as a “press policy and administration officer” in “The Department of the Written Word.” Essentially a functionary, Aubretia lives a materially comfortable, but thoroughly regulated and insipidly routine life in a system dominated by a strict hierarchy of managerial elites. The administrators, Aubretia thinks to herself while preparing for work, “keep an alert eye on the plans and schedules of the vast labor organization” of what amounts to a centrally planned world-society. Ubiquitous, constant surveillance is indeed a component of Maine’s dystopia. Maine offers Aubretia as a specimen mid-level type of this totalitarian lesbiocracy: “She was handsome enough in the tradition of the day,” with “skin… smooth and burnished to a roseate bronze sheen [and] the whites of her eyes… stained green to contrast with the limpid brown of the pupils.”

Additional details increase the impression of doll-like preciosity and mirror-gazing narcissism: “The silver lacquer on her flat, atrophied breasts had worn thin in parts, but… later in the day she could visit the Beauty center and have fresh lacquer applied.” Aubretia thinks to herself, “silver was clean, but there were times when it resembled armor.”

Aubretia’s work vetting news for public distribution permits Maine to offer readers further glimpses into the socio-political order. During Aubretia’s morning she redirects various official announcements. One concerns “an increase in two and half per cent in live parthenogenetic births during the next two years as a preliminary to a statistical revision of the personal mortic tax assessment figure in light of improving economic conditions.” She fails to note the brutality that the neutral-sounding bureaucratese implies. Next from “Femina Entertainment News,” Aubretia gleans the information that “state actress Butterfly II will star tonight in a video dramatic feature concerning the love of two adult women for a young albino girl.” Aubretia herself sustains liaison with an albino lover, Aquilegia. The emphasis on albinism in entertainment stems from the sexual lopsidedness of the society. Other differences than the dimorphic sexual difference now form the only basis of perceptible although etiolated erotic interest. Arousal depends more on a “comprehensive fund of erotic knowledge” and on “physical… captivation” than on actual “emotional contact.” The implied lack of genuine emotion in personal pairings accords with the metaphor of “armor,” used by Maine in the description of Aubretia’s cosmetic mien.

Aubretia receives a summons to go to the “Department of Physiology,” in whose laboratory “research into the physiological basis of parthenogenesis was carried out.” This research does not exclude “the dissection of women… who during life had shown symptoms of aberration from the parthenogenetic norm.” In the laboratory Senior Cytologist Gallardia reveals to Aubretia the body of the man recovered from the arctic spaceship. “Aubretia was only conscious of a certain grotesque detail,” whereupon “her stomach seemed to contract and her abdomen to twist up inside herself,” while “her rational mind rejected the obvious explanation” of what she was seeing. The mere appearance of the male form induces swooning disequilibrium in the brainwashed subject. Thus, “The vaguely horrific image of the man stayed in Aubretia’s mind for the remainder of the day.” Yet despite striking Aubretia as “alien and remote,” and despite portending “a certain indefinable fear,” the masculine corpse nevertheless persistently implicates for Aubretia “something… fundamental… that had to do with herself and Aquilegia… and all the women of the world.”

Now men being supposed extinct for five thousand years, Aubretia judges the discovery, disquieting though it is, as eminently newsworthy. Aubretia’s superior, the Mistress of Information, disagrees. She embargos the story but offers Aubretia justification, seeming even to disclose a secret or two, as if to take the subordinate into confidence. Although a carefully fostered myth asserts otherwise, the disappearance of men “wasn’t sudden.” Rather, says the Mistress, “it was a slow process” stemming from the two facts, as she purports them, (1) that “evolution had ceased in the human species” and (2) that this cessation, rendering “sexual variation no longer necessary,” provoked nature such that she “introduced an economy and eliminated the male sex.” With a pseudo-logic that takes its pattern in the Marxist view of history, the Mistress claims that, “obviously… woman is the end product of nature,” man having been “merely an interim stage.” Nevertheless, while “a sex may disappear according to the dictates of nature,” yet despite that, “the endocrine structure of the female body remains the same.” One notes that the Mistress has used the term “nature” in a contradictory way. In the abeyance of a male presence, women, remaining naturally oriented to the male, had to be “modified” artificially to fixate on the female.

Aubretia’s lover, Aquilegia, notices her partner’s disequilibrium. Probing the cause of Aubretia’s distress, Aquilegia reveals herself as a clandestine foe of the regime. “Quilly” can tell Aubretia, for example, that parthenogenesis was not a timely evolutionary novelty (as the Mistress claimed) but rather a desperate technical innovation. All official pronouncements to the contrary, every known birth owes itself to “induced parthenogenesis,” in which “the ovum is persuaded to divide and subdivide by artificial means.” Quilly corrects Aubretia when the latter refers to “a woman named Christ” rumored to have been an early instance of spontaneous virgin pregnancy: “Christ was a man.” Quilly insists that theirs is not an open but a closed society: “In point of fact, we haven’t any personal liberty” and “we are ‘free’ only insofar as we comply with the adaptation syndrome.” When Aubretia returns to work in the morning, Quilly predicts, Senior Cytologist Gallardia will have disappeared – reassigned to a posting unknown – and the male corpse, while accounted for as destroyed, will have been relocated to a secret facility somewhere else in the world.

The predictions come to pass. The truth of them increases Aubretia’s sense of resentful disequilibrium. When, in a spasm of conscience that makes her a dissident, Aubretia tries to disseminate knowledge of the recovered man against policy, automatic circuits block her broadcast, and the secret police immediately arrest her. They send her away for mental reconditioning.

II. Readers will next encounter Aubretia, nagged by amnesiac gaps, in “Birm” (Birmingham), employed in “the collating and filing of governmental statistical records.” She now has a “new friend,” that is to say, a new erotic liaison, whom readers swiftly and correctly identify as a police minder assigned by the state. The statistical records with which Aubretia works have to do with “the regulating machinery of society” and, ominously, “the balancing of productivity against needs.” She inclines to regard her previous job as having been stressful and she therefore finds the lesser demands of the new job welcome. In solitary meditation in her new apartment Maine has her rehearse for herself “the clear, logical, and satisfactory picture” in which, as the formula puts it, man “became an obstacle to the wise and peaceful exploitation of natural power for the benefit of his species” and so “cease to exist… and nature provided parthenogenesis to replace the outmoded reproduction system that had vanished with the male sex.” Yet one or two aspects of the “scientific democracy” bother Aubretia. “The Department of Mortic Revenue was a name that chilled her mind and heart whenever she heard it mentioned” because the phrase mortic revenue “was another way of saying compulsory euthanasia.”

In essence, “all individuals at birth have a certain monetary value to the state,” or, more brutally, everyone has “a price on her head.” By rendering “service” to the state, every individual must make good her “value.” Thus everyone’s longevity “is proportional to [her] productive capacity.”

Aubretia’s lover-minder, Valinia, justifies the arrangement. “Those who fail,” Valinia tells Aubretia, “are those who are least useful to us and to society as a whole: the idle and lazy people, the criminals, the subversive types, the political intriguers.” The argument cleverly identifies usefulness with orthodoxy, as in all syllogisms concocted by dictatorships to justify liquidating dissenters. Valinia cynically distracts Aubretia by seducing her. In the physical détente that follows the climax, Aubretia convinces herself of Valinia’s case: “She realized that control of death was just as logical as the control of birth; indeed, the two were an intimately related function of the balanced state.” Yet on a deeper level, the disquiet remains. The advent of Aquilegia’s twin (at first representing herself as Aquilegia) during one of Valinia’s regular three-day absences provokes the doubts into renewed vigor, forcing Aubretia into a struggle with her own inner division.

The twin, who never reveals her own name, arrives disheveled; she confesses to Aubretia that she belongs to the subversive underground and that the secret police actively seek her. She appeals to Aubretia for temporary asylum, telling her that the actual Aquilegia has been “passed to the Department of Mortic Revenue,” where “she paid the tax in full.” Maine gives to Aubretia’s visitor the role of explicating for her reluctant host that part of the truth about the social order that the dictatorial polity actively and ceaselessly suppresses.

Aquilegia’s twin reiterates that the story about the natural extinction of men is “a lie.” Men died off, but as the result of artificial tampering with the natural order, not by some unavoidable and morally neutral catastrophe with an origin external to human intention. In a phrase, “he was destroyed.” The twin discloses the destiny of the masculine cadavers that occasionally turn up in remote places: The state uses them in a project to create an artificial male gamete, the point of which would be to restore sexual dimorphism to the species; but lately the official attitude has inclined toward suppressing that effort so as not to alter the monosexual dispensation, now become an inviolable dogma. The truth-speaker says: “We are creatures of sex living by force and unnaturally in a sexless society… The government tries to tell us it’s normal, but in fact it’s abnormal. We’ve become a race of Lesbians.” The subversives, in the twin’s words, “believe in truth for its own sake”; they “hold that perversion is evil, whatever the motive might be, and that the modern structure of society… based as it is on statistical birth and murder and on a homosexual morality, is wrong and corrupt throughout.”

An additional disclosure – that the ruling authorities defer in their decisions to a global network of electronic brains – belongs to the genre-vocabulary of science fiction and perhaps exceeds the necessity of the story. Yet the detail is not without metaphorical justification in Maine’s narrative. The twin tells Aubretia that, should the present arrangement continue, “the result will be a world of robots, assembly line creatures all alike, cast in a limited number of patterns, and working blindly under the dictates of an impersonal governing authority.” The twin remarks that already the government treats citizens “as integers in an… equation.” That would be the “equation,” of course, of mandatory artificial quickening on the one hand and enforced euthanasia on the other.

Thus sane living requires morality and morality requires “emotional balance between men and women.” It is the case, Aubretia’s colloquist argues, that “the great majority of women… live their lives in organized peace and harmony, never enquiring beyond the erotic boundary of their own sex hormones… accepting mortic laws without question.” It is also the case, she argues, that, “morality is more vital than peace and stability based on lies and lesbianism.” These statements accord with Maine’s indirect affirmation of a fixed natural order in the Mistress’s duplicitous usage of the word nature earlier in the story.

The world of five thousand years hence, in Maine’s forecast, is also a stunted, inward-turning world that has renounced dynamism and creativity, just as it has renounced sexually dimorphic procreation. When Aubretia first learns of the crashed rocketship at the North Pole, Maine inserts the historical tidbit that, “no rocket had been launched or even made on earth for four thousand years” because “it seemed more logical to womankind to devote worldly wealth on the development of the Earth and its inhabitants and the feminine mind saw neither sense nor sanity in space travel.” When the Mistress discusses the situation with Aubretia, she argues that spaceflight was a male aberration, a mere “sublimation of unexpended masculine drive,” such that “the cosmos itself became a mons Veneris at which mankind as a whole set its cap.” The little speech sums up feminist discourse – which denigrates all specifically male activities and derives all social problems, perceived or real, from male toxicity – quintessentially. It shows once more the cultural perceptivity of the author, who, I remind my readers, was writing more than fifty years ago.

III. I have treated World Without Men, Part One, at length because it represents the logical and material – and spiritual – consequence of events about which Maine tells in Parts Two and Three. Moreover, Part Five of the novel revisits the identical milieu of Part One and brings back the character of Aubretia, permitting readers to witness the final consequence of the chain of causality underlying Maine’s plot. The title of Part Two, “The Monkey,” rich with connotations, implicates the irrationality and destructiveness of hedonism-pragmatism as a ruling ethos and places that false creed in the context of a managerial-bureaucratic order. Such an order inevitably dehumanizes men and women while justifying its actions by appeals to public opinion. In Maine’s view, however, public opinion is a chimera, created in the first place by managerial techniques such as advertising and propaganda. The pattern is self-serving and circular. The characters in “The Monkey” are – to Maine’s end of demonstrating the shallowness of modern Western civilization – depthless people either fixated on their mere function as though it were the whole of life, or hedonistically oriented, or pathologically domineering.

Gorste, the middle-aged central persona, works as a chief research chemist for Biochemix Incorporated, a large pharmaceutical concern. E. J. Wasserman, a woman in her fifties, inherited Biochemix from its founder, her husband, who died ten years before the events in “The Monkey.” Gorste’s wife Anne plays a sinister role, one that reaches from Gorste’s domestic milieu into his business affairs in a complicated and fatal way. Anne had formerly been married to Drewin, now deceased, apparently by suicide. In the workplace Gorste sustained a testy rivalry with Drewin, exacerbated when Drewin discovered that Gorste and Anne trifled with one another behind his back. There are others – Slade, Rhinehart, and Ingram – equally cipher-like. In “The Man,” as we recall, the characters have no family names, only given names with a numerical suffix. In “The Monkey,” only Anne has a given name, Maine referring to everyone else by his surname and reducing Wasserman’s given names to their initials. (That Gorste is “Phil” to Anne readers learn only at the end of the tale.)

Maine stresses the compartmentalized impersonality of the industrial concern, forecasting the functionary-status of the personae in “The Man” in the manner in which Gorste and the others willingly relinquish identity – and so also conscience – to merge with the collectivity.

The titular monkey is the subject of Gorste’s current project. The Biochemix board has directed Gorste, on Wasserman’s orders, to develop a drug for the suppression of fertility. “They had kept the monkey for two years, during which time they injected some two gallons of estrogen derivative into it,” after which, “they killed it and cut it open.” Examining the ovaries under the microscope, the researchers detect “no sign of fertility… None whatever.” Rhinehart, who mediates between the scientist Gorste and the board, tells Gorste that this development is good because “the board keep pressing for results.” Gorste wonders to Slade, “How can you exploit sterility as a commercial proposition,” adding that, “it’s going to take a great deal of hard selling” to induce women to embrace the suppression of their most sexually defining trait. Now Maine so arranges his story that a supreme irony complicates Gorste’s relation to his own work. When Drewin discovered Gorste’s adultery, he took revenge by attaching a piece of unshielded uranium underneath the lab-counter where Gorste habitually stands while working; by the time Gorste discovered the deed, the radiation had rendered him sterile, or so he believes.

After Drewin “gassed himself,” Gorste omitted to file a police report although he later divulges the incident to his doctor; he has also guiltily withheld the truth from Anne because “she wants a child,” or so he believes. The cold marriage is not sexless, but sex has become routine and mechanical, a matter of bodies without spirit.

In their crassness, the deliberations concerning Sterilin resemble a symposium of absolute cynics. Gorste, listening to Wasserman’s peremptory declarations, thinks, “It seemed strange to hear a woman discussing sterility so candidly and impersonally.” One of Wasserman’s marketers says, “A product of this type must have a dignified name [that] suggests its function yet at the same time is in no way salacious or capable of misinterpretation.” The marketer adds that, “Birth-control is only half of the sales story,” the product having the “more positive selling angle” of soliciting the “uninhibited enjoyment of the pleasures of life.” Wasserman tells Gorste, “The tablets… must be pleasant to take, with nothing medicinal about them… With fizz, perhaps.” The substance should be packaged attractively, in something like “a [lady’s] compact… pretty, perfumed, even heart-shaped and gilded.”

In Wasserman’s summation, which resembles a Gnostic outburst: “Sterilin is going to influence the whole moral climate of our society… Sterilin will set women free from the subconscious fear of pregnancy that has always inhibited their relationships with men.” Wasserman’s phrase, “will set women free,” turns out, in Maine’s story, to be opposite to the actual consequence.

Maine is putting together the elements of an enormity, the liquidation of men. He thus makes the biochemical innovation of Sterilin inseparable from Gorste’s moral-practical division, his unwillingness to act on the promptings of conscience, or to act against the organization-mentality of his co-workers, or against Wasserman’s manipulative will-to-power. Gorste has timidly criticized aspects of the Sterilin program; he subsequently feels “that he had erred – sinned against the company’s policy – in some indefinable way.” Perceiving Gorste’s essential weakness, Wasserman (she of “quick masculine movements”) cajoles and seduces her employee all at once. Maine endows on her the discourse of devilish sophism. “The moral climate of society is changing quickly,” she tells Gorste, “and Sterilin will play an important part in stimulating the evolution of a more liberal morality.”

When Gorste speaks of “conscience,” Wasserman tells him that, “conscience… is simply a matter of conditioning.” In a voice “that was becoming husky,” as Gorste thinks, Wasserman extols Sterilin for its power to “dissociate sex from pregnancy.” Consummation occurs. Gorste knows that, “he [has] been exploited.” He grasps suddenly that, “in the microtome sections of a simian ovary,” there lies the “point of origin” of “world-wide mass sterility… a rapidly falling birth rate… an irrevocable plunge into moral agnosticism.”

Anne stuns Gorste on his agonized return home with news of her pregnancy. Protesting his presumed sterility, he voices suspicion of Anne. “You don’t imagine,” she asks, meaning that she has betrayed him. “Nor did your first husband,” he retorts. Anne then lets slip out that she killed Drewin to be with Gorste. She “doped his coffee, then pushed his head in a gas oven.” In the escalation of emotions and charges, Gorste experiences a spasm of anger and kills Anne. At that moment he receives word from his doctor that he is not, in fact, sterile. “The Monkey” concludes with Gorste, having telephoned the police, waiting for them to arrive. It is a scene of complete moral sterility.

IV. “The Girl” fills in the details of the actuality that Gorste belatedly foresees in “The Monkey”: The rise of what might be described as a regime of mandatory promiscuity; the rise of an accompanying police-state whose first function is to conceal the actual situation, as much as possible; the fall of the birth rate generally and the cessation of male births. Maine sets the tale once again in “Lon” or London. In the first, establishing paragraph “the big flame-colored letters of [a] neon sign” flash out ceaselessly the product name of Sterilin. This sign, writes Maine, “dominated Piccadilly Circus, swamping all the other lights in its vicinity.” There is also a large, brightly illuminated “statue of Eros,” whose dart “was aimed accurately at the gigantic Sterilin sign.” The Circus has become the prime pick-up location for women on the prowl for increasingly scarce men. It is an age of “applied happiness,” as the point-of-view character Brad Somer thinks to himself. A reporter, Somer has uncovered part of the truth; he seeks to break through censorship to find the rest. Somer briefs a government official in an attempt to gain cooperation: “Ten years after the first Sterilin advertisement appeared… in all countries where Sterilin had been intensively marketed… birth rates had fallen alarmingly”; moreover, “there had been a snowballing deterioration in the moral standards of civilized society.”

Governments impose mandatory maternity on women, marshaling mothers-to-be in induced-birth centers, and raising the children in crèches. Finally, Somer has discovered that, “ninety-eight out of every hundred births are female, and… we shall soon reach the stage where all births are female.” Somer’s contact turns out to be a police agent. She arranges for his arrest and execution.

“The Patriarch” tells the pathetic story of the last man alive on earth – and his death, when he escapes from the Antarctic laboratory where the state holds him for experimental purposes. In “The Child,” Maine revisits the year 7000 AD. In its concluding section, he reintroduces the character of Aubretia. Maine first acquaints us, however, with Cordelia, a cytologist, and Koralin, a laboratory assistant. Aged seventy-two, Cordelia “had made full use of modern cosmetic techniques”; she thus possesses “the superficial appearance of an adolescent female.” Cordelia signifies once again the narcissism and false consciousness of Maine’s speculative lesbiocracy. While Cordelia’s body boasts youthful plasticity, nevertheless “her mind was wrinkled and leathery, impregnated with specialized science and technology, and twisted in the accepted lesbian fashion of the contemporary society.” Hence Cordelia’s initial attitude toward “the thing in the incubator,” an artificially produced male child, related genetically to the cadaver of “The Man.” In respect of the word thing, we recall Aubretia’s reaction to the male cadaver as something alien and remote.

When the Mistress of Applied Cytology and other scientists inspect the infant coldly, however, Cordelia’s emotions begin to take hold: She detects “an acrid quality in her superior’s voice,” she sees the researchers as “impassive in their attitude,” and she thinks that for them “the baby might as well have been a stained specimen on a microscope slide for all the human interest that was apparent in their eyes.” In respect of the word specimen, recall the ovarian tissue-sections in “The Monkey.”

At the end of a long address – the Khrushchev-like secret speech to which I have already alluded – the Mistress informs her subordinates that, “test four-six-five must be destroyed.” The Mistress insists that the infant in the incubator amounts to no more than “the result of a successful experiment in micro-cytology” in respect of which “there is no question of human status.” She offers that the male child’s mere existence threatens an outbreak of “hysteria” in the society; she uses the allegation of this threat to justify destroying the child. Cordelia bursts out in an uncontrolled, spontaneous defense of the child, but she quickly interprets her own outrage as precisely the “hysteria” that the Mistress has invoked. She retracts her defense, but the deed itself falls to her subalterns. One of these, Koralin, undertakes to fulfill the responsibility.

Koralin’s willingness is in fact a ruse. She boldly removes “test four-six-five” from the premises. On intelligence gleaned through her connection with the underground, Koralin conveys the baby to “Birm” (Birmingham), where she comes, a suppliant, to Aubretia.

Koralin argues to Aubretia that killing the baby “would have meant the end of all hope for the perverted and neurotic society in which we live.” She invokes the “parthenogenetic adaptation syndrome,” saying, “it sounds like a disease, and that’s exactly what it is.” The disease will prove fatal, she continues, “unless we reintroduce the male sex and revert to a normal way of living.” Thus, “this baby… could be the savior of womankind.” Maine selects the term “savior” carefully, pointing back by means of it to the Gospel references in “The Man.” Koralin likens the lesbiocracy to something inhuman and moribund and death-obsessed – “laboratories, experiments in human embryology, fertility centers, induced parthenogenesis, cultivated lesbianism” – that sacrificially seeks the destruction of a mere baby. “There was another parthenogenetic male,” she tells Aubretia, “a miracle child that was referred to as the savior of mankind,” whom “the state set out systematically to destroy.”

Sharpening the parallelism, Koralin says: “For thousands of years the world has awaited a second Messiah. And now he has arrived, Aubretia, and authority will attempt to destroy him before he destroys it.”

One notes that Maine has not identified the child as a supernatural Messiah; he has merely defined a child, in this case a male child, as supremely sacred. On this child’s survival depends the restoration of the natural, the true, order. The entirety of World Without Men pleads for the natural, the true, order and pleads for it unapologetically.

The crumbling Ace paperback of Maine’s novel from which I quote contains a Publisher’s Postscript. It reads in part as follows: “While the manuscript of WORLD WITHOUT MEN was being prepared for publication, the staff of Ace books were startled to see… a story in the New York Times, for Oct. 16, 1957. This told of the announcement at a meeting of a ‘planned parenthood’ society of advanced work on a ‘synthetic steroid tablet’ to be taken orally to create a limited period of sterility.” According to the Postscript, this story and one other “unexpectedly underline the credibility of Charles Eric Maine’s novel.” About Maine himself, information remains scarce. Charles Eric Maine was the penname of David McIlwain (1921 – 1981), who served in the Royal Air Force in World War Two and became a writer after the war. He seems to have published fourteen novels, most of them, to judge by their titles, in the science fiction genre. (Apart from World Without Men I have read none of them.) An early effort, Spaceways (1953) became a film under the same name the year after its publication.

John Clute and Peter Nichols, writing in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (1993), dismiss Maine as “determinedly the author of middle-of-the-road Genre SF,” who, “as such, was successful.” The entry is short and supplies no specifics. Of secondary literature, I can find none, in which case the present essay is the first.

Revisiting Civilization

Revisiting Civilization

Sir Kenneth Clark’s documentary on Western Civilization

I maintain a sort of spiritual kinship with the heathen invaders who picked through the ruins of the Roman Empire. These were men who stood in wonder at what had been accomplished by the people who came before them. I generally feel as if I am a sort of barbarian wandering through the ruins of a lost civilization my own self. I look at the beautiful art deco buildings in Berkeley and I know nobody will ever build anything like that in Berkeley again.  I look at the stupendous accomplishment of the American space program which put men on the moon. Does anyone believe we’ll do that again in our lifetimes? I certainly don’t: I think space exploration is finished. Has there been any great work of art or literature in the last 50 years? Please clue me in if there has been, because nobody has told me about it.

Consider Kenneth Clark’s documentary on Western Civilization, made in response to the events of 1968. Could we make such a thing today? I don’t think we can. It was partially designed to sell color televisions to the upper middle class people who could afford them in those days. Do you think a documentary telling the story of Western Civilization could sell anything to modern upper middle class people now? I don’t think you could sell a stick of chewing gum with such an idea today; not unless there were some groveling shoveled into it -perhaps spiced by some sado-masochistic sneering at the very idea that Western people ever had a civilization worth preserving.

I don’t even know if there are living people like Sir Kenneth Clark who could make such a documentary any longer. A wise and gentle boffin like Sir Kenneth couldn’t possibly say such things any longer; he probably couldn’t even think such thoughts any longer. Singing the praises of Western Civilization is now considered an act of cultural war, rather than a natural thing to do. You’d have to be some kind of thick-necked thug or barbarian wandering in the ruins of a forgotten civilization to notice that Kenneth Clark was a far better man than ignorant weasels such as modern documentarian Ken Burns.

The loss of such men is probably irretrievable. There may never again be Western men so cultured and gentle, yet also wise and well connected with the realities of what people really are. Men like this simply can’t exist in the same world with … “Lady Gaga” or whatever the latest cultural atrocity is. There are certainly intellectuals who believe the same things as Kenneth Clark; some of whom may even be as knowledgeable as him. However, they can no longer have Kenneth Clark’s gentle and civilized character. A modern Sir Kenneth Clark would be ruthlessly assaulted on all sides by disgusting countercultural monsters. People would howl at him and hound him, and burn his effigy until he  turned his beautiful documentary into something bland and inoffensive and wretchedly brittle and multicultural. Either that or the modern Sir Kenneth Clark would become … less gentle and civilized. Certainly he would be portrayed as half-mad or evil, as the media portrays anyone who displays the slightest affection for traditional Western civilization.

In my blacker moments, I wonder if Western Civilization didn’t actually fall some time in the 1970s. Certainly, looking around me, it appears we’ve been invaded by barbarians. It is good to keep his closing words in mind when faced with the doleful state of modern civilization, lest we all fall into despair.

At this point I reveal myself in my true colours, as a stick-in-the-mud. I hold a number of beliefs that have been repudiated by the liveliest intellects of our time. I believe that order is better than chaos, creation better than destruction. I prefer gentleness to violence, forgiveness to vendetta. On the whole, I think that knowledge is preferable to ignorance and I am sure that human sympathy is more valuable than ideology. I believe that in spite of the recent triumphs of science, men haven’t changed much in the last two thousand years; and in consequence we must still try to learn from history. History is ourselves. I also hold one or two beliefs that are more difficult to put shortly. For example, I believe in courtesy, the ritual by which we avoid hurting other people’s feelings by satisfying our own egos. … Above all, I believe in the God-given genius of certain individuals, and I value a society that makes their existence possible. . . . Western civilization has been a series of rebirths. Surely this should give us confidence in ourselves….

It is lack of confidence, more than anything else, that kills a civilization. We can destroy ourselves by cynicism and disillusion, just as effectively as by bombs.

Columbo Asks A Few Questions

Columbo Asks A Few Questions


Ah, sorry to bother you Mr. Obama, Sir. . …

Excuse me Mr. Obama, I mean President Obama, sir. Um . . I know you’re busy, and important and stuff. I mean, running the country is very important and — ah — I hate to bother you, sir. I will only take a minute. Okay, sir?

See, I have these missing pieces that are holding me up, and I was wondering, sir, if you could take time out of your busy schedule and help me out. You know, no big deal, just some loose ends and things.

Hey, you have a nice place here! The wife sees houses like this on TV all the time and says, boy, she wishes she had digs like this, you know? Is that painting real? Really? Wow! I saw something like that in a museum once.

Oh, sorry sir. I didn’t mean to get off the track.

So if you could just help me out a minute and give me some details, I will get right out of your way. I want to close this case and maybe take the wife to Coney Island or something. Ever been to Coney Island, sir? No? I didn’t think so…

Well, listen, anyway, I can’t seem to get some information I need to wrap this up. These things seem to either be “not released” or “not available.” I’m sure it’s just an oversight or glitch or something, so if you could you tell me where these things are? I have them written down here somewhere — oh wait. I’ll just read it to you.

Could you please help me find these things, sir?

Occidental College records — not released

Columbia University records — not released


Columbia thesis paper — not available


Harvard University records — not released


Selective Service registration — not released


Medical records — not released


Illinois State Senate schedule — not available


Your Illinois State Senate records — not available


Law practice client list — not released


Certified copy of original birth certificate — not released


Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth — not released


Record of your baptism as a Christian — not available

Why your wife, Michelle, can no longer practice law as an attorney? (insurance fraud)

Why your wife has 26 assistants, when other First Ladies had one?

Why were you getting foreign student aid as a college student?

What country’s passport did you have when you visited Pakistan in 1981?

Oh, and one more thing, Mr. President, I can’t seem to find any articles you published as editor of the Harvard Law Review, or as a professor at the University of Chicago. Can you explain that to me, sir?

Oh, but hey — listen! I know you’re busy! If this is too much for you right now — I mean — tell you what. I’ll come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you’re busy. I’ll just let myself out. I’ll be back tomorrow. And the day after. . …

What’s that Mr. President? Who wants to know these things?


The people of the United States of America ! You know, the ones that were tricked into voting for you are are now filled with horror and disgust at how stupid they were.

Affirmative Action it Works?

Affirmative Action it Works?

Locust: mistake if you tell me. Equality will only be truly reached when we’re all swing from trees.

What is it to Accept Tradition?

What is it to Accept Tradition?

In an age of checklists, decision trees, and zero tolerance, it’s a puzzling notion.

People think it means giving up on reason. Or doing what’s been done no matter what. Or accepting an external authority that has nothing to do with the situation we’re actually dealing with.

What else could it mean, when each of us has his own thoughts and goals, reason is a matter of studies and statistics, and social authority is either following rules we’ve agreed to for our own purposes, or getting someone else’s demands shoved down our throat?

That’s the liberal concept of man as autonomous, knowledge as neutral and expert, and society as contract. Judge Walker (of Proposition 8 fame) evidently had something of the sort in mind when he said that “tradition alone … cannot form a rational basis for a law.”

In fact, accepting tradition is simply acting as a human being. Our actions aren’t isolated events. They reflect a system of habits and understandings. To the extent the system is helpful and coherent–and we won’t stick by it if it isn’t–it’s because a lot of people have lived by it for a long time, found it satisfactory, and worked the bugs out. In other words, it’s because it’s the tradition of some community. Our habits and understandings are our own, but they are not simply our own. We pick them up from other people.

We follow the tradition of our community because tradition and community are basic to being human. They help make us what we are, and we can’t function without them. Man is social, and to belong to a community is to understand the world as the community understands it and act in a way that makes sense on that understanding.

All of which sounds OK, but it raises some questions. For starters, why talk about accepting tradition if the acts of every sane human being are going to be mostly traditional anyway? After all, we all have some idea of what things are, what they amount to, and how to deal with them, and it’s not as if we just make those ideas up ourselves. On the whole, we have them because that’s the way people like us look at things, and because the whole system of understandings we’ve picked up works and we’re attached to it.

The answer, of course, is that anything can become problematic. It’s natural for people to eat, but eating can be an issue at times. The problems can be minor, like cutting down on sweets, or major, like anorexia nervosa.

The same applies to tradition. Problems arise because circumstances change and old habits and understandings lose their function. Or they can arise simply because tradition is imperfect. Like individual character, it includes some habits and understandings that are good and some that are not so good. The former are more important, since we couldn’t live a human life unless we stood in some sort of social tradition, but the latter usually attract more attention because they cause more problems.

People who live by a tradition normally respond to imperfections and changes that become troublesome by trying to maintain the tradition’s substance. They focus on the understandings and practices that seem most important, and change less important ones that seem at odds with the basic goods the tradition points toward. A tradition is not at bottom a collection of rules, all equal to each other, but an understanding of the world and how to live in it. Some parts are more important than others, the tradition is always directed to goods that trump particular practices, and there’s always some flexibility in how to reconcile practice and goal.

Religious reformers provide an example. They may complain about popular traditions but do so in the name of older and more authoritative traditions. They appeal from the practices of the Pharisees to the law of Moses and the prophets. Even evangelists appeal to the traditions of those they are addressing. Justin Martyr saw the seeds of the Logos in Greek tradition. Paul didn’t tell the Athenians to give up Athenian culture, he quoted their poets and said he was there to tell them about the God their altars pointed toward. And in our own time Benedict annoyed some people by saying that “Christ was the savior for whom [the American Indians] were silently longing.”

Such attitudes are justified. People attach themselves to the traditions they like, but in the long run the good is what they find most worthy of devotion. If there really is an objective good that’s accessible to us then that’s what all tradition points toward. To choose tradition is not to choose habit simply as such but to choose the way we actually arrive at the good, beautiful, and true. We don’t know those things by doing a survey or putting something through a spectroscope. We know them when they emerge from the confusion of life in the experience of many people as worthy of enduring attachment.

Sometimes adjustments that work are hard to find. The development of a tradition may bring out basic flaws that eventually become crippling. The thought of classical antiquity had no way to resolve the questions it raised, so it ended in superstition, skepticism, and arbitrary mysticism. Or circumstances may change so radically that a tradition sees no good way to deal with the new realities–you’re a Chinese mandarin and you discover that traditional China can’t compete with the industrialized world and its gunboats.

If the problems get big enough, the tradition breaks down and things go haywire for a while. Eventually tradition and equilibrium re-establish themselves, but there’s no telling how long that will take or how good the results will be. The Greeks and Romans eventually adopted a new system–Christianity–that overcame the problems of classical thought and led to another great civilization. On the other hand, the Chinese went berserk for a while, and may or may not have found their footing again.

The problems among us today are unusually radical. People aren’t dissatisfied with this tradition or that, or at a loss how to achieve old goals in new settings. Instead, they want to reject the authority of tradition as such, along with the goods it proposes. They adopt views like liberalism that claim to possess a universal rationality that trumps all tradition, and insist that the only acceptable standard for social life is giving people what they want, as much and as equally as possible. Hence the California Proposition 8 decision that declared legal recognition of marriage unconstitutional.

The current situation results from an ever-greater insistence on a clear but extremely limited understanding of rationality that tells us that knowledge and conduct must be modeled on modern natural science and technology. That understanding works well if you’re putting a man on the moon, not so well if you’re figuring out how to live and relate to other people. It can’t deal with identities, essences, or ultimate ends, so it has no way to make sense of our lives or those of others. The result is that belief and conduct lose their ability to order human life in a satisfying and non-arbitrary way.

That means the current state of affairs isn’t going to last, and we’ll have to go on to something else. Some would describe the current situation as the collapse of the Western tradition. I think it’s better to describe it as the distortion and suppression of that tradition as a whole by part of it that has become too dominant. The scientistic outlook has to be ditched in any event, since it’s at odds with the needs of human life. Once that’s done the obvious way to proceed is to stick with the remainder–by far the greater part–of the tradition of the West, and try to bring it into a workable form. We can’t get by without a tradition, the tradition of the West is the one we have, and there’s no superior one to adhere to. So isn’t the way forward obvious?

Goldberg Variations

Goldberg Variations

Goldberg Variations Jonah Goldberg (photo: Heritage Foundation)

A column by Jonah Goldberg published in the dead-tree National Review (August 30) “A Muslim Gay Bar by the Mosque?” typifies the utterly infantile quality of our current movement conservative discourse. Goldberg writes in glowing defense of Fox News celebrity Greg Gutfeld, who had just advocated (presumably in a serious way) the creation of a Muslim gay bar in the vicinity of Ground Zero. Goldberg happily embraces this idea as a “tough-minded libertarian.” After all, freedom, he insists, “is a cultural institution that needs to be defended, even if that means offending people.” Moreover, “whatever you may think of gay bars, they’re not going away in the freedom-loving West. Pretty much everybody else in American life has learned how to live-and-let-live with such places to one extent or another.”

One might ask Goldberg, the “tough-minded libertarian,” why just one month earlier he had denounced Rand Paul in a column for raising hesitant objections to Provision Two of the Civil Rights Act, a provision that restricts an employer’s right to hire whom he wants for a job. According to Goldberg in one of the most ferocious tirades I’ve seen coming from his pen, unless the subject is the critics of Israel or “Obama fascism,” he let loose against the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate from Kentucky for “lamenting the lost right of bigots.”

Apparently the anti-discrimination mechanism created by Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave this country “economic freedom” for the first time, although it is not at all clear how it did so. But in any case why is my historic right to hire or accommodate whom I want in my business establishment less of a right than the right to run a gay bar, to the consternation of religious and moral traditionalists? Why should I have less of a right not to confer a job on a prospective employee than to scandalize devout Christians by establishing a sodomy recruiting agency in their neighborhood?

We all know the answer. Like his pals on FOX News and NR, Goldberg occasionally mimics a politically correct leftist even while working for GOP electoral victories. There is nothing noticeably rightwing about him or his chums, Rich Lowry, Glenn Beck, or the other movement conservatives who are working overtime trying to demonstrate their sensitivity to minorities and cultural liberals. Whether it is Glenn Beck quoting Martin Luther King and deploring the mildness of Reconstruction, Rich Lowry congratulating Abe Foxman and the ADL for taking a “courageous” position against building a mosque near Ground Zero or Laura Schlesinger ranting against the N-word, all of these personalities are as nauseatingly obsequious as they’re predictable. I’ve no idea why the only people who seem to notice this obvious fact are contributors to and readers of this website. Whenever I mention the same tics to white-bread Republicans or NR-subscribers, their response is to tell me they didn’t notice the offending behavior.

Are movement conservatives who denounced Obama for bowing to the Emperor of Japan blind to the infinitely greater indignity committed by W, who apologized for slavery in West Africa in 2003? Why was there no “conservative” outcry similar to the one against Obama when a Republican insulted White Americans? Further: was Steve Sailer the only writer who noticed when FOX “conservative” Karl Rove pushed sub-prime rate loans for Hispanics before the financial crash at the end of Bush’s reign? One might think that conservatives would be up in arms over such an outrage.

Somehow such facts never register when I bring them up to movement conservatives. My interlocutors prefer to go into a song and dance about Obama’s being bad news. They also insist that the people I complain about must be rightwing because the Left says so. And, equally important, FOX News describes them as “conservatives.”  Moreover, these good folks have no choice but to butter up minorities and gays. Otherwise the Left would attack them even more vigorously than it does as racists, sexists, and homophobes. The question left begging is this: If the Left rushes to attack their mild opposition as politically incorrect, no matter how furiously Goldberg, Lowry, and Schlesinger suck up to PC victims, why do movement conservatives bother to grovel — to no avail? They might as well move to the right openly — or at least stop groveling. The reason they don’t is they themselves are captive to the Left psychologically and socially. These authorized opponents of the Left reflect what they intermittently claim to be against. In the media industry, cultural-social differences are far less significant than elsewhere in the country.

As a scholar it behooves me to mention some possible objection to my assertions. There are movement conservative critics, it might be argued, who, contrary to what I seem to be suggesting, have moved away from Goldberg, Ross Douthat, and David Frum by going after the gay lobby. Just about any issue of First Things would show the persistence of this other view. Also (and this too I may be missing) articles in mainstream movement conservative publications take critical stands against illegal immigration, more gay rights, and other recent demands of the social Left. Certainly the conservative movement does not uniformly resemble the establishment Left on every question relating to race, gender, lifestyle, and the war against discrimination.

But counter-objections could be raised to these arguments. One, most prominent movement conservative journalists and TV personalities associated with the Right behave very much like Lowry, Goldberg, etc. Beside feeling obliged to express joy over the civil rights revolutions for black, women and other minorities, these prominent conservatives are slavishly tied to the GOP. Fox News and NR stars have become tiresome adjuncts of that party. And movement conservative celebrities seem to be following the Bush-Rove strategy of throwing under the bus traditional conservative groups like Southern Whites in order to appeal to the civil rights lobby, AIPAC, and “moderate” minorities. Why bother worrying about insulting crackers, which Lowry did in a glaring manner when he described the alleged racist murder of Shirley Sherrod’s father as “demographically representative” of the South before the feds got into enforcing the civil rights revolution? The Southern whites will vote for the GOP no matter what.

Two, the morally traditionalist, predominantly Catholic wing of the conservative movement will be allowed to spin its wheels, as long as it doesn’t show too much independence. About twelve years ago, R.J. Neuhaus and others associated with First Things began talking about the moral decadence of the “American regime.” But the grousers were promptly disciplined by Decter, Himmelfarb, and other female custodians of the neocon hegemony. These ladies explained to the obstinate priest and his friends who it was who controlled their finances and access to the media. Almost immediately the complaints against the “regime” stopped.

Moreover, it is permissible for conservative movement-affiliated traditionalists to go their own way on abortion, gay marriage, and a few other family issues, providing they swear fealty to their masters in other matters. To the latter belong such weighty things as backing neocon-promoted wars to spread liberal democracy and end “Islamofascism,” celebrating the triumphs of the civil rights movement and the canonization of Martin Luther King, and praising the American example of global, propositional democracy. Opponents of abortion treat their pro-life stand as an extension of the civil rights movement, and they counterfactually identify the pro-choice lobby as “anti-black.” (Of course blacks take the diametrically opposite position, as one learns from their predictable political choices.) The same traditionalists, typified by Michael Novak and Cal Thomas, enjoy attacking the Left as “anti-Semitic,” although this warning has certainly not affected Jews’ voting patterns. The traditionalist wing of the conservative movement pays a heavy price indeed for its limited right to expression under neocon surveillance. Catholic and other traditionalists are clearly not in the driver’s seat, and they can be effortlessly pushed off the bus or demeaned, the way NR treats unreconstructed Southerners.

Bad economic news stuns investors

Bad economic news stuns investors
Arab states cut financial aid to Palestinians

Investors ‘stunned’ by bad economic news on Thursday

Investors were “stunned” on Thursday by a bunch of job news stories that indicate that the economy is spiraling downward.

  • The first shock was more people filed claims for unemployment benefits last week than at any time since November, according to the Washington Post. Forecasters had expected the number of claims to fall to 450,000 or so, but instead they rose to 500,000 last week, heading back toward the record 640,000 per week that was reached in March, 2009.
  • Manufacturing activity in the mid-Atlantic region has fallen sharply in August. A growth index published by the Federal Reserve of Philadelphia was predicted to rise to 7.2 this month from 5.1 in July, but instead it fell to a negative value, -7.7, indicating contraction instead of growth, according to Bloomberg.
  • The yields (interest rates) on two-year notes issued by the U.S. Treasury fell to a historically low level — 0.48% on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. Yields on 10 year and 30 year bonds are also at record low levels. This means that financial institutions are putting as much money as possible into safe Treasuries, rather than risking the stock market, where they might hope to get returns higher than 0.48% per year.
  • Similarly, yields on “safe” German bonds fell to historically low levels, while yields on Greek bonds have risen to the crisis levels of May, prior to the European bailout, according to the Telegraph. As we’ve reported several times, Greece’s economy is in a death spiral, as businesses close and unemployment skyrockets. The high yields on Greek bonds indicate that investors believe that Greece will default.

In June, I posted a report about an apparent worldwide decline in economies around the world, and that we appeared to be headed once again to a worldwide freeze in trade and transportation, just as happened at the end of 2008. (See “7-Jun-10 News — Globally, May was a month of ominous events.”)

Since then, I’ve reported on one trend after another that confirms that trend. It seems increasingly certain that things will be pretty bad in the fall.

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, the worst is yet to come, including a major stock market crash and financial crisis.

Additional links

Arab states have cut financial aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA), and countries like Saudi Arabia are not fulfilling their promises. The PA will face a serious liquidity crisis in September, and will have difficulty paying salaries. Reuters

Russia and Belarus have been on bitterly disagreeable terms since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, but relations may improve after the coming presidential elections, since they may result in the defeat of Belarus president Alexander Lukashenko after 16 years in power. Spiegel

The U.S. State Dept. said on Thursday that a new agreement for the start of direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians is close to completion. I wonder how long it will be before someone pisses someone off again, and the whole thing collapses? VOA

(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 20-Aug-10 News — Bad economic news stuns investors thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be posted anonymously.) (20-Aug-2010) Permanent Link

19-Aug-10 News — France orders expulsion of Gypsies
The Mosque at Ground Zero

France’s president Sarkozy orders expulsion of up to 15,000 Gypsies


Gypsy populations in Europe <font face=Arial size=-2>(Source: WSJ)</font>
Gypsy populations in Europe (Source: WSJ)

The Roma — also known as Gypsies or by the politically correct euphemism “travelling people” — are a semi-nomadic ethnic group that have been persecuted for centuries. The was even a Nazi holocaust of Romas. Today, there are some 350,000 Gypsies in Europe, mostly in eastern Europe. (Roma people are not Romanians except, of course, when they live in Romania.)

There are some 15,000 Gypsies living in France, many living in unathorized refugee camps or abandoned buildings. France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy has ordered a crackdown on Roma living in some 300 unauthorized campsites, according to Radio France Internationale.

By the end of the month, 700 Roma will be returned to their countries of origin, usually Bulgaria or Romania, and more will be expelled in the months to follow.

The expulsion of the Gypsies is part of a larger law and order plan by Sarkozy, according to WSJ (Access). Other measures proposed by Sarkozy and his political party are to strip French citizenship from people of foreign origin who were convicted of trying to kill police or other public officials, and to imprison the parents of delinquent children.

The law and order drive is popular with the French people, but the expulsion of the Gypsies is causing widespread human rights criticism, according to Agence France-Presse (AFP). Romania’s foreign minister expressed the view that the economic crisis was causing “xenophobic reactions” in France.

France’s Green Euro-MP party called Sarkozy’s policy “state racism,” according to AFP, and a Le Monde editorial says that the policy activates “racist impulses.”

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, xenophobia is a characteristic of generational Crisis eras, resulting in political conflicts in mild cases, and in full scale wars in the worst scenarios.

The Mosque at Ground Zero

We see a similar dispute of this kind going on in the U.S. with respect to the proposal to build a mosque next door to the Ground Zero site where the World Trade Center was brought down by Islamist terrorists on 9/11/2001. This has resulted in a drama of almost comic proportions, with a lot of politicians saying things and making fools of themselves. The NY Daily News reports that Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably the nation’s politicizer-in-chief, is accusing her opponents of politicizing the issue, and is calling for an investigation of the finances of those who oppose the mosque, as if the families of 9/11 victims need to be paid to oppose the mosque.

On the one hand, you have a great deal of xenophobia, as well as a lot of people who are genuinely offended by the idea of a mosque at Ground Zero. On the other hand, you have the loony left that couldn’t care less about the mosque, but see it as an opportunity to humiliate the United States.

Outside of those who sympathize with the victims of 9/11, no one actually believes the strongly held opinions they claim to have. This is shown by the fact that no one cares about the Greek Orthodox church that used to stand near Ground Zero, according to Fox News, but no one is applying the same principles to the Greek Orthodox Church that they’re apply to the mosque.

Muslims themselves have a much more sensible view of the dispute. Memri quotes Al-Arabiya director Al-Sharq Al-Awsat as saying that, “The majority of Muslims do not want or need a mosque near ground zero,” and adds:

“Because the idea of a mosque right next to a site of destruction is not at all an intelligent one. The last thing Muslims want today is to build a religious center that provokes others, or a symbolic mosque that people will visit as a [kind of] museum next to a cemetery.”What the citizens of the U.S. fail to understand is that the battle against the 9/11 terrorists is not their battle. It is a Muslim battle – one whose flames are still raging in more than 20 Muslim countries… I do not think that the majority of Muslims want to build a monument or a place of worship that tomorrow may become a source of pride for the terrorists and their Muslim followers, nor do they want a mosque that will become a shrine for the haters of Islam… This has already started to happen: [the Islamophobes] are claiming that a mosque is being built over the corpses of 3,000 U.S. citizens who were buried alive by people chanting ‘Allah akbar’ – the same call that will be heard from the mosque…”

Additional links

Japan and India are close to signing a nuclear cooperation agreement, where the Japanese will build nuclear reactors in India. This corresponds to the agreement that China has to build nuclear reactors in Pakistan. As I’ve said in the past, I expect Pakistan to be allied with China, and Japan and India to be allied with the U.S. in the coming Clash of Civilizations world war. South Asia Analysis Group

Swat Valley in northwest Pakistan used to be a favored and glamorous vacation spot for Pakistanis and rich Europeans alike. But first there was the devastating earthquake of 2005; then there was the invasion of the Taliban, and their reign of terror; and now the astonishingly vast floods have made the region a disaster zone. Spiegel

No heavy rains are forecast for Pakistan this week, but even without more rain, the floods will last at least until the end of the month. RFI

The unemployment rate is as high as 70% in some parts of Greece, as the country’s draconian austerity measures reduce the country’s budget deficit, at enormous social cost. As shops and businesses shut down, Greece appears to be in a death spiral, with no end in sight. “Things are starting to simmer here,” says an unemployed shipbuilder. “And at some point they’re going to explode.” Spiegel

After years of debate over whether low-fat diets were better or worse than low-carbohydrate (Atkins) diets, the question has been resolved: They’re both equally effective, or ineffective, depending on your point of view, but neither is better than the other. NY Times

(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 19-Aug-10 News — France orders expulsion of Gypsies thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be posted anonymously.) (19-Aug-2010) Permanent Link

18-Aug-10 News — The collapse of the Gaza tunnel economy
Pakistan’s government is snubbing flood aid from India

The collapse of the Gaza tunnel economy

The May confrontation between the Israel Defense Force (IDF) and the “freedom flotilla” that tried to break the Gaza blockade has had an unexpected consequence.

That confrontation resulted in the deaths of nine Turkish citizens, and resulted in international outrage and demands for Israel to end the blockade.

Israel never agreed to end the blockade, but they ended up changing the import rules: Anything can be imported into Gaza except for a specific list of items, things like weapons or building materials that Hamas, the terrorist group governing Gaza, could use to build bunkers.

Up until that time, there was a vigorous “tunnel economy” in Gaza. Thousands of Gazans were employed digging tunnels under the wall separating Gaza from Egypt, and then smuggling all kinds of goods through those tunnels.

But now that many of these goods can be imported legally, the tunnel economy is going through a “depression,” as the people who built, maintained and smuggled goods through the tunnels are now mostly unemployed. The unemployed include people who were some of the best paid Palestinians in Gaza, earning some 120 shekels ($32) a day, according to Reuters.

At their peak, there were 2,500-3,000 tunnels in operation, but now there are just 50 operational tunnels, with only 10 working at any one time, according to the article. Palestinian merchants now buy their goods from Israel, rather than from smugglers.

The end of the tunnel economy is actually a disadvantage to Hamas, according to CS Monitor. Hamas has benefited in two different ways from the blockade: first by generating international sympathy and playing the victim, and second by shifting the economy to the black market that it largely controls.

However, Hamas remains firmly in control of Gaza, as the Palestinian Authority remains in control of the West Bank. As I’ve been writing since 2003, from the point of view of Generational Dynamics, the region will be re-fighting the genocidal was between Jews and Arabs that followed the partitioning of Palestine and the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.

Additional links

Pakistan’s government is refusing to acknowledge or accept millions of dollars in flood aid offered by the Indian government, just as they snubbed aid from India after the 2005 tsunami. This is what my mother used to call “cutting off your nose to spite your face.” Times of India

In four days, Russia will deliver nuclear fuel to Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor. This means that after four days, Israel can no longer launch an attack on Bushehr, for fear of triggering widespread radiation. Jerusalem Post

The Pentagon has released its annual report on the military capabilities of China. We will have more to say about this report in the coming days, but suffice it to say that China is fully capable of a large-scale missile attack on the U.S. and the Pacific fleet. Department of Defense

An analysis of the Afghanistan war concludes that the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan will leave the Taliban in control of “vast areas” of the country. Memri

Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency now says that homegrown Islamist militants have overtaken the Indian army as the greatest threat to Pakistan’s national security. This is the first time since Partition in 1947 that India hasn’t been viewed as the top threat. WSJ (Access)

A new book debunks the myth that Hitler was a heroic soldier during World War I who was radicalized by the war, leading to the birth of the Nazi movement. Newly discovered letters and papers suggest that Hitler was referred to as a “rear area pig” (Etappenschwein) by his comrades, and that the heroic story was fabricated by Nazi propagandists. Independent

I actually met chess champion Bobby Fischer once, when we were both teenagers and I was in NYC and made an improptu visit to the Manhattan Chess Club. He was kind of a childhood hero of mine — until he lost by default to Spassky in 1974, and then later turned into a Nazi. Anyway, he died in 2008, and a nine year old Filipina girl has been claiming to be Bobby Fischer’s daughter, but a DNA test proves that she isn’t. BBC

(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 18-Aug-10 News — The collapse of the Gaza tunnel economy thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be posted anonymously.) (18-Aug-2010) Permanent Link

17-Aug-10 News — Iran announces new uranium enrichment centers
‘Hindenburg Omen’ predicts stock market crash

Iran announces ten new uranium enrichment centers

Western governments are alarmed by reports by the state-controlled Press Tv news service that Iran will begin construction of ten new uranium enrichment centers next year.

Currently, Iran’s Natanz enrichment facility is enriching uranium to a level of 20%, and another facility is already under construction. An Iranian official is quoted as saying, “Studies for the location of 10 other uranium enrichment facilities have ended. The construction of one of these facilities will begin by the end of the (current Iranian) year (March 2011) or start of the next year.”

Iran claims that they need to produce 20% enriched uranium for a medical research reactor, but former U.N. weapons inspector David Albright, in an interview with the LA Times says that these reasons aren’t credible.

According to Albright, Iran already makes far more than enough 20% uranium to fuel the medical research center. He asks, “Why are they doing this? This could just be centrifuge people trying to be more efficient, or it could be that they want to make 20% material that is way beyond what they need for the research reactor, so you do have to ask: Is there a hidden weapons motivation?”

This comes at a time when many people are wondering if either Israel or the U.S. is planning a military strike to take out Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The Arab countries don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons either, and both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have recently indicated that they might approve military action.

Iran’s statements on Monday were alarming. One would not be blamed for wondering if Iran were intentionally trying to provoke an actual attack.

Iran’s strategy

I’ve described Iran’s strategy many times, but a summary is appropriate here.

Iran’s last crisis was was the 1979 Great Islamic Revolution, followed by the Iran/Iraq war that ended in 1988. Like any crisis war, it unified the country behind its leaders.

Today, Iran is in a generational Awakening era, and last year experienced massive student protests, along with political opposition that’s expected to last for years. The geriatric leaders are desperately searching for a strategy that will unify the country again behind its leaders, just as occurred in the 1980s and 1990s.

The strategy they’re using is the strategy that worked in 1979 — blame everything on the Great Satan (the U.S.), and even provoke a military action that will force the population to support its leaders, just as the Iraqi invasion of Iran did. (See “China ‘betrays’ Iran, as internal problems in both countries mount”),

From the point of view of Generational Dynamics, this strategy works during a generational Crisis era, but cannot possibly work during a generational Awakening era. Even a U.S. military strike will not unite the Iranian people behind their leaders, as the students will blame the government for provoking the strike.

Iran is a schizophrenic country, with a bitterly anti-American and anti-Western leadership, but where the younger population is generally pro-American and pro-West, and have no particular desire to see Israel pushed into the sea. Iran’s leaders are aware of this, and their attempts to reverse those attitudes cannot succeed during an Awakening era.

However, even the younger population favors Iran’s nuclear program. They know that Saddam used weapons of mass destruction (poison gas) during the Iran/Iraq war, and the Iranians are surrounded by countries (Pakistan and Israel) that already have nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, the Israelis and the Arabs are extremely anxious about the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, and it’s possible that a military strike on Iran will occur.

As I’ve said in the past, it’s my expectation that when forced to choose in the Clash of Civilizations world war, Iran will be on the side of the West.

Additional links

The internet is buzzing about the “Hindenburg Omen,” a set of technical indicators that supposedly indicate an imminent stock market crash. The conditions for the Hindenburg Omen were met last week, but other analysts claim that it’s all meaningless. CNBC

Swaziland has the highest HIV/Aids infection rate in the world, and the lowest life expectancy, but experts are puzzled about why Swazis have resisted all attempts to change the behaviors that put them at risk for AIDS. Reuters

On Sunday, Financial Times reported that the Barack Obama had personally warned Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan that the U.S. would refuse some armed sales to Turkey, if it doesn’t change its position on Iran and Israel. But Turkey’s President Abdullah Gül denies that any such threat had been made. Zaman

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began a visit to Greece on Monday to develop closer Israeli-Greek ties, just as relations between Israel and Turkey have been souring. Greece and Turkey are historic enemies, but both Greece and Israel deny that they’re forming an alliance against Turkey. Deutsche Welle

Pakistani flood victims blocked highways on Monday to protest the lack of government help. Public anger has grown after two weeks of floods, and hundreds of villages have been marooned. The situation continues to deteriorate. Reuters

(Comments: For reader comments, questions and discussion, see the 17-Aug-10 News — Iran announces new uranium enrichment centers thread of the Generational Dynamics forum. Comments may be posted anonymously.) (17-Aug-2010) Permanent Link

Time Is Running Out for the West

Time Is Running Out for the West

by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Recently by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: The Death of Paper Money

Time is running out for the West

Moody’s expects Britain’s public debt to reach 90pc of GDP within three years. Photo: Alamy

“Genuinely adverse debt dynamics were only expected to materialise in 15 to 20 years. The crisis has ‘fast-forwarded’ history, eroding all the time available to adjust, ” said the group’s quarterly Sovereign Monitor.

Moody’s fears that the US will crash through its safety buffer by 2013 if growth falters (adverse scenario), with interest payments topping 14pc of tax revenues. The debt-to-revenue ratio has already doubled in three years to 430pc.

The US, UK, Germany, France, and Spain are all at risk of an “interest rate shock”, either because they must roll over a cluster of short-term debt (US, France, Spain) or because deficits are so large.

Countries that “fail to demonstrate the level of social cohesion required to stabilise debt” will lose their AAA rating. “Intra-generational” conflict between young and old requires careful handling. States that delay pension reform risk spiralling downwards.

Moody’s said the world had changed since Europe’s debt crisis. None of the large sovereign states can still assume it is credit-worthy. “The burden of proof now falls on governments,” it added.

Britain has the safety cushion of long debt maturities, but the structural deficit is causing debt “to grow an unsustainable rate”: the UK is clearly one of the weaker countries in the AAA peer group.

Moody’s expects Britain’s public debt to reach 90pc of GDP within three years. It warned that any slackening in fiscal tightening by the Government squeeze would lead to a “sharp rise” in funding costs if growth also slowed, with a nasty effect on debt dynamics.

The warning appears to vindicate the Coalition’s claim that immediate belt-tightening is needed to restore confidence and head off a gilts crisis where markets would impose harsher measures.

The current crisis differs starkly from the “one-off” debt spikes after the Second World War, when young economies were able to outgrow the debt burden. This time the threat lies ahead as the aging crisis drives up pension and health costs on a static tax base. “While the current stock of debt is large, it is dwarfed by the accumulation of future liabilities if policies do not change.”

The Overvalued Part of a Market Cycle

by Richard Daughty
The Daily Reckoning

Previously by Richard Daughty: Geithner’s Delusional Recovery

//

I had just gotten home from arguing with the in-laws about how they were idiots for not buying gold instead of those stupid stocks and mutual funds, and their laughter was still ringing distastefully in my ears when Eric Fry here at The Daily Reckoning put up a chart of the P/E ratio of the S&P500 over the last 30 years since 1981.

Interestingly, in 1981 the stock market was in a kind of a funk and the Price/Earnings ratio was hitting about 7, which is on the low side, whereupon (thanks to Congress authorizing tax-deferred retirement accounts in 1982) the stock market proceeded for the next 20 years or so, in fits and starts, to rise to, stunningly, a P/E ratio of almost 30 in 2000, whereupon it promptly turned over and has been falling, in fits and starts, for the last 10 years as the price of the S&P went down. Wow! What a ride!

Of course, it has been an entire paragraph where I did not snarl at something, or heap Mogambo Disdain And Scorn (MDAS) on the despicable Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and the whole worthless Federal Reserve, Congress and Supreme Court, so let me say that buying the S&P500 in 2000 for $1,600 to get a P/E of 30 was, if you are even fleetingly familiar with P/E ratios over the last century, absolutely ridiculous, and the morons buying the S&P500, or recommending it, at such stupidly-overvalued prices should have their names and faces posted somewhere in a database of “investing idiots and miscellaneous dangerous lunatics.”

I say this because the historical record is crystal-clear: When the P/E ratio goes above 22 or so, it won’t be long until the price of the stock falls enough so that the Price/Earnings ratio is back down in the upper teens in a bull market, and back down to around 5 in a severe bear market, whereupon it won’t be long until the price rises again on its way to “overvalued” status. That’s the nature of cycles.

There are those who think that this historical record-stuff is just old history, now rendered meaningless in an age of monumentally stupid governmental deficit-spending, pandemic crushing debt, and a despicable Federal Reserve always, always, always creating yet more, staggeringly more, tragically more, catastrophically more excess money, which is what caused the problems in the first place!

On the other hand, there are those who do NOT regard the lessons of a couple of centuries of P/E ratios to be irrelevant, and who last think that Wednesday is still considered “current events.”

Like, for instance, my wife, who wanted to question me about where I was until almost midnight last Wednesday, which is, I figure “the past” because I have forgotten almost all of it.

So, I told her, “Hey! Hold on! That’s ancient history! Why even bring up that old, useless stuff unless you are spoiling for a fight with me, which leads me to ask a question of my own, which is ‘Hey! You want get into a fight with me? Huh? Is that what you really, really want? Huh? Is it? Huh? Huh?”

Well, it was, alas, as she is one who also thinks there is valuable information in old data, like what happened last Wednesday or, if you ask her, what happened with this whole P/E thing. And she would be right, as I note that the S&P500 is currently sporting a P/E of around 15 – which is surprising in that we are in a recession and the S&P 500 is still 30% below its high of over 1500 in 2000, ten years ago! Hahaha! Idiots!

So, with every stinking ounce of Unshakable Mogambo Certainty (UMC) I can muster, I say that the price of the S&P500 will fall, in fits and starts, until its P/E ratio gets down to less than 7, probably less than 5, and maybe less than 4.

And this is assuming that earnings don’t fall, which they will, and so I wouldn’t be surprised if the S&P500 fell to less than 200.

And, with special emphasis to in-laws everywhere, anyone buying a broad basket of common stocks and bonds, but not buying gold, silver and oil to protect themselves against the roaring inflation in consumer prices that will result from an idiot Federal Reserve creating massive amounts of money so that the government can deficit-spend those massive amounts of money, is a moron.

Surprisingly, buying gold, silver and oil is an investing strategy made especially for us morons, because it requires no thinking and, “Whee! This investing stuff is easy!”

August 19, 2010

Richard Daughty (Mogambo Guru) is general partner and COO for Smith Consultant Group, serving the financial and medical communities, and the writer/publisher of the Mogambo Guru economic newsletter, an avocational exercise to better heap disrespect on those who desperately deserve it. The Mogambo Guru is quoted frequently in Barron’s, The Daily Reckoning, and other fine publications.

Copyright © 2010 Richard Daughty

Abstract

Abstract

http://majorityrights.com/

Today I came across a curious study from the current issue of Nature.  It is none too pithily titled “Inbred decorated crickets exhibit higher measures of macroparasitic immunity than outbred individuals” and, as the name suggests, it is about these delicate little critters:

image
The jerusalem cricket

The abstract informs us that:

Inbreeding is assumed to have negative effects on fitness, including the reduced ability to withstand immune challenges. We examined the immunological consequences of inbreeding in decorated crickets, Gryllodes sigillatus, by comparing lytic activity, phenoloxidase (PO) activity, and encapsulation ability of crickets from eight inbred lines with that of crickets from the outbred founder population. Surprisingly, crickets from inbred lines had a greater encapsulation ability compared with crickets from the outbred population. We suggest that because inbred crickets have reduced reproductive effort, they may, therefore, have the option of devoting more resources to this form of immunity than outbred individuals.

But that’s not very interesting.  Something like this would be more appropriate:

Endogamy in European populations is frequently implied by hostile ethnic actors to be a producer of inbreeding depression.  Such depression might be expected to include a reduced immunological response to hostile minorities seeking control of the population’s destiny.  We compared immunological response in eight highly inter-related, monoracial populations with that in multiracial populations where exogamy is high.  Not surprisingly, members of the monoracial populations displayed greater levels of tradition, self-awareness and ethnocentrism.  We suggest that these are the immunological conditions from which said hostile minorities, in misrepresenting endogamy to their hosts, seek to free themselves.

Further, we suggest that endogamy and, therefore, relatedness should be the guiding principle of all European populations in which discussions rage over how to deal with minorities.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s Waterloo: Nigga Please

Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s Waterloo: Nigga Please


It is a well-known fact that white people cannot say nigga, nigger (the-word-that-must-not-be-named) or any variation of this racial pejorative. Even using the word “niggardly” is a daring attempt at circumnavigating the nefarious undertones that haunt the term for its similarity to the word that-must-not-be-named.

No, it is advised that white people never, ever utter the term nigger, nigga, nig, ni-gah or whatever slang adaptation of the phrase is uttered by Black people when they self-identify.

Murder, rape or any deviant/abhorrent act that can be imagined pales in comparison to the white person caught dropping a nigger bomb from their mouth. The fallout from this bomb is more radioactive and potent than the nuclear fallout from a hydrogen bomb and the shelf-life of this action lasts eternally. Just ask Michael Richards.

Now another individual dares utter the dreaded word in the company of Black people and for this action a veritable public execution is necessary to demonstrate that no one – not even Mel Gibson – is allowed to say “nigger” except Black people when addressing each other in a playful, mocking or denigrating tone:

Dr. Laura Schlessinger announced Tuesday night that she would end her radio show following her N-word rant last week.

“My contract is up for my radio show at the end of the year and I’ve made the decision not to do radio anymore,” she told Larry King. “The reason is I want to regain my First Amendment rights. I want to be able to say what’s on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is the time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates, attack sponsors. I’m sort of done with that.”

Dr. Laura emphasized that she is “not retiring” but rather just ending her radio show.

“I’m not retiring, I’m not quitting, I feel energized actually,” she said. “Stronger and freer to say the things that I believe need to be said for people in this country.

Here is the transcript of the call:

Newscast Media — Media Matters obtained the audio where Dr. Laura Schlessinger says the word “nigger” 11 times to a caller. Schlessinger wrapped up by telling the caller she had a “chip on her shoulder.” Below is the entire transcrpit:

SCHLESSINGER: Jade, welcome to the program.

CALLER: Hi, Dr. Laura.

SCHLESSINGER: Hi.

CALLER: I’m having an issue with my husband where I’m starting to
grow very resentful of him. I’m black, and he’s white. We’ve been
around some of his friends and family members who start making
racist comments as if I’m not there or if I’m not black. And my
husband ignores those comments, and it hurts my feelings. And he
acts like –

SCHLESSINGER: Well, can you give me an example of a racist
comment? ‘Cause sometimes people are hypersensitive. So tell me
what’s — give me two good examples of racist comments.

CALLER: OK. Last night — good example — we had a neighbor come
over, and this neighbor — when every time he comes over, it’s
always a black comment. It’s, “Oh, well, how do you black people like
doing this?” And, “Do black people really like doing that?” And for a
long time, I would ignore it. But last night, I got to the point where it

SCHLESSINGER: I don’t think that’s racist.

CALLER: Well, the stereotype –

SCHLESSINGER: I don’t think that’s racist. No, I think that —

CALLER: [unintelligible]

SCHLESSINGER: No, no, no. I think that’s — well, listen, without
giving much thought, a lot of blacks voted for Obama simply ’cause
he was half-black. Didn’t matter what he was gonna do in office, it
was a black thing. You gotta know that. That’s not a surprise. Not
everything that somebody says — we had friends over the other
day; we got about 35 people here — the guys who were gonna start
playing basketball. I was going to go out and play basketball. My
bodyguard and my dear friend is a black man. And I said, “White men
can’t jump; I want you on my team.” That was racist? That was
funny.

CALLER: How about the N-word? So, the N-word’s been thrown
around –

SCHLESSINGER: Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to
a black comic, and all you hear is nigger, nigger, nigger.

CALLER: That isn’t –

SCHLESSINGER: I don’t get it. If anybody without enough melanin
says it, it’s a horrible thing; but when black people say it, it’s
affectionate. It’s very confusing. Don’t hang up, I want to talk to you
some more. Don’t go away.
I’m Dr. Laura Schlessinger. I’ll be right back.

SCHLESSINGER: I’m Dr. Laura Schlessinger, talking to Jade. What did
you think about during the break, by the way?

CALLER: I was a little caught back by the N-word that you spewed
out, I have to be honest with you. But my point is, race relations —

SCHLESSINGER: Oh, then I guess you don’t watch HBO or listen to
any black comedians.

CALLER: But that doesn’t make it right. I mean, race is a
[unintelligible] –

SCHLESSINGER: My dear, my dear –

CALLER: — since Obama’s been in office –

SCHLESSINGER: — the point I’m trying to make –

CALLER: — racism has come to another level that’s unacceptable.

SCHLESSINGER: Yeah. We’ve got a black man as president, and we
have more complaining about racism than ever. I mean, I think that’s
hilarious.

CALLER: But I think, honestly, because there’s more white people
afraid of a black man taking over the nation.

SCHLESSINGER: They’re afraid.

CALLER: If you want to be honest about it [unintelligible]

SCHLESSINGER: Dear, they voted him in. Only 12 percent of the
population’s black. Whites voted him in.

CALLER: It was the younger generation that did it. It wasn’t the older
white people who did it.

SCHLESSINGER: Oh, OK.

CALLER: It was the younger generation –

SCHLESSINGER: All right. All right.

CALLER: — that did it.

SCHLESSINGER: Chip on your shoulder. I can’t do much about that.

CALLER: It’s not like that.

SCHLESSINGER: Yeah. I think you have too much sensitivity –

CALLER: So it’s OK to say “nigger”?

SCHLESSINGER: — and not enough sense of humor.

CALLER: It’s OK to say that word?

SCHLESSINGER: It depends how it’s said.

CALLER: Is it OK to say that word? Is it ever OK to say that word?

SCHLESSINGER: It’s — it depends how it’s said. Black guys talking to
each other seem to think it’s OK.

CALLER: But you’re not black. They’re not black. My husband is
white.

SCHLESSINGER: Oh, I see. So, a word is restricted to race. Got it.
Can’t do much about that.

CALLER: I can’t believe someone like you is on the radio spewing out
the “nigger” word, and I hope everybody heard it.

SCHLESSINGER: I didn’t spew out the “nigger” word.

CALLER: You said, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.”

SCHLESSINGER: Right, I said that’s what you hear.

CALLER: Everybody heard it.

SCHLESSINGER: Yes, they did.

CALLER: I hope everybody heard it.

SCHLESSINGER: They did, and I’ll say it again –

CALLER: So what makes it OK for you to say the word?

SCHLESSINGER: — nigger, nigger, nigger is what you hear on HB –

CALLER: So what makes it –

SCHLESSINGER: Why don’t you let me finish a sentence?

CALLER: OK.

SCHLESSINGER: Don’t take things out of context. Don’t double N —
NAACP me. Tape the —

CALLER: I know what the NAACP –

SCHLESSINGER: Leave them in context.

CALLER: I know what the N-word means and I know it came from a
white person. And I know the white person made it bad.

SCHLESSINGER: All right. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Can’t have this argument. You know what? If you’re that hypersensitive about color and don’t have a sense of humor, don’t marry out of your race. If you’re going to marry out of your race, people are going to say, “OK, what do blacks think? What do whites think? What do Jews think? What do Catholics think?”

Of course there isn’t a one-think per se. But in general there’s “think.” And what I just heard from Jade is a lot of what I hear from black-think — and it’s really distressting [sic] and disturbing. And to put it in its context, she said the N-word, and I said, on HBO, listening to black comics, you hear “nigger, nigger, nigger.” I didn’t call anybody a nigger. Nice try, Jade. Actually, sucky try.

Need a sense of humor, sense of humor — and answer the question. When somebody says, “What do blacks think?” say, “This is what I think. This is what I read that if you take a poll the majority of blacks think this.” Answer the question and discuss the issue. It’s like we can’t discuss anything without saying there’s -isms?
We have to be able to discuss these things. We’re people — goodness gracious me. Ah — hypersensitivity, OK, which is being bred by black activists. I really thought that once we had a black president, the attempt to demonize whites hating blacks would stop, but it seems to have grown, and I don’t get it. Yes, I do. It’s all about power. I do get it. It’s all about power and that’s sad because what should be in power is not power or righteousness to do good –that should be the greatest power.

Reading the transcripts shows how hypersensitive Black people are when it comes to what qualifies as racist or not.

Nevertheless, when a word is off-limits to one segment of the population, but used freely by another segment of the population, you know you live under tyranny. The price of using the term “nigger”, if you are white, is great; your reputation is ruined, your past comes under scrutiny; and all of your associates are also tarnished because you dared use a forbidden word and by the process of guilt-by-association, bath them in the damning fires of racism.

Black people have no problem using the term nigger as a joyous salutation or a derogatory put-down, constantly showcasing the awesome diversity of the word and its nebulous meaning when a Black person utilizes it in speech.

But a white person even considering to use the phrase? Recall this is a nation where commandeering a Wal-Mart PA system and jokingly stating that “All Black people must leave the store” is grounds for national media attention and an ABP from the police to locate the insidious individual spewing hateful invective.

In the history of rhetoric and speech has one word existed that has caused more heart-ache, grief and pain – heck, it even had a funeral! – than the word-that-must-not-be-named?

White people have been conditioned to recoil in shock and sheer terror at the white person who dares utter the-word-that-must-not-be-named.

White people cower in fear from this word, knowing that to wield this phrase is to invite doom and ruin into ones quarters.

Since it is common knowledge that those who harbor racist views also suffer from a mental illness, it is generally accepted that only those white people who belong in padded rooms would dare use the word-that-must-not-be-named.

Submitting to the power of Black Run America (BRA) means capitulating and acquiescing to this dictum, that the word-that-must-not-be-named can never part from ones thoughts into vocalized form. White people are forbidden from using this confusingly affectionate, yet demeaning term that Black people use liberally in their speech.

The Office satirizes how fearful white people are of the-word-that-must-not-be-named, showing how they have surrendered to BRA’s dominance.

However, the day Black Run America ends, one can only imagine the spectacle of millions upon millions of people celebrating in the streets as the former inhabitants of the Galactic Empire did in Return of the Jedi. The power and fear of the word will be gone, the once lethal Damocles Sword it represents finally made dull and innocent.

Free from the bonds of tyranny and the fear of persecution, millions of people will pull a William Wallace and definitely yell one word. It won’t be ‘freedom‘, though, that these people shout, for the word that comes out of the mouths of millions will signify that freedom is once again in fashion.

The-word-that-must-not-be-named, The-N word, that phrase which haunts those living in 2010 America like a ghost, creating frightful situations whenever white people dare use it, will be yelled in unison signifying the ultimate catharsis.

The potency, the venom of the word only exists because people lack the vision to understand the only antidote to vernacular tyranny is courage.

White People Are Becoming Extinct

White People Are Becoming Extinct

How Many Guns Are Too Many?

After responding to a burglary call at a Rockford, Illinois home, police failed to apprehend the thief but found something that is perhaps much more interesting. WTVO reports that upon entering the home of an unnamed 67 year old resident they were surprised to find a weapons cache of over 300 weapons ranging from shotguns to rifles.

The homeowner, a registered firearm owner, was out of town at the time of the burglary. According to police, the weapons were taken for safekeeping. The guns will be cross-checked against police databases to ensure they have not been used for criminal activity.

While it’s probably a good idea to take the weapons for safekeeping, considering that the house was broken into and the homeowner was out of town, what’s equally as interesting is the reaction of the neighbors:

“It’s just un-real to see this many guns involved a regular residential neighborhood,” says concerned resident McArthur Tennin.

Coley Woods lives across the street from the home. He says, “I’m thinking it’s an accident or something, but I look over and I see them with all them rifles.”

Woods’ says, “Even if he’s a registered gun owner or not, that just seems like its too many rifles.”

This brings to the forefront the question of how many guns are too many?

Three hundred may seem like quite a large number to the average, non-gun collecting American. But the homeowner in this particular case is 67 years old, suggesting he may have been a collector of fine weaponry for several decades. Considering this, it is not out of the question for a retiree to amass a large gun collection.

Hopefully the homeowner will have his guns returned when he gets back to town, but he’ll most certainly have a lot of questions to answer at the local police station.

A recent Austin, Texas search warrant executed against a resident who had been involved in digging an under ground bunker yielded a variety of self defense armaments, including large amounts of ammunition and 19 weapons, as well as compressed gas tanks used for welding.

The neighbors in this case also responded with fear:

“It’s scary to know that he had all that down there. What if something had exploded,” Landon said.

Another example of police seizing weapons for “safe keeping” was recently reported in Anatomy of a Police State Setup and Coverup, where police arrived at the home of a San Luis Obispo, California resident who was legally target shooting on his land. After executing an illegal search warrant, police found a safe containing several weapons and subsequently seized those weapons for safe keeping. The justification for the search and seizure was that the homeowner negligently discharged his firearm, something he had done for years without issue.

It seems that anytime law enforcement enters a home, be it legally or illegally, and a weapons cache is found, anything more than perhaps a handgun and a rifle rings the alarm, resulting in a painstaking process for the gun owner if they ever want to retrieve the weapons.

Since the second amendment of the Constitution makes no specific reference the number of arms an individual can store for personal defense, there should be no question as to how many weapons one can personally own and keep at home. Has law enforcement and the citizenary come up with an imaginary and arbitrary number that’s safe for everyone? Perhaps one gun per household, or maybe a bit more leniency and we can make it one gun per resident of the home?

Where should we draw the line?

Maybe the best thing to do is to first determine if the individual in question has or had ill intentions with the weapons before we use the media to spread fear about extremist, right-wing pistol packers.

One thing’s for sure, however. Because of failures by our federal policing agencies to stop the flow of illegal aliens through our southern border, namely those related to drug smuggling and violence, ranchers in states like Texas and Arizona should probably be heavily armed, lest they end up either stabbed to death or have their land taken over by paramilitary drug organizations. If those living in violence prone areas ever need to call upon neighbors or local militia to assist with defending their land against would-be drug smugglers, kidnappers and thieves, it’s better that they be armed to the teeth with 300 shotguns and rifles than sling shots and BB guns.

Hat tip Check It News

//

Author: Mac Slavo
Date: August 13th, 2010
Visit the Author’s Website: http://www.SHTFplan.com/

The Worst Case Scenario

by Egon von Greyerz
Matterhorn Asset Management

Note: Although I disagree with some minor techinical points with the below analysis, I believe that it overall paints a fairly accurate picture in terms of the current economy and what could happen in one type worst case scenario ~ Robert Wenzel

No, there will be no double dip. It will be a lot worse. The world economy will soon go into an accelerated and precipitous decline which will make the 2007 to early 2009 downturn seem like a walk in the park. The world financial system has temporarily been on life support by trillions of printed dollars that governments call money. But the effect of this massive money printing is ephemeral since it is not possible to save a world economy built on worthless paper by creating more of the same. Nevertheless, governments will continue to print since this is the only remedy they know. Therefore, we are soon likely to enter a phase of money printing of a magnitude that the world has never experienced. But this will not save the Western World which is likely to go in to a decline lasting at least 20 years but most probably a lot longer.

The End of an Era

The hyperinflationary depression that many western countries, including the US and the UK, will experience is likely to mark the end of an era that has lasted over 200 years since the industrial revolution. A major part of the growth in the last 100 years and especially in the last 40 years has been built on an unsustainable build-up of debt levels. These debt levels will continue to swell for another few years until the coming hyperinflation in the West leads to a destruction of real asset values and a debt implosion.

In the last 100 years the Western world has experienced a historically unprecedented growth in production, in inventions and technical developments leading to a major increase in the standard of living. During the same period government debt, as well as private debt have grown exponentially leading to a major increase in inflation compared to previous centuries.

Until the early 1970s the growth in credit to GDP had been going up gradually since the creation of the Fed in 1913.. But from 1971 when Nixon abolished gold backing of the dollar, virtually all of the growth in the Western world has come from the massive increase in credit rather than from real growth of the economy. The US consumer price index was stable for 200 years until the early 1900s. From 1971 to 2010 CPI went up by almost 500%. The reason for this is uncontrolled credit creation and money printing. Total US debt went from $9 trillion in 1971 to $59 trillion today and this excludes unfunded liabilities of anywhere from $70 to $110 trillion. US nominal GDP went from $1.1 trillion to $14.5 trillion between 1971 and 2010. So it has taken an increase in borrowings of $50 trillion to produce an increase in annual GDP of $13 trillion over a 40 year period. Without this massive increase in debt, the US would probably have had negative growth for most of the last 39 years.

Read the rest of the article

Conditions ripe for major aboriginal uprising

Conditions ripe for major aboriginal uprising, academic says

Young first nations people are largely poor, uneducated, prone to crime and live near vulnerable resource areas, ex-Forces officer argues

Canadians and their political leaders are ignoring all the signs of a looming aboriginal insurrection in their midst, warns a prominent military analyst.

Douglas Bland, a former lieutenant-colonel in Canada’s Armed Forces who chairs defence management studies at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont., says conditions are ripe for a major uprising by first nations people.

He told a luncheon audience of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg last week that “the typical federal or provincial politician in Canada has no idea what to do with this matter. They only see it as a difficulty for themselves.”

In turn, aboriginals are “emboldened by the prevailing political reluctance to act.”

In a speech titled, “Where Are Aboriginal Affairs in Canada Headed?,” Bland answers the question by noting that Canada is particularly “vulnerable to a national disturbance, given its economic dependence on the export of oil, gas, natural gas, hydro power and other commodities to the U.S.

“Abor iginal communi -ties are sitting on those supply chains. At any moment they can turn that system off, which would pose a danger to the economy and to Canadian sovereignty.”

Canada has witnessed several instances of the sort of aboriginal unrest Bland is talking about.

First nations groups have staged roadblocks on Highway 401 near Kingston and put up barricades on major railways. A crisis over disputed land occurred in Oka, Que., in 1990, and in Caledonia, Ont., in 2006. Another standoff took place in 2009 near Cornwall, Ont., between Mohawks and border services personnel who had planned to start carrying firearms.

Bland says he began studying the feasibility of an aboriginal uprising after the 9/11 debacle in the U.S. He recently wrote a fictional account of an aboriginal insurrection, titled Uprising.

Aboriginals make up the largest and fastest growing group of young people in the country.

Their median age — 25, compared to 40 for nonaboriginals.

Incredibly, more than half of on-reserve aboriginals are 24 and younger. Too many of them are not being educated. Fewer than 24 per cent finish high school, even as 80 per cent of non-aboriginals graduate.

Another problem, says Bland, is that the aboriginals who graduate from universities most often don’t return to reserves where they could improve governance and economic prospects.

And so, on-reserve unemployment stands at 28 per cent. Youth unemployment is more than 40 per cent.

A disproportionate number of young first nations men are being incarcerated in jails which tend to serve as “community colleges for the gangs.”

For example, 71 per cent of those who are held in custody in Manitoba are aboriginals, despite the fact they make up only 15 per cent of the population.

Of course, aboriginals often experience deplorable living conditions characterized by rural isolation and housing that’s dilapidated and overcrowded.

A community with a sense of grievance needs only a particular economic or political condition to aggravate it, along with a unifying leader able to mobilize the group to trigger an insurrection.

Because aboriginals reside in areas adjacent to Canada’s resource bounty and these sometimes remote and expansive tracts of land are largely undefendable, the feasibility of a major conflict is that much greater.

Bland is a student of war and his soundings are worrisome. While past Liberal governments in Ottawa have deployed a strategy of big spending to alleviate unacceptable on-reserve living conditions, the Harper government has taken a different approach.

Conservatives have focused more on urban-dwelling aboriginals and, of course, given a formal apology and financial redress for historic injustices at first nations schools.

In any event, no political action will be as helpful as getting young on-reserve aboriginals educated.

With only five of 308 sitting MPs (and six senators) reflecting Metis, Inuit or first nations ethnicity, Parliament would be better equipped to respond to aboriginal challenges if more first nations people were to become engaged in national political processes.

byaffe@vancouversun.com

Why Are Jews So Hated?

Why Are Jews So Hated?


Seems like the answer would be simple, doesn’t it? Actually it’s one of the more complex pile of reasons on earth.

Since history was recorded, the Jews have been a hated people. We can pick up an Old Testament, a New Testament, or any other historical document from any ancient culture, and it records the same thing; hatred for the Jews.

The media in this country, and for the most part, every white nation on earth is now under the control of the Jews. And because of this, you will never find any discussions of the reasons why, only constant moans of the poor, innocent Jew who is hated and oppressed for no reason at all. According to them, they’re just the race that everyone loves to hate. I find it ludicrous that my fellow Aryans haven’t demanded the truth long before now. No one has ever been hated as deeply or for as long as the Jews without some damned good reasons behind that hatred.

By studying ancient history on up to present day, we find a pattern. This pattern is why Jews are despised by every race on the planet. It is a pattern of hatred for all non-Jews on a maniacal level. It is also a pattern of intense greed, cheating, theft, dishonesty, conspiracy, murder, aggression, cruelty, manipulation, and spiritual evil on a par with hell’s own demons.

There are in fact a long list of past nations that were destroyed in large part, due to Jewish subterfuge. They would slowly and quietly “immigrate” into a host nation that was kind enough to take them in. As soon as they got settled, they would work together as a single unit, like ants, to buy up an entire industry, be it clothing, metals, manufacturing, whatever.

Then, after they had created a monopoly, they would jack up the prices to crippling heights and drop the worker’s wages to slave level. Industry after industry would fall to them, using the profits of the last conquest, then in the end they would have complete control of the nation’s economy and start draining off its wealth and moving it to foreign banks. The populace would starve in the streets and the Jews got richer and richer. In the end they were finally evicted at gunpoint by that host nation. But by then the damage was done and the wealth spirited away.

This is why over the past 700 years the Jews have been evicted from 79 different countries. Tells you a lot, doesn’t it? Funny how not a single word of this is ever discussed by the media, isn’t it? In fact this is exactly what they were doing to the German people in 1934, and why Hitler was able to rise to power so rapidly. The German people were literally dying of starvation in the streets. Whole families starved to death while rich Jews actually stepped over their dying, pleading bodies on their way to a nice restaurant.

Many Germans knew that if they were to survive at all, they would have to destroy the parasites killing them. Suddenly they awoke to the evil of the Jews and their long history of bleeding the hated Goyim for their living. The Jews are a parasite race. They produce nothing in industry. They live off the fruits of others’ labors and genius. Whites are their favorite prey because they are so productive. That’s why you’ll find more Jews in the US then you will even in Israel. They go where the money is. That’s why that outside the White countries of Argentina and Chile, and the remnants of once White-run South Africa, you won’t find hardly any Jews in South and Central America, Black Africa, or any other third world nation. No money there. A mosquito needs blood, and a Jew needs money.

Many have cursed the Germans for how they treated the Jews in their concentration camps, and anyone who’s seen the pictures of the victims feels sick over it. But before you go judging them, remember something: Every one of those Germans suffered horribly their entire lives at the hands of those beasts. They held their sons, daughters, mothers, fathers and other loved ones in their arms as they slowly died of starvation and disease because the fat, greedy Jews were deliberately starving them to death..and gloating over it.

Their scars were soul deep, and the emotional and spiritual damage they suffered was on a national scale. And as cruel and merciless as they were to the Jews, it still didn’t even the score for all the decades of evil and the uncounted atrocities Jews perpetrated on millions of innocent, hard working people.

First they robbed them, then they took their dignity, then they starved them to death. The Jews had it coming..and a lot more. In fact the world today would be a utopia if the Nazis had been allowed to finish the job. All the evils we now face as a race were caused by the survivors, who learned nothing from that ordeal. All it did was make them ever more vicious. It’s like I’ve always said; you can’t reason with evil, you can only kill it.

The greatest mistake the Aryan peoples have made down through the ages is in underestimating the intelligence and craftiness of the Jew. He is diabolical. He will spend every waking moment, from sun-up to bed, thinking of ways to siphon money from you..and then to destroy you when he’s done.

For his other mania is our destruction. His hatred of the dreaded goyim is even deeper than his monumental greed. This makes him the most dangerous enemy we have ever faced. Several times in history we have had the opportunity to completely rid the world of this vermin, but in every case our higher traits of mercy and compassion betrayed our sense of self preservation, and we spared them.

History will record this as our undoing. For the Jew has no gratitude in him. Like saving a viper, it will still bite you with the exact same ferocity it had before you saved it. Because like the viper, the Jew is a beast. He prides himself on his spirituality, yet no God in the universe would be so cruel and demented as to approve of the actions and evil of such a depraved race of animals..unless they were worshiping the Devil himself. And recent revelations point to this exact possibility.

Over the past 80 years, the Jews have been focusing all their energies on destroying all Aryan civilizations, including our very race. Through decades of careful and well planned conspiracies, high crimes and treasons, they have slowly degraded, corrupted and polluted every facet of our culture and lives.

And now they are attacking our very gene pool with a barrage of continuous propaganda, trying to get our young and gullible females to breed with blacks, of all things, and are attempting to created a mongrelized race of sub-human slaves. And the real horror of it all is that so the most part, it’s working. The thing that makes Jews so despised is the fact that they enjoy being evil. They like it. It’s the mentality of the spider.

Today’s white men must be held accountable for the raising of their daughters, teaching them the dangers of interracial dating and breeding, as if it were a death sentence. For that’s exactly what it is for us as a race. I would shoot a mulatto with the exact same gusto I’d use on a black.

Jews are hated for a lot of very good reasons, and none of them are biased, bigoted or racist. They are based strictly on fact. Jews have earned the deep hatred of every race on earth, and in particular my race. The time is fast approaching when that hatred will explode into the Final War, where one of us will not leave the battlefield alive.

It’ll be all or nothing…them or us. We dare not leave even one of those vile creatures alive. A hundred years from now, long after the Jews are dust, and control of the media and the history books are returned to mankind, history will record Hitler and the Germans in a very different light, and look upon World War II as one of the greatest tragedies in recorded history. It’ll be known as the war of the duped. Dead or alive, now and forever, the Jews will be a hated race. That’s their rightful place in history.

-The Lone Haranguer

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 30 other followers