New World Disorder – Kate Paulk

New World Disorder – Kate Paulk


Twenty five years ago, damn near to the day, the first crack in the Iron Curtain opened up when the Soviet Union chose not to prevent the appointment of the first non-communist Prime Minister of Poland since the nation was reconstituted after being functionally eliminated in World War 2 before being recreated as a Communist state by the USSR.


I remember the headlines that announced what was then a shocking change in the way the world worked. While I was growing up there was the First World, consisting of the modern Western democracies and republics, the Second World, consisting of the Eastern Bloc, China, and the assorted other Communist regime, and the Third World – the rest. Suddenly the Second World’s presence as a permanent antagonist to the First wasn’t quite as inevitable as it seemed.


For the next few months, it seemed like the world had turned upside down. Images of Trabants pouring across the Hungarian border into Austria (and the associated flood of trabi jokes) were a daily thing. Columnists reported the events, opinion pieces wondered when the crackdown would come, and people held their breaths (metaphorically) and hoped it wouldn’t end badly. (I should mention that this was Australia which has always paid close attention to the rest of the world. Something about huge tracts of land and an itty bitty population will do that).


Perhaps the iconic images of the mostly peaceful upheaval are the ones of the fall of the Berlin Wall. After that it seemed like a series of dominoes falling with regime after regime apparently packing up the cards and going away, with the sole exception of Romania where until the Romanian military defected en masse to the popular revolution, it seemed Ceausescu was going to hang on with his grim and bloody hands.


Then came the revelations of just what had been going on behind the Iron Curtain as secret police archives were opened and the west had more or less unfettered access to Eastern Europe for the first time in over 40 years. The Romanian orphanages and the AIDS children. The abuses the secret police perpetrated. The spying and propaganda and attempts to destabilize the west.


Australian news covered all of this – which led to (among other rather more momentous developments) at least one lifelong card-carrying Communist columnist publicly renouncing Communism in all its forms (I should mention that Australia never banned the Communist Party. There was even one elected to Parliament. One. Mostly because just about everyone in his electorate knew and liked him – he represented one of the remote, isolated regions of the country, and out there they tend to ignore labels like “party” and vote for the person). The footage and the newspaper reports were filled with what I think now was a mix of horror, outrage, and betrayal. Back then I was rather more naïve and only recognized the horror and outrage.


Enter the “New World Order”.


The Cold War might not have been pleasant, but there was a sense of stability to it. Everyone “knew” that the US would always oppose the “Reds” and that sooner or later the whole thing would explode in nuclear war and wipe us all out.


Suddenly that was gone. Worse than that, those who’d been pushing Communism as the kinder, gentler way to run a country saw the evidence that this was not in fact so – and that the Communist regimes uniformly bankrupted and destroyed the unfortunates stuck with them as well as themselves – and could not cope with a reality so much at odds with their cherished illusions (okay, yes, I did want to type ‘delusions’ there, but I’m having one of my rare moments of niceness, okay?).


Funnily enough, this is about when “Political Correctness” started to take hold, and when the really rancid criticisms of all things US began to pick up. Apparently without the threat of nuclear war to keep them grounded, the wannabes of the USA decided that if they couldn’t have Communism in the USSR under its own name they’d have it in the USA under any name they could manage to squeak it through by, leading to such delights as “Neocons” (which appears to have started as a way to describe socially conservative wannabe dictatorial types) and “Kinder, gentler conservatism” (yet another way to describe expanding Government power while pretending to be against overweening government stickybeaks. Apparently it’s perfectly acceptable if they only poke their noses into things those in power disapprove of. Like, oh, how much salt you cook with).


And, of course, steadily increasing madness and leftness from the acknowledged left side of the USA political system.


Which leads us to this little gem ( of wannabe dictatorial idiocy – the kind of thing that is only possible if you have the sort of utterly repressive regime the communists specialized in.


Quite simply this “female” is a prime example of post-Soviet Derangement Stupidity – she has no idea how ridiculous or impossible her “enlightened” notions are, much less the kind of repression that would be necessary to enforce them – but one suspects she wouldn’t hesitate to enforce them because it’s “right”. Even if this meant the oh-so-euphemistic “culling” of the male population (and this doesn’t even go close to the potential genetic issues with the dopey creature’s plan – but then, she doesn’t have a degree in anything requiring rigorous attention to fact, so this is hardly surprising).


Twenty five years after the Communist dominoes showed that there was at least one case where the domino theory held true (even if not the one the left liked to laugh at), the vileprogs haven’t recovered from discovering their utopia wasn’t, and they’re getting more and more deranged as the world (and particularly the USA) continues to fail to recognize the wonders of their thoroughly discredited, murderous dream.


Sure it can work this time. Over 100 million dead can’t possibly mean anything.

UPDATE: Word Press, in addition to having made it more difficult for me to post new posts — they have these cute three balls that go beep bop boop — forever.  And if you manage to get in under that model, and press publish (which is a bit hidden) it also takes forever and has yet to post, in fact — has decided if you use the word fascist you go into moderation.  There must be other words too, because people are being put into moderation for no reason I can see.  So, at least for fascist use appropriate asterisks…

433 responses to “New World Disorder – Kate Paulk

  1. Well done lady! And some people need to stop smoking whatever it is they have and take off the rose colored glasses… Reality DOESN’T skew to their utopian dreams, no matter how hard they push the PC agenda.

    • Thank you! Reality is rather fond of delivering harsh lessons to those who refuse to pay attention. Unfortunately the rest of us tend to get caught up in the resulting mess.

  2. For a couple of years I was in an engineering college, with a male to female ratio of 13 to 1. Very weird social dynamics. It didn’t translate to more dates, LOL.

    Somehow I don’t think that skewing the population ratio in the manner she suggests would end up with men being the pampered pets she seems to think they would be. Nor would they end up being safer. Of course, if your goal is to eliminate families, none of that would matter.

    • Maybe she just doesn’t like men and that’s why she’s urging the the virtual elimination of them.

      • That was my impression on reading the article.

        • Just a thought, this isn’t the same woman who is opposed to PIV, is she? I expect if not, they are soul sisters, anyway.

          • impossible to verify, since radical wind hides her identity in such a paranoiac manner — however, that very paranoia makes it unlikely — witness that her reaction to 85,000 hits in a day was:
            ‘When men view our blogs in such large numbers, it’s a threat. They’re not just looking at it, they view it with the intent of harming radical feminists and women in general.”
            “85,000, that’s the maximum number of views I had in one day a couple of weeks ago when the liberals and MRAs circulated my PIV blogpost for punishment. Unlike a normal blogger, attracting 85,000 hits isn’t something I want to celebrate. It’s threatening: you know they’re after you, it only means you’ve hit men’s radar and you have no idea what they plan to do. Will they attempt to hack into my blog? Will they try to find info about me? The kinds of thought this leads me to is 85,000 men going after me in real life.”

            This makes her consenting to an interview and admitting to her age and having a child unlike.

            Besides, she has a different site.

            • You quote: It’s threatening: you know they’re after you, it only means you’ve hit men’s radar and you have no idea what they plan to do. Will they attempt to hack into my blog? Will they try to find info about me? The kinds of thought this leads me to is 85,000 men going after me in real life.

              Yeah, right. She advocates a goal of limiting men to a very small percentage of the population. She might possibly consider that men also might be concerned at what, if carried out, is a threat to the future existence of their kind.

              • No, these are different women. However, you are right about radical wind’s views of men — having swallowed an account claiming that life on Earth is going extinct within a century, and the damage is too far gone to prevent it, she blames men, and then,

                “Now, even if a few men talk of committing suicide and of reducing global human population – well that’s still doing us a disservice, you egotistic liberal cowards. How many men, at best, will commit suicide? Maybe 1%? Or one in five thousand? What difference will that make? Let me tell you: if the least worse men bother to commit suicide without bothering to euthanise the rest of man-kind, they will be leaving women alone to fend with the worst of worse males . . . .So, to all men, before all life goes extinct, you could at least do us the favour of leaving us these 15 last years free of your foul presence. You never really cared about life anyway. You’re not even capable of interacting with her. What difference does it make to you? What is one sub-male human species compared to billions of species on earth? Nothing.”

                • Well there’s synchronicity for you. I just found this link via Dr. Helen. Seems men commit suicide at about 3.5 times the rate that women do…

                  • And, based on my experience in the military, there’s a significant fraction of that suicide rate that is directly attributable to women’s treatment of men.

                    Whether it’s late in life divorce for no real reason and the destruction of the family and economic prospects, or the romantic entanglements of the younger men I worked with, the clear majority of the suicides I had some personal knowledge of or had to deal with the after-effects thereof in the military had some component of female involvement.

                    Not that long ago, I heard of another one that I knew, whose wife decided that she wasn’t being “fulfilled” by her marriage, and decided to end it, taking the majority of the economic assets with her and leaving him in poverty. He got her removed from the Survivor’s Benefit program, somehow, and then ate the muzzle of his pistol–All in the name of revenge, I suppose. Not sure about the rest of the details, but the crap she put him through probably had a good deal to do with that decision, particularly the estrangement of the kids and the allegations of molestation of his daughters. Frankly, I hope she feels “fulfilled”, because the rest of the rumor has it that she’s losing their house, and the insurance money is in a trust for the kids once they hit college.

                    Of course, that’s all reported third-hand. I couldn’t see this guy doing this, from what I knew of him, but I do remember him being a very devoted and committed family man. Chalk another one up for “no-fault” divorce laws…

                • The Daughter would here suggest that anyone who hates the human race this much should set the example by immediate elimination of themselves.

                  • she doesn’t hate the human race. She hates men. this is because men and men alone are responsible for everything evil.

                • Insert joke about Arrogant Ear Worms here…

                  • Wow, got that in the wrong place:-(. ‘Twas supposed to be in response to Madama Hoyt’s comment about having the Arrogant Worms stuck in her head. Apologies for the apparent non sequitur.

                • Ah, yes. But still, The Daughter is firmly of the opinion that it is only just that anyone who desires that some group should be eliminated should set the example first — even if they are not of the same sub-set.

                  • This rather fits the observation of some of the abolitionists that those who are in favor of slavery ought to experience it first-hand before their opinion carried weight.

              • She might possibly consider that men also might be concerned at what, if carried out, is a threat to the future existence of their kind.

                Wait… you’re talking like men are PEOPLE or something.

            • Jordan S. Bassior

              Anyone who wants to “threaten” me with readership is welcome to look at my Livejournal


              or Fantastic Worlds


              or my fanfiction


              I will feel terrified by your regard.

      • “If technology has not advanced to a point where labour can be done without men, the few men that are necessary for said labour will be allowed to work on the outside of the reservations to complete whatever tasks necessary—if they wish.

        Like slaves?

        “Not as slaves, simply as workers performing a duty, in the same way workers today do. Only without the need for monetary reimbursement as they would have no need for such a thing. This would be highly monitored and regulated.”

        Like slaves, in other words.

        • ” If children are made wards of the state with assigned caretakers, not only will it be easier to undo the constraints of bigotry and the other archaic beliefs that are passed down from parents to their children, but children can be used to monitor the older generations in regard to the propagation of bigoted and antediluvian values.”

          Res ipsa loquitur.

      • There was a movie about just this in the 1950s called Queen of Outer Space. It starred Zsa Zsa Gabor, IIRC.

        When academic thinkers find themselves seriously proposing to implement the plots for old B (C?) movies that were laughed at by teenagers at drive-ins be certain that D.E.V.O. has happened and idiocracy has arrived.

        • D E V O?

        • In fairness, I went back and checked the link. The one who cooked up this theory is a 22-year-old single-mom who is an undergrad and started it as a rant, and now seems to be doing it to get clicks for her Youtube site.

          Maybe we’re the idiots for taking her seriously and not just laughing at her.

          • If I weren’t afraid of someone else reading that and thinking “Hey! THERE’S a thought!” I would just laugh it off. Things like this and the idea of getting re-educated if the revolution runs their way make me worry.

            • Here’s the thing: the left and progressivism etc. is male dominated. You certainly have your useful female idiots but free sex and judgement free promiscuity and disposable children (for which men are in no way to be concerned about) and unilateral divorce and wives expected to put bringing home a paycheck ahead of raising children all come from the evil side of those with XY chromosomes.

              Do you really think women want a world where nine of them have to share one man?

              Larry Flynt and Gloria Steinem support the same candidates and causes. Flynt is almost always the one who gets his way on policy matters.

              • The proposal does not have one man shared by nine women. That would be too restrictive — too stable. No, the men are to be kept separately, and more or less checked out as needed.

            • My pet fear is that crazy person will come up with an epidemic to either kill everybody off or just the men. You can’t have a healthy world without men.

              That single mom should join a convent and leave the rest of us alone.

          • I think she ought to be laughed at, long and hard, AND have this grand scheme demolished in every detail by people with a better grounding in genetics and general biology than I. This is the kind of crackpot scheme which sounds appealing to a certain kind of person living in a closed little bubble. Lamentably, people in closed little bubbles these days seem to have the capacity to really screw things up for the rest of us.

            • I’m kind of OK with 9 girls for every boy. It’s like an upgraded Beach Boys song.

              • Wayne Blackburn

                Can you imagine being nagged at by 9 different women??!? (Shudder)

                • “Harcourt Fenton Mudd! Is that alcohol I smell on your breath?”

                  • LOLOLOL!

                    The ultimate response.

                  • Thanks for the reminder that it is a common delusion of those advocating harems/polygamy/gang marriage that all (many … some … maybe a few … any) of the women would be “Hawt!”

                    Real world experience and observation should suggest that such is usually not the case and even when it is, it is so only ephemerally.

                    It sorta brings to mind a recent advice column in which the writer asked “Miss Lonelyhearts” whether her friends might be right, she might be “settling.” None of the participants in the discussion seemed concerned about whether the guy in question was “settling.”

                  • Was that from the comics? That reads as familiar to me!

                    (Oh man, I miss the old Star Trek comics.)

                    • Very end of the television episode “I, Mudd”.

                    • And if you don’t remember that one by name, it’s’ the one where Harry Mudd had landed on a planet full of androids, and had had them make a copy of his wife so he could remember what he was trying to stay away from.

                    • And at the end Kirk leaves him there with at least four fully functional copies of her… and one labeled ‘500’. We never find out if there really are that many or if it’s just a clever bit of psychological comeuppance So, imagine that line… in chorus. (I bring it up because, well… it seems relevant to the discussion of why an imbalance in the gender ratio might be a bad thing for the guy.)

                    • “Shut up, Stella!”

                • William O. B'Livion

                  Generally the case in these situations is that the woman gets shoved out.

                  Sometimes literally.

                  See, well, almost any polygamous culture.

                • IMHO, the fact that Islam allows multiple wives goes a LONG way towards explaining eagerness for martyrdom…..

                • Nine Mothers-in-law. Think about it.

                  • Don’t wanna. Sounds like something smart moms would threaten their sons with (and daughters, too, come to think) when they were bad…

                  • Wayne Blackburn

                    That’s what security doors are for.

                  • Eamon J. Cole

                    Polygamous society. What are the chances each of those wives doesn’t have — nine “mothers”?

                    81 mothers-in-law.

                    • “These thousand stout warriors, O Tsarevitch, were beaten by Maria Morevna, daughter of three mothers, grand daughter of six grandmothers, sister of nine brothers, the beautiful Tsar’s daughter.”

                • I don’t think she is talking about polygamy. Reading what I could stand of the woman’s interview I got the impression that ultimately men were to be segregated from society as a whole except when they were ‘necessary’ for physical labor and for reproduction.

                  • Wayne Blackburn

                    Yeah, probably more like brothels combined with hired labor.

                    • Not hired. She specifically disclaims paying them. Since she also claims they will do the work voluntarily, apparently volunteering.

                    • Wayne Blackburn

                      Still hired. They gotta run the brothel somehow, don’t they? The men would be “indentured servants” (since she specifically disavowed the term “slaves” too) and therefore not paid any of the money taken for their services.

                    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                      I suspect she’d dislike the men refusing to do the work she want them to “volunteer” to do.

                    • Yup, as in: ‘Listen up, you have been volunteered.’

                      We know that every man will love doing hard physical labor for others for no personal reward, just like every women loved being bare foot and pregnant in the kitchen.

                      On further thought, I don’t think she really hates men. She doesn’t really know men. She hates what she thinks men are.

              • This whole thing just goes to add some evidence to my contention that polygamy has generally been the idea of women and extremely immature men living in a fantasy world.

                If you go back and look, the general reason that polygamy got started as a societal norm was that the older women in the society were seeking to regulate sexual access to younger and more fertile women, while retaining their own positions. Life as a senior wife whose position was somewhat secure was a better option than being the older, less-fertile woman who was cast aside in favor of the available younger woman.

                So, I think what generally happened was that the older woman would set up a situation where her husband got the sexual access to younger women who he wanted/needed (for some value of “continue the lineage” in cases where the older wife hadn’t produced surviving kids…) and retained her position within the family structure. That she likely did this in collusion with the involved male doesn’t make a difference–If it were done in terms of the male’s benefit, serial monogamy makes a hell of a lot more sense, because he wouldn’t have been responsible for supporting the older, no longer attractive wives. So, I contend that traditional polygamy was more likely to be the woman’s idea, making the best of a bad situation where she was having to tolerate having her age/wisdom being displaced by youth and sexual attraction.

                If you go back and look, you can see signs of this in the most recent Western example of polygamy starting to develop in the post-Mormon Exodus period. Granted, there was some element there of your typical religious cult leadership taking advantage of their position to get access to the young and attractive, but a large part of that whole situation had more to do with the plethora of female competition that threatened the positions of the elder wives. Better to regulate it, and stay in a polygamous relationship, as opposed to getting shunted aside in favor of the young and nubile competition.

                Frankly, I can’t think of a single reasonably mature male that I know who doesn’t outwardly shudder at the idea of sharing his life with multiple women as wives. One is hard enough, who the hell would want to multiply that whole thing by ten? Hell, even the Islamic world puts a limit on it at 4…

                A 10/1 female/male ratio probably looks good to a 16-year old kid. To someone in his more mature years? The stuff of nightmares, without doubt. Can you imagine the horror of trying to keep 10 wives happy? Even just keeping up with the emotional baggage would likely wear most men down to suicide in just a few short years. You’d never know peace or privacy.

                • That’s a long response for a tongue-in-cheek comment. I will note that note that you are most certainly incorrect in that polygamy is the woman’s idea whether it be Mormonism or Islam or serial marriages.

                  And yes, polygamy is wrong.

                  • Lengthy replies to off-handed remarks are kinda a signature of our good host’s site, are they not?

                    To address your other issues with what I say, here’s another:

                    Refute the idea that women weren’t beneficiaries of traditional polygamy, and the most likely to have come up with it, then. I base my arguments on reason and historical evidence. Men, faced with a reproductive situation where they are bound to an older, less-fertile woman are going to opt in favor of serial monogamous relationships, trading older and less fertile women for younger and more fertile ones. That would be the “male ideal”, I’m afraid–Lots and lots of sexual partners, with the earliest ones in the queue being dropped like hot potatoes as their fertility and attractiveness dropped.

                    When you examine the details, retention of the past partners in a continued marital relationship does not benefit the male–He’s burdened with her upkeep, and has no prospect of benefit from it in terms of passing on his genes. Retention of that partner in a senior position is very unlikely to have been something that any male would have come up with, based strictly on a cost/benefit calculation. You need children to pass wealth onto, and to support you, and if your partner isn’t bringing those children into being, what other option do you have, in a primitive setting? You have to analyze these things as though you were looking at a business enterprise, not from the standpoint we have the luxury of taking (and, mistakenly assuming as some kind of “natural law”) from the purely romantic standpoint. Families in tribal societies living in desperate environmental circumstances are not creations of romantic love, they’re very Darwinian business organizations. Fail to have a bunch of kids, and you’re not going to last long, or have much of an old age–And, that goes for the elder wives, who may have lost all their children to infighting or misadventure early on. Having younger, fertile wives was just as much a life-affirming situation for her as it was for her partner.

                    If you were an elder male in a tribal society, and did not have children or the prospect of children, you and your no-longer-fertile spouse were done for. Bringing in a younger wife who could provide those children for the business enterprise that was the family unit was almost mandatory, and the woman in this situation would have been just as eager as I describe to retain her position and status as senior wife–Particularly when you examine her options. Hell, you can make a damn good argument that polygamy was actually a more humane solution than the other options, like being left to die in the desert while migrating to follow the herd animals.

                    And, as for polygamy being “wrong”, on what do you base that determination? It’s certainly been an accepted societal structure/norm going back to the Old Testament. You’ll have a hard time arguing that it is somehow “immoral”, given the huge numbers of long-standing social groups that have made it work, for a given value of “functioned for a long damn time without change”, whether you’re talking the Old Testament Jews, or the Chinese. So, “wrong” means what, to your mind? Doesn’t work? Not mandated by religion? Genetically flawed, somehow?

                    In the final analysis, the only question about any social structure or tradition is “does it work?”, and for that, you have to look at the surrounding cultural and environmental matrix. High male mortality rates? Relatively low female mortality rates, despite poor childbirth practices? Polygamy is probably a more stable structural choice than serial monogamy. Absent those two conditions, I’d submit that polygamy is probably a very negative social feature, and a key contributor to the instability and backwards nature of modern Middle Eastern cultures. When the tradition evolved, however? It was obviously a very workable social institution, or it wouldn’t have become such in the first place.

                    Social structures and traditions aren’t things you can evaluate in terms of “right” or “wrong”. You can really only examine the how and why of their rise and fall, and whether or not they work. For some situations, polygamy “works”, but in others, it is inimical and destructive. I would be the first to say that in a cultural/environmental matrix like the modern West, it would be a horrid idea. We simply don’t kill off enough of our young males, and the resulting social instability from having to cope with a huge number of unattached, uncommitted young men would be extraordinarily destructive. For examples, see many modern Arabic cultures where polygamy is widespread…

                    When you get down to it, the word “wrong” as you seem to be using it, is generally is defined as “my people don’t do that, and I find it very disturbing”. That, sadly, does not equate to it really being “wrong” in an absolute value sense of meaning. There are a million and one ways for humans to organize themselves, and the only real criterion that can be applied to those folkways is “does it work?”. Polygamy has worked in many places for many people, for very long periods of time. That those conditions no longer apply in modern societies with good medicine and sanitation? That does not translate to some sort of “morally right” absolute value. Hell, there have been conditions in modern times where polygamy might well have been a better solution than the work-arounds to monogamy that our societies came up with.

                    Case in point–Post-WWII Yugoslavia. The region that my stepfather came from in Slovenia suffered some truly horrendous losses of men. For much of the immediate post-war era, there may very well have been something like an effective 10/1 ratio of willing, fertile women to willing men, who were not faithful to their wedding vows. And, yet… There was later a plethora of single mothers raising kids on their own, all of whom described their husbands as having been “lost in the war”. Which is kinda odd, considering that the kids were born in the late forties and early fifties…

                    What was really going on was that there were a bunch of very busy “married” men running around, like my step-grandfather. My stepdad may well have had a couple of dozen half-brothers and -sisters running around that region, because Ati got around, to quite a few different women. Known, undeniable fact, to all and sundry–It was something of a family joke. Question was, however, just how many kids resulted from that. That wasn’t kept track of, by anyone.

                    Now, is it better that you had a massively high rate of effective illegitimacy, and single parenthood with no real father in the picture, or would it have been better for there to have been a polygamous structure in place to regulate things? Not least, in keeping track of who boinked who, in order to prevent half-brother/sister marriages in the second generation.

                    One of the things my Mom noticed when she visited the area in the 1970s was just how many people of that generation physically and behaviorally resembled my stepfather’s father. It was that obvious–Even an outsider noticed and commented on it. And, yet, when you looked at the old photo albums and the pictures on the walls, the resemblances to the purported “lost in the war” husbands just weren’t there, nor were there many resemblances to the rest of the family. Purely subjective, of course, but it would be fascinating to do a total genetic workup on that little region, just to see what was really going on. I imagine that you’d probably have a hard time getting people to sign on for it, though.

                    So, right there… Perfect example of how our generally monogamous social structures don’t always work out for the best. So, does that make them somehow “wrong”? For that time and place, for those conditions? Perhaps.

                    I suppose it all depends on how you would define “wrong”, which I’d have to do on the basis of “does it work?” and “does it produce positive results for the participants, willing and unwilling?”. In the sense of not knowing for sure who your father was, or who your half-siblings might be, I’d submit that the social structural situation in that place and time was not optimal, and that polygamy might have been a better, “less-wrong” solution. It sure as hell would have meant someone taking responsibility for supporting those kids, rather than pawning it off on some poor single mother. For that aspect alone, I think that polygamy would have been a more rational solution. It would certainly have helped prevent what could best be described as “unintentional incest”.

                    And, oh-by-the-way, similar things were going on in post-WWII Germany, as well as quite a few other post-war venues. My stepdad was able to cut quite a swathe through the ladies, even as a quasi-Slavic DP working for the British Occupation authorities. A friend of his from that period in his life once remarked to me that it wouldn’t come as much of a surprise to him that there were a half-dozen or more additional unacknowledged kids in our little family group, just from Germany alone. Consider the odds of some of those kids meeting and marrying in the second generation, and then tell me that monogamy is the only “right” social structure, in those circumstances. Polygamy certainly has its negative features, but it does have one benefit in such chaotic circumstances–Keeping track of the bloodlines. At least, on the surface–There’s no telling what’s really going on, even in our modern, more-enlightened societies. Given the rate of infidelity, you have to wonder how much inadvertent inbreeding is really going on. Small enough communities, and it might well be damn near unavoidable.

                    I am, by the way, a very firm believer in pre-marital genetic screening and counseling. I’ve seen a couple of nasty surprises happen, and which came from some “very good families”.

                    • –Refute the idea that women weren’t beneficiaries of traditional polygamy, and the most likely to have come up with it, then. I base my arguments on reason and historical evidence. —

                      By women, I’m going to take it to mean in general rather than specific individuals. Obviously a queen bee would do pretty well in the hive, whereas the workers not so much. As there is only one queen and many workers, that’s actually a pretty good rebuttal right there.

                      Still it’s history that tells us that it is men who invariably cook up justifications for polygamy. See Mohammed and Joseph Smith. Now can you name an instance where that wasn’t the case?

                    • We’ve hit the comment wall, Bill, so this is in reply to my own comment.

                      I think it’s fairly obvious that you’ve never read the same sources I have, where the various wives of Brigham Young wrote and said things that pretty much support my contentions. Mormon plural marriage historically had a strong component of regularizing relations between the limited number of men, particularly the so-called “alphas”, and the fairly large number of available women, many of whom were widows.

                      Unfortunately, we can’t go back and talk to the ancients who came up with this social structure, and virtually nothing has come down to us of what many of the women thought about the whole thing. Given that they’ve historically defended the practice, and willingly participated in it, I think it’s pretty clear that they perceived some benefit from it.

                      It’s not the way we do things, it’s not optimal for our current conditions, but in many situations, it does work, and there’s thousands of years of history backing that idea up. High male mortality rates for multi-generational periods probably argue for such structures, if only to keep inbreeding down to a manageable level. Coupling polygamy with cousin marriage the way the Arabs are doing it these days, however, is bloody disastrous. If the real numbers ever become commonly known, I suspect there will be a lot of shock on many faces. Anecdotes I’ve heard from women who worked in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as neo-natal nurses would blow most Western minds, if they were ever to come out and be verified.

                      I don’t defend the practice, and it would be a cold day in hell before I ever took part in such an arrangement, but the cold fact is that it does have a place in certain narrow social situations. That’s a value-free judgment, and I suspect that a certain amount of social flexibility in this regard might have been a better idea than what we did do, had the male/female ratios remained depressed for more than a few generations. Under such scenarios, polygamy might be a positive net good, if only to help prevent large numbers of half-brother/-sister matches from happening.

                      As always with these things, my two criteria when evaluating social structures are “does it work?” and “do the participants benefit overall?”. In most cases, I agree wholeheartedly that polygamy has a solid “no” for both questions. However, there are certain limited conditions under which both questions may well be determined as solid “yes” answers.

                    • Kirk,

                      I’m sure you can find some circumstances where it would work and even be the right thing to do. Sister Wives (don’t know if it’s still on) makes the claim. I’m confident though while it may have been accepted by women in certain times and places, when it is put in place it is initiated by men and most women would prefer monogamy.

                      Here is a challenge: name a woman who has founded a polygamous lifestyle. I can think of free love advocates. I can think of celibacy advocates, but I can’t think of any female polygamy advocates at least as movement leaders.

                      I’ve been responding via the email subscription and that still gives me a reply option. Haven’t checked the board in a while. .

                  • Now can you name an instance where that wasn’t the case?

                    Sarah in the Old Testament. In her case, it was done with an eye toward getting an heir for her husband. Things got a bit messy when she later gave birth to Isaac, though…

                    Abraham’s grandson, Jacob, was also in a polygamous relationship. In his case, it wasn’t exactly his idea. He worked for Rachel, the younger daughter, and was given Leah, the older daughter instead using a cheap trick. Then the he married Rachel (whom he was genuinely in love with). When Rachel kept failing to conceive, she had one of her handmaidens act as a surrogate for her… which caused Leah to do the same with one of her own handmaidens. Jacob’s father in law most likely cooked up the initial scheme, but Leah almost certainly knew exactly what was going to happen if she went through with the plan.

                    David and Solomon appear to have been polygamous in part for political reasons (marriages were used to seal alliances) – though that wasn’t the case with all of their marriages. *cough*Bathsheba*cough*

                    • Sarah and Rachel would be good examples albeit Sarah ended up regretting it and Hagar really ended up regretting it.

                    • Sarah, Leah, and Rachel did not come up with the idea of polygyny. They lived in a society where it was already a frequent practice, and were doing their best to game the system to their own advantage.

                • This is not inconsistent with the Biblical tale of Jacob, his wives wives, Rachel and Leah, and his concubines/their handmaidens, Bilhah and Zilpah. Biblical scholars will recall that it did not make for a harmonious household.

                  Anybody familiar with the social dynamics of girls’ middle school (St Trinians, anyone?) will instantly perceive the fallacy in the idea of a gynocentric society being peaceful.

                  The idea that a female only society would have no competition for status or dominance would be laughable except it ain’t a bit funny.

                  Oh, yeah: the older woman also gets a younger woman to do all the household drudgery as well as take on the chore of satisfying the man’s lust. For womyn who deem P-I-V = rape, this is a wyn-wyn.

                  • In practice, it tends to be the older women who end up doing all the household drudgery, because their husband is no longer sexually interested in them and they have to do something to keep her place in the household.

                    Remember, both in Biblical times and in modern Islam, the polygamous husband could divorce any or all of his wives at will.

          • Wayne Blackburn

            I don’t think that taking her seriously is being an idiot. There are likely a lot of other feminists who agree with her.

            • And all of them really, really, really hate being laughed at.

              I don’t think Krista is serious, btw. I strongly suspect her motivation is to get attention (and clicks and money)

          • The first thing I got linked today was this:

            Unfortunately, it’s all too easy to see how many people would go for her idea.

            • If you ever want to turn yourself into a radical feminist read some of the so-called “men’s magazines”. There are sick, stupid and/or egocentric people of both sexes. For those who want a happy, safe, sane society the goal is to keep them from power and influence and I frankly think that is what we have been failing at.

              Amazons taking over and wiping out 90- percent of my sex is something that is pretty low on my list of concerns.

              And really, I’m pretty confident I’d be in that lucky 10 percent. I’m cute.

              What is much higher on my list of concerns is social forces telling young men that they are not needed as fathers (and the young men saying “yippeee”) and telling young women they do not need fathers to raise their children (and the young women setting their chins determinedly while saying some famous person said it so this must be so), which means that a generation of boys grows into undisciplined thugs and a generation of girls grows up unknowing that males can be kind and decent, and unknowing how she should expect to be treated by them.

              While means society becomes a violent, miserable earthly hell.

              That’s a much bigger concern to me than the amazons. That and a solar storm wiping out our unshielded infrastructure.

              And Islamic fundamentalism. And Islamic fundamentalists figuring on trying to use ebola as a weapon. Or ebola just spreading anyway. And the $17 trillion debt turning our dollars into pennies and, well, you get the idea.

            • Addendum: what is going on at Amherst and the rest of academia and the legislative attempt to end presumption of innocence is something to take very seriously.

              I would call Krista a fairly minor symptom with the academia policy setters being the disease.

              • I think that want to be able to say with no demurrals, you you and you are guilty, whether they are guilty or not. They want to be able to punish someone on the basis of their subjective ideas and feelings.

      • And after a couple of generations – given a limited number of breeding males as sires – methinks the inbreeding would be horrific. There would be all kinds of damaging recessives coming out … kind of like Saudi Arabia today, after several generations of cousins marrying cousins.
        Why, yes – though I majored in English, my mom was a biology major, and Dad just barely missed a PHD in zoology. I had scientific method over the breakfast table … unlike little MS Man-hater.

        • Would killing the extremely damaged help at all?

          • The extremely damaged are unlikely to be breeding in the first place.

            The only way to lower the risk is to have a bigger pool, so the recessives don’t meet up.

          • Well, in theory you could kill all those who have recessives– I think Anne McC had at least one universe where colonies were designed around selecting so nobody had any recessives, for the non murderous option– but then you could still end up with stuff that mutated into a new recessive. (I know it’s not exactly mutated, but I can’t remember if there’s a special word for the gene swapping thing.)

            • It’s like dog breeding… Killing the recessives only accomplishes the reduction of the gene pool overall (they may have been recessive for one trait, but diverse for others). Only cure is a larger gene pool — you can’t cull a population to health.

          • I think she considers being born male “Damaged” so…

          • Diminishing returns. As Dad used to say, Mother Nature was a right b*tch.

        • Eamon J. Cole

          Oh, she’s solved all that. Just needs a little tech refinement.


          Further research into designer babies will be necessary: manipulating gender or sex, prenatal sex discernment, sex-selective abortions, development of dual-female progeny (babies created from two mothers), and numerous other mechanisms will be utilised in order to achieve these aspirations.

          • She hasn’t solved the ‘You want to do WHAT to my son?’ factor…

            • Sounds like MZB’s Free Amazons.

            • Eamon J. Cole

              She’s a twit. I remind myself of this, so I don’t grow angry.

              • Yeah…though I’m not sure I’ve managed more than ‘not as angry’.

                • Eamon J. Cole

                  Part of the trick, you have to tell yourself the knotted muscles in your forearms, the clenched teeth, the flushed face, that tension across your back, the cold ticking in your brain — you have to tell yourself this is not anger. It’s not. You’re not angry. Breathe — breathe — you’re not angry…

                  Rewriting the terms helps me stay calm.


            • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

              Chuckle Chuckle

              Saw this “SF” book in the Kindle Store.

              It’s set on another planet (human settled) where woman live in comfort in cities while men live in the wild outside the cities.

              The female main character is about to send her son out of the city but wants a daughter to stay with her much longer.

              She can’t afford the “hunting license” to go (literally) hunt a man in the wild to give her another child, hopefully a daughter.

              This off-world man is tracking a criminal (likely male) and needs a “hunting” guide.

              So the woman thinks that helping him hunt down the criminal will pay for her “hunting license”.

              Oh, this is a romance. [Shakes Head]

              • *facepalms* That’s… no. Just… no.

              • A hunter? To find a male to mate with?

                Because setting up a big tent just outside the city gates with a big sign that said, “Free no-commitment sex here!” *totally* wouldn’t work…

                What simultaneously bugs me and cracks me up about stuff like this is the schizoid approach on the part of the author. It seems pretty safe to guess that men are forced out into the wilderness because of some fear regarding men always following their baser natures. But at the same time, the writer seems to think that women would actually need to hunt down a male for sex. Because the males all go into hiding or something whenever a ready and willing sexual partner shows up?

                • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                  Supposedly, part of the “hunt” involves the males “hunting” women to “do harm” to the women.

                  Mind you, if I was a boy thrown out of a comfortable home into the wild by his mother, I’d be willing to “do harm” to any woman I met in the wild.

                  • And I take it an underground of mothers going ‘you’re not doing that to my son and you can’t make me do it we’ll make other options if we have to’ is never considered?

                    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                      I only know what’s on the blurb and I’m not purchasing it to find out.

                    • Fair enough, I’m disinclined to find out except, perhaps, by tossing it at a friend who actually enjoyed Gate to Women’s country. (To her credit, mostly she enjoyed analyzing the heck out of it.)

                    • SheSellsSeashells

                      I swear that reading Sheri S. Tepper did more to turn me conservative than reading William F. Buckley did. There’s a significant thread in many of her books where the Wise Elite keep secrets from the Backward Proles (Wholesomeness optional) for their own good, the poor benighted darlings, and it’s presented to be a GOOD thing. “Gate to Women’s Country” and “A Plague of Angels” were the two worst offenders that I can remember.

                      Tepper’s responsible for two of the three books I’ve ever thrown across the room upon completion; I used to read her to keep myself from getting complacent, but after “The Fresco” I gave up on her completely. Still love “Grass”, though.

                    • I was already a libertarian when I read her, and two of the books I read made me take long, hot showers.

                    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                      The sad thing about Tepper is that I first “met” her as the writer of the True Game series.

                      Those were interesting and enjoyable stories.

                      The Footseer series was a “follow up” to the True Games series, and while somewhat enjoyable at first, got into “Liberal Message” stuff.

                      The message stuff didn’t completely destroy the story but I wasn’t surprised when I read the blurbs of her “important works”.

                      I’ve never read her “important works” and don’t think I’ve missed much.

                    • Tepper’s later books had a certain horrific addictiveness — took some effort to break off — but it wasn’t just the Wise Elite. It was that the things the Wise Elite did.
                      *involuntary mass breeding
                      *involuntary neutering of all mankind
                      *massive historical censorship
                      *mass, involuntary secret abortions
                      *mass infanticide of children who are under the age of two and third or later children

                      Indeed, once when the Wise Elite committed genocide — a Wise provision got out of hand — they censored it from history, and this censorship is presented as a wise and benevolent and generous act.

                • Wayne Blackburn

                  It seems pretty safe to guess that men are forced out into the wilderness because of some fear regarding men always following their baser natures.

                  What the author clearly fails to recognize is that this would drive a considerable number of men to revert to their baser natures, and would probably result in them assaulting the city and taking women any way they pleased.

                  • The author would no doubt argue that cooperation on the scale needed to assault the city is impossible by the “base” males.


                    I suspect that the city also runs into another problem common in literary urban communities – where exactly does all of the food come from?

                    • Duh! The supermarket! Isn’t that were ALL food comes from? I mean besides the Indian take out place?

              • Oh for F’s sake, that’s . . . ugh. Romance? *elbows on desk, head in hands* Oh [redacted gerund] h-ll, just for that I’m going to finish that d-mn battle scene today, so I can have the protagonists (married – to each other) have a long, passionate kiss afterwards. *starts typing*

        • There are 7 billion people on this planet — 3.5 billion men — 90% of them dead would give you 350 million breeding sires, which gives you a little margin.

          • 90% of them dead would leave you with a serious shortage of people inclined to tinker with machinery. Yes, yes, I know, not all females are mechanically clueless. but it does skew in that direction. Heavily. Also, a lot of gear (like HVAC) comes in segments that an adult man in decent condition can just about move into place without damaging himself. So, before I put this idiocy into practice, I’s look long and hard at a major global redesign.

            I still think she’s setting herself up for one hell of a wait when the dishwasher breaks down…

            • She’ll just have to make sure that she buys a Maytag dishwasher. That repair guy *never* gets any work.


              • She obviously likes washing dishes by hand and having functioning tech. It sounds to me like a macro version of some people’s family where the husband is banished from the house.

    • “The odds are good but The Goods are odd.”

    • Rather than try to respond all the way down the thread, some general comments here: I’ve spent a LOT of time in environments which were predominantly male, and a fair amount in predominantly female environments. Off my experience I’ll take the male-dominated every time: as soon as I’ve established that I can pull my weight, I become “one of the guys” and that’s the end of it.

      In the female-dominated environments the bitching and backstabbing is horrendous. In this twit’s scenario, sooner or later the men would take over just to shut the damn bitches up. And being male, they *could*.

      • Off my experience I’ll take the male-dominated every time: as soon as I’ve established that I can pull my weight, I become “one of the guys” and that’s the end of it.

        In the female-dominated environments the bitching and backstabbing is horrendous. In this twit’s scenario, sooner or later the men would take over just to shut the damn bitches up. And being male, they *could*.

        The college I went to was known before I left for East Berlin as an All Girls school, but at some point while I was gone they ran a… decade? long experiment with being co-ed. My entry year (1998) was the last year of being co-ed enrollment. The reason for co-ed education no longer continuing? Despite the fact that there weren’t that many guys (you’d have maybe 5-8 girls per guy in terms of ratio, rough guesstimate), the girls tended to hand leadership positions to the guys by majority vote because they weren’t keen on ‘stepping out’ or ‘sticking out’ – because doing THAT as we girls all well know, tends to result in bitching and backstabbing – plus there was the usual vying for the man’s attention.

        Wasn’t exactly conducive to ‘encouraging the next generation of strong women.’ Mind there were several strong-minded, independent young women there who thrived in being no different from their male counterparts, and the ones who stood out and weren’t intimidated tended to flock together anyway because damn having to deal with the whiny bitches was exhausting as hell. They had the ‘treated no different’ by the guys status – and did not care about the bitchy whining that came their way.

        The guys tended to also have girlfriends outside of campus, but were very protective of their female friends. The last ‘batch’ of guys were very good at the subtle verbal put-down – which made sense. They couldn’t hit the girls but if they expressed their dislike or disapproval in a very public, verbal manner, the slapdown still happened, but the girl being too obnoxious couldn’t do anything but take the humiliation.

        And the ‘strong minded, independent’ young ladies who were like that and came out of the school stronger for it? Their mothers and fathers were not too different from their daughters and also got along very well with each other.

        Which only, really, solidified my belief that leadership, independence confidence isn’t something you learn in college, it’s something you learn at home.

        Which the feminists are out to destroy. *shakes head*

        • Despite the fact that there weren’t that many guys (you’d have maybe 5-8 girls per guy in terms of ratio, rough guesstimate), the girls tended to hand leadership positions to the guys by majority vote

          This sort of thing has been noted by the feminists. It’s one of the reasons why many of them push for all-female classrooms and the like. They don’t like to admit it, but they’re well aware that many females tend to be less assertive when men are around. They believe that isolating the women in classroom environments and similar situations will allow the women to become properly assertive before the work environment forces the women to start dealing with males on a professional basis.

          • I think most of the uberrabid feminists were either highly idealistic in my school, or were blind to the social scene just within that school alone. The ones who weren’t blind and weren’t trying to push for dominance but actual equality, did their best to actually mentor the real strong personalities and tried to shield them from the radfems.

            I knew someone who let herself be abused and bullied by a group of snotty bitches, I think a few of them she was attracted to. She pretty much said this was probably as good as it was ever going to get for her.

            Said snotty bitches went out of their way to heap attention on a rather nebbish looking Puerto Rican when we were on our overseas trip, and had the poor guy eating out of the hand of one of them. When I was working one of the girls rather cattily informed me that he was proposing marriage to one of the other girls, and asked me if any of the ‘cute foreigners’ they were accusing me of having slept with had done the same. (They’d tried to get me in trouble over the trip by reporting to the faculty who were chaperoning that I was ‘sleeping around.’ The faculty in question didn’t believe them because they saw me every evening in the hotel’s business lounge, preparing for the next panel.)

            The dean of my major happened to overhear as she was coming down the hallway and stopped and asked to see the photo album I kept of my friends and proceeded to show off the pictures of the people I’d made friends with, all foreigners – Rhys included. She pointed at his picture and asked if he’d called me today. I said “about fifteen minutes ago.” Prof held up that photo and said “I tell you, this guy’s in love with her. He calls her every single day, several times a day. And he’s from Australia.”

            When the snotty little bitch had fled, the professor handed back my photo album, and asked me if the guy the other girl was bragging about was at least as cute as the guys and gals in my photo album. I… tried to be kind in my description, because the poor guy was a very nice sort of fellow, but she read between the lines and said, to my shock that the girl he was marrying would probably cheat on him within a year or two and flee with someone more hot and manly… and someone who wasn’t fifteen years older than her. Maybe. Unless she found a richer old guy.


          • Wayne Blackburn

            I suspect this is also the reason that some radfems become shrieking harpies around men: They are rebelling against their natural inclination to let that happen, not being naturally strong women, but desperately wanting to be.

    • Jordan S. Bassior

      If there were 10 women to every man, the men would be incredibly valued and would utterly dominate society, because they could strike any deal they wanted with the female elites. They would, basically, wind up with harems of rich, well-educated, pretty women. And women like the one who wrote this article would be on the outside angrily ranting how it was the Evil Patriarchal Conspiracy that made things this way.

  3. Well, this is the first time I have heard the term Neo-Con associated with Social Conservatism!

    The use of the term Neo-Con in the US has a very strange history. It originally applied to a group of liberal politicians and thinkers back in the 1960s and 1970s who observed that liberal goals (e.g. ending poverty) were not being achieved by liberal means (e.g. creating a huge federal bureaucracy to funnel money to the poor). They adopted some conservative proposals and created some of their own, hence the term Neo-Con. Needless to say they were quite unsuccessful; not a single massive federal bureaucracy was dismantled and many new ones were created. **

    In the 1990s the term Neo-Con came to mean something entirely different. With the end of the Cold War, a group of foreign policy thinkers associated predominantly with the Republican Party (though some were Democrats) advanced the idea that American influence and power (including military power) should be used to advance American interests worldwide and even support democracies in general. The use of Neo-Con in this sense was pejorative, used by those opposed to this, mainly isolationists and internationalists (some would call them transnationalists and other not so nice terms). The term was used hypercritically (and sometimes with little sense) of every American military intervention after the end of the Cold War.

    A third use of the term Neo-Con can be found in some of the seedier corners of the internet as a pejorative synonym for Jew. Many of the early Neo-Cons were Jews (e.g. Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz et. al.), but for such a connotation it doesn’t take much evidence or logic.

    ** Given the lack of success of massive federal bureaucracies at doing what they are ostensibly intended to do, you would think we would stop creating them. I guess the key is the word “ostensibly”.

    • I stand schooled on the history. Should have read comments first, but I had that one point of disagreement since I put this up, so I wanted to comment.
      To be fair, again, it’s possible that Australian newspapers used the term in yet another sense.

      • I’d guarantee it. There’s a nearly universal view over there that this country is all repressed and anything with “conservative” on the label must be utterly ridiculously repressed. And an unhappy virgin who wants to put the kibosh on everyone else’s sex life.


      This includes writings from a variety of the second-use Neocons, not all of them in the US. A number of them admit to having been mugged by reality, which shifted their perspectives on some (not all) matters. The number of former-liberals in the collection who got fed up with the progressives is rather notable. Several call themselves “Scoop-Jackson Democrats” after a politician who was in favor of social reform at home but very much opposed to kissing up to the Soviets and their allies abroad.

    • Great summation Trinian

    • William O. B'Livion

      Generally speaking a Neo-con is one who advocates using Progressive or Liberal methods to achieve Conservative goals. They are (as noted) usually Liberals or Progressives who’ve either waken half way up, or gotten mugged by reality.

      The thing they don’t get is that it’s not just the goals that matter, it’s also the process.

    • Australian press has been known to get American political terms rather hilariously cock-eyed. Apparently neocon is one of them.

      Of course the Australian media also figured that *anything* that had the label “conservative” anywhere in the name was one step removed from the puritans (and let’s face it, by US standards Aussies are raging hedonists. And by Aussie standards a hell of a lot of Americans are raging prudes. Australia’s had a fair amount of political sexual misbehavior, but the only real sex scandal was because the prostitute involved was also seeing the Soviet ambassador so there was almost for certain pillow talk being exchanged. The bloke who banged his girlfriend in the Speaker’s Chair was more an opportunity for a giggle. As was the minister who was caught doing the dirty while in his car on a car ferry – mostly because the car was a VW BEETLE and everyone wanted to know how the heck they managed to do it in one of those.)

      • William O. B'Livion

        It’s not the Australian press, or not just.

        The American press gets them all f*d up too, but AU it’s the case of them seeing “liberal” and “conservative” at least partially through their own experiences (Conservatives in AU are different than Conservatives here) and partially just not wanting to get it right.

        Here it’s entirely wanting to present them wrong.

        • Quite true, that. It took me forever to figure out that over here Liberal meant “left”. In Australia it means “right” – for Australian meanings of right.

          • It’s often been noted that American Conservatives have a lot in common with classical liberals, and vice versa.

            • There is a degree of that, yes. Australian politics also tends to push towards the center where US politics seems to me to push more to the extremes (and the left-leaning extremes of various sorts at that)

          • Took me a while to get that sorted, to be honest. Liberal in Aus = closer to the Classic Liberal, which has much in common with the American Conservatives, and probably closer to libertarian. They’re not exact analogues or equivalents though…

            • Oh, yeah. It would have been as mind-boggling for you as getting acclimated to US politics was for me.

              • I tried my best to get at least having the differences sorted out before I got here. It helped some.

                Damn Labour for their cock-ups though.

                • Labor cockups and Liberal arrogance is why Australia tends to cycle parties in power fairly regularly. With few exceptions the Labor pols couldn’t run a piss-up in a brewery, and both sets start to think they were born to rule after they’ve been in office for a while. Eventually they get to the point where they think they’ve got to set their alarm clock for the sun to rise, because it *obviously* shines out of their arse.

                  • *laughing* Apparently that was so bad the last election that most Aussies went and voted not based on party block, but picked it all out one by one.

                    I was in the hospital when it was going on, and in-laws were coming up to visit and Rhys voted in the hospital lobby, and his parents told us that there were voting booths in the airport. They REALLY weren’t happy with Labor. Local media really swings Left though so it was no surprise that they let tons of shite slide for Gillard but are now raging left and right on Abbott. For the time being, I’m happy with the current government (supposedly he was actually out there at the MH17 investigations, didn’t make a big fanfare at all of going, but wanted to see it with his own eyes. When a local newsie noted “Hey, this Federal Police guy looks a hella of a lot like our PM…” well…)

                    I just rather wish the media would stop dragging out the whole ‘waaah gay rights’ and ‘oh nooooo abortion at RISK!!!!!!!!’ crap because it’s not even remotely on the table. It’s tiring.

                    Interestingly enough, Housemate, who utterly despises Gillard for her insane minimum wage demands for the IT sector says she seems to be doing good in education – and says that was the ONE thing she didn’t mess with while she was in government.

                    I’m wondering what the Liberals are seeing though – the impression I get is that there’s enough … media ‘lightening’ that I’m not getting a whole picture of what’s going on but there’s an interesting shoring up of Military and Police here.

                    I do like what they’ve done regards the illegals – ship ’em all back, stop them from coming in. I’d personally just push them back out on the same kind of rickety ships they love to come over on, instead of the expensive ‘ensures they get there safely’ one way trip things, but I suppose that falls under obligation of care and gives the rest of the world’s media no opportunity to bitch out Australia for any of the illegals dying out at sea when we send them back. (TRYING to get here on the other hand, really isn’t our lookout…)

                    • Well, the illegals pretty much blew their sympathy vote back when John Howard was the PM by threatening to throw their own kids overboard if they didn’t get taken to Australia.

                      And it was a Labor government that started the policy of keeping all the illegals in detention camps until their applications for refugee status were processed (funnily enough almost all of them fail…)

          • William O. B'Livion

            Not only that, but your “liberals” or “Conservatives” have a very different attitude towards the government than “we” do. Or at least it looked that way to me.

  4. I’ve only one issue with this post, Kate. I never heard a conservative call himself neocon. Granted, the first time I heard the term was online, after 9-11, but it seemed to be used when “conservatives” failed to live up to the ideas of what a conservative is in liberal minds. So, you’re a conservative-libertarian, have no problems with gays or the legalization of dope, they’d scream “neocon” as they took off running. The other instance, used in an in fight in science fiction, was a liberal calling a moderate-conservative “neocon” and meaning “Jew.”
    I’m not saying I might not have missed the origins of the term. Just that this is how I’ve known it. (It’s also possible newspapers in Australia got it *ssbackwards. I have seen/still see that in Portugal all the time.)

    • not arguing, just an observation, the first time I heard neocon was During Reagan’s terms when it was referring to the Regan democrats, and specifically the younger set that were in it for things like good jobs and prosperity, and were willing to go along with the rest of the agenda, and tended to have short hair and wear ties. You know, the sellouts.

      Nowadays I hear it as meaning a hawkish liberal. Never hear the JOO thing, but the way things are now “Reuben Sandwich” could be an anti-semitic slur.

      • Wayne Blackburn

        Well, then, I committed anti-semitism a few weeks ago, and it was delicious.

        • Wayne Blackburn

          Of course, I have no use for those who commit the real thing – I just found the “Reuben Sandwich” thing too funny to pass up.

    • William O. B'Livion

      What “they” say is usually wrong, either because they’re as ignorant as the day is long (here’s looking at you Perez Hilton) or because htey have an agenda (Paul Krugman et. al) .

      That is not an exclusive-or.

    • Most of the problem is that there are far too many cases where we’ve allowed the opposition to create and disseminate labels that are, in essence, straw men. I’ve listened to very liberal people excoriate what they term “conservatives”, and when I’ve asked them to define what they term “conservative”, they give me a description that is completely at odds with how I would use the term.

      Of course, the conservatives do the same damn thing. In all too many cases, when these issues of political definition and grouping come up, both sides are talking past each other, and actually addressing the straw men of their own imagination, instead of the actual beliefs or actions of their opponents.

      This perversion of definitions has been most useful to those I’d term left-wing liberals, and they’ve been by far the worst offenders when it comes to doing this. Most of the time, if you want to engage them in rational discussion, you first have to require that they define their terms. Once they’ve done that, then you can make it quite clear that you are not arguing the point from the position of their fantasy bogey-man, and they have to address you on your own terms–If they have a shred of intellectual integrity. The majority of those whom I would define as “them” don’t. I find the term TWANLOC, or Those Who Are No Longer Our Countrymen most useful for describing these folk, because they’ve managed to “evolve” themselves far past the values and mores that have been the marker of the American Experiment.

      • Jonathan Haidt found it in the lab: the farther left people are, the worse they are at knowing what their political opponents think like.

        • They’re just as bad at self-knowledge, to boot. You start questioning their definitions, and they’ll refuse to include their most egregious examples of totalitarian thought, such as the young lady we’re discussing in the body of this post.

          Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, when you call them on their BS, you’ll get to haul out the “No true Scotsman” logical fallacy. “Oh, but of course I would never include someone like William Ayers as being a fellow liberal…”. Then, they’ll actually try to convince you that someone like that is actually on the other side, and a “part of the problem”.

          Modern liberal thought has turned into a dogmatic religion, as opposed to a thoughtful philosophic construct. Question a shibboleth, and they’ll break out the lynch ropes…

          Some conservatives are about as bad, but in my experience, they’re far less dogmatic. I think, and I may be wrong, that it’s because most conservatives have already filled in their “unreasoning belief” quotas with traditional religious views, and as such, they’re willing to have their other beliefs questioned. Most liberals have substituted the tenets of their political faith for those of their former religions, so whenever you engage them on the level where those beliefs are questioned, it’s quite like trying to rationally discuss the roots of Islamic faith with a radical Muslim.

    • I was going by the way the papers in Oz used the labels – and it sounds like they got them bass ackwards rather impressively.

  5. It wasn’t the first non-Communist Polish Prime Minister that got me. They had thaws before.

    It was shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall — maybe the next day — when a newspaper article described how, having poured through the wall and celebrated to exhaustion, 99% of those who went through went back to their beds in East Berlin, confident that all that they had to do to leave again was cross the wall, which they could do freely.

    • True, Mary. But in *retrospect* that was the first big crack in the Iron Curtain. And the change came through at a speed that gave people whiplash, wondering when the Red Army would step in and squash them the way they’d done every time before, and hoping that *this* would be the time they didn’t.

      Particularly after the disappointment and sheer horror of Tienanmen Square it was a heartstopping period of time.

    • A story from back in the day was how one of the men in the Philippine Embassy fell in love with an East German woman, and so they could marry, smuggled her to West Berlin. Reportedly she was in speechless culture (?) shock for three solid days, as she came to terms with the reality that everything that she’d been raised to believe was a lie. She couldn’t go back, from what we know, because she’d … disappear.

      • Yeah. I can sympathize with her. And yet, despite the lies they were fed, the East Germans could see just enough that they tried damn near everything they could to cross that border.

        • When Michael Jackson had his concert on the West side of Brandenburg Gate, my Dad passed by on the East side that evening, and came home with the news that there were lots and lots of people sitting around, listening to the music. We’d also get invited to homes for ‘lunches’ and ‘kaffeeklatch’ so the older folks could grill my dad about the outside world and for news.

          The funny thing is the older people were content with how things were except for a small handful of things: that they weren’t allowed to visit their relatives on the Western side of Germany and that the authorities would shield them from outside news. They felt that it was silly that their government believed they couldn’t handle it, or wouldn’t want to return.

          And for reasons we could never really explain (and I wouldn’t know how it reached the East), David Hasselhoff’s singing was really popular with the young on the East side. Dad used to include as part of babysitting remuneration teen magazines bought from the West side, so we never had a shortage of willing babysitters.

          • Part of the reason they were content was the lack of news. I worked in Germany in… 84? and met an elderly lady who’d just joined her sister on the West side. I don’t know if she’d got permission or escaped. Anyway, they’d been separated by the war, they were both widowed, so she returned to the inn where she’d grown up, leaving the inn she and her husband had managed on the East side.
            We had tea with them one afternoon, and she treated us to this long ramble how you know, basically the inn she was running in EG had been just like theirs had been in the thirties/forties when she got married. She was agog with the fact there now was (installed by her sister) a bathroom per room (tiny, it was retrofitted and picturesque) and they had hot water all the time and stuff. I mean, she’d HAD NO IDEA. To her what we’d think of as intolerable deprivation was NORMAL.

            • Yep, that contentment was the complete and total lack of news. I’d learned to hold my tongue of all the questions till we got back to our own home, or at least into the car.

              I can tell you that we (kids) were being taught to feel nothing but pity for the Western people, all those poor starving people outside of the Socialist countries, starving because their parents had to work hard in order to earn wages enough to afford everything instead of having housing assigned to them and only needing money to buy food and clothes. And even to a seven-eight year old who could pop over to the other side of the Wall every week, the lie was exposed for what it was.

              Honestly, the old woman’s description is fairly accurate. Stepping into the East side was like stepping back in time thirty years in the city, and maybe fifty years or so if you went out to the country.

          • The older folk would be the ones who’d lived through two world wars and the depression – for them, I suspect practically anything moderately peaceful and stable was an improvement. Human nature at work.

            Really? The Hoff? Well, if it got you an endless supply of babysitters, why not 🙂

            • That’s what my parents figured. The younger generations on the other hand…

              Yeah, he was one of the few Western artists who was allowed to perform on the Eastern side, if memory serves. (I …. didn’t like his music, to put it kindly.)

              • I never heard his music. The younger generations had the combo of the middle set who’d gone from being top dog during WW2 to crashing down and being “trash” and the ones who’d never known anything else. Having a taste of the rest of the world just the other side of that wall would have made the difference even stronger, I suspect.

  6. Which leads us to this little gem ( of wannabe dictatorial idiocy – the kind of thing that is only possible if you have the sort of utterly repressive regime the communists specialized in.

    My graduating class had a ratio of two males to eight women. Of the males in the class half were decidedly gay (quite openly for the time and place). Considering this experience, I can postulate the following:

    Reducing the male population by 90-percent would create far more problems than it would ever solve.

  7. I remember sitting on the living room floor watching the news and thinking “the world is over.” I was in high school at the time, and truly could not imagine a world without the USSR, the Iron Curtain, two Germanies, and looking-glass planes coming and going over the house (under the flight path from Offut AFB). And then GE had the most marvelous commercial at Christmas, showing the lights going on all over Europe, with Beethoven’s 9th as the music. Dangit, I’m tearing up as I think about it.

    And then reality returned and bit hard.

  8. Um, Kate? “Neocons” are sort of the opposite of what you said. They’re people – often Jewish – who grew up leftist but converted to some tenets of conservatism later in life. The anchor tenet for Neocons tends to be support for a more interventionist foreign policy – often in relation to Israel. They tend toward social leftist and economic centrist (in US terms) positions.

    The group you seem to be objecting to are religious conservatives, who are a whole different animal. Where both overlap and work together? Israel and the Middle East.

    And then there are just foreign policy hawks like Cheney and Rumsfeld who overlap with both of the previous groups on foreign policy but belong to neither.

    The mostly left-wing media tends to miss the nuance here in the US, and a lot of leftists like to use “neocon” as either a synonym for “fascist” (i.e., “someone I don’t agree with,” not “national socialist”) or as a veiled anti-Semitic slur.

    • The problem is that labels like this change continually, and on purpose by some parties, I believe, so that everyone spends time arguing over definition and never gets around to arguing the merits of the actual point. This I think is also a result of the progs getting desperate. People with a strong hand can dictate, with a poor hand you bluff and confuse and hope the holes in your argument aren’t noticed.

    • So I gather – after I shot my mouth off about it. The Oz view is possibly even LESS nuanced, so….

      • There’s something to be said for less nuance sometimes. *chuckle* After President Nuance’s recent tap-dancing extravaganza, I’m quite ready for some bluntness.

        • Oh, then my Aussieness is just perfect for you! I couldn’t be nuanced if I tried, and my usual attitude to tact is that it’s the state of the poster after you’ve got it up on your wall.

  9. You would think that with the revelations of torture, slaughter and general horror that was the norm in communist countries nobody could possibly want anything to do with them. Nobody would wear a shirt with image of Che or the Hammer and Sickle or put up Soviet propaganda posters in their kitchen

    The only reason that I can think of — and it is a sick and depressing reason — is that some people don’t have a problem with torture, slaughter and horror and long as they are not subject to it. An even sicker and depressing reason within the realm of possibility is that the actually approve of it if it is being done to those they don’t like.

    • The ones I know (not am friends with, mind, but know) simply think that it’s all lies about communists doing that stuff. Kind of like some neo pagans think that the Phoenicians and Carthaginians sacrificing babies is Roman slanders, even though we keep digging up tophets with thousands of remains of burned babies. BAH.

      • I guess I should differentiate between the unthinking and the knowing. The ones who say it’s all lies got that opinion from somewhere.

        • PART of it is “but look at all these celebrated people who are communist. They wouldn’t be if this were true.” And, well… what do we tell them “For the last hundred years the media and society and the arbitration of what’s art and moral has been in the hands of a communist cabal?” It’s true, but since the cabal is mostly of the “go along with us to be considered nice and good” and not the type that leaves papers and secret notes (though there are some of those too) they just think we’re conspiracy theorists.

          • You are right, saying that would be counterproductive.

            We have to learn to master the art of snobbery — something they’ve done — and make them feel worse for believing lies than we do for believing truth.

            Probably a more honorable way is to just ask a lot of questions (i.e. why do you believe what you do?) It will cause a lot of them to find you annoying and not want to associate with you, but do we really care?

          • To be blunt, the answer to “but look at all these celebrated people who are communist.” has always seemed to me to be “Yes, and look at how many of them are utter idiots, vicious bastards, or both”.

            • but look at all these celebrated people who are communist.

              I think you have encounted the single worst argument from authority ever.

      • Indeed, most neopagans don’t even sacrifice animals, which, really, wasn’t optional in the day.

        If you ask them about some genuine pagan practices, such as which rites are mandatory to placate the gods, how you do you determine which god you have offended when things are going wrong, and how to do you then appease said god, they tend not to be very coherent.

        • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

          There was a two-book fantasy series (author was Greg Keyes?) that I read a while back which had thousands of gods (some more powerful than others).

          Unfortunately, there was more placating of them (even the little gods were dangerous) than worshiping of them.

          Oh, this wasn’t humans believing in thousands of gods, the gods were real.

          I don’t think the author really realized how terrible it would be for humans to live in that world. [Frown]

          Of course, I suspect some “environmentalists” would like the idea that humans were “pushed around” by gods of nature (as long as they weren’t living there or were the high priests).

          • Ooh, The Waterborn and The Blackgod by J. Gregory Keyes. I thought he did a good job of portraying how horrible it would be, though some of the characters certainly didn’t see the issue. (I always figured he intended it that way; after what you said, perhaps I need to reread them.)

        • Depends on the “neopagan” in terms of coherency.

          In terms of animal sacrifice, those were usually reserved for the Mother/Father of the Gods, King/Queen of the Gods, at least when you’re talking about sacrifices of a daily nature. Most of the Gods did not get animal sacrifices daily, barring their feast days, they got incense, milk, honey, flowers, etc.

          Most pagans who’ve done the serious amounts of research (and have gotten past the muffin brain, fluffy bunny, everything is glitter and unicorns and love and light *twitch… twitch*) will tell you flat out that yeah, human sacrifice happened… when sh!t was really really f*cked up. Most of the baby piles probably correspond with times of sieges, droughts and major wars.

          • Not for the Carthaginians. It was customary to sacrifice the elder child, to ensure strong and healthy and plentiful other children.

            • Those were the ones who spawned Hannibal, the Alps crosser with Elephants, Yes?

              Not really surprised by that honestly. Those were some messed up folks.

            • Yeah, but you know how rigorous customs are enforced. There’s an account by the Romans of how Carthaganians blamed a defeat on their negligence and had themselves a BIG sacrifice.

          • I wasn’t talking about daily sacrifices. There being an animal sacrifice at any time, to any god, is enough to show up the neo-pagan lack of connection.

            • That’s mostly due to environmentalism being something rather prevalent in a large segment of the neopagans. (They get this stupid look on their face when you ask what the difference between it and conservation is. It’s priceless.)

              Another reason for the disconnect is due to a problem with many of them also being libprogs.

              I have to literally put any suppliers I get things from through an application process.
              “What’s the best part about the 2a?”
              If it’s anything like “well-regulated”…oye.

              Heck, even the Jews until (Up until the temple burned in 70 AD I think..??) practiced animal sacrifices.

              • Do you realize that Colorado is saying this is the best place for a spaceport because they’ve already written the regulations for it? It makes me pound walls with my head.

                • …. what?

                  If I had a desk right now, I’d have a bruise on my forehead.

                  • W. TX desert, or NM or NV or AZ.

                    • WY already has one. Yes, the Greater Green River Intergalactic Spaceport, with all the amenities, plus enough distance from population centers (and surrounded by nosy neighbors) to prevent untoward events should the space travelers prove unfriendly. And it’s had that name at least since the 1980s.

                    • And Houston is in the process of getting a private one…..

                • That reminds me of a scene from Robert Frezza’s CAIN’S LAND. The characters are getting ready for a first contact mission. One says “You do realize that back on earth there is a complete plan for contacting an Alien species.”. A second chimes in with “Where it has moldered for decades. Can you imagine what it must read like?”. And a third says “Do you think we could get our hands on it? It would liven up parties for decades!”.

              • Err — that’s merely repeating that they are not, in fact, following the pagan practice they claim to be following, as any genuine pagan would trample on environmentalism in the service of the gods.

                • And therein my dear Mary… you have hit the key disconnect and compartmentalization (proper word?) of many of the Wiccan community.

                • If you were really environmentalist and really pagan, you would figure you had to sacrifice more things to make sure that the earth became more fertile. I don’t think you’d sacrifice endangered animals more, but you’d probably be amenable to breeding endangered animals to the point of not being endangered, and then sacrificing ’em.

              • yes indeed. Now we only pray.

              • William O. B'Livion

                .They get this stupid look on their face when you ask what the difference between it [enviromentalism] and conservation is.


                Duck hunting.

                • Oh Gods I used to waste hours in the front of that game… oh wait… heh wrong duck hunting. 😉

                  Hunting of any kind. They are also horribly insistent on supporting the EPA and the idiotic notions that it’ll take the government to helps species recover…

                  …. they really hate it when you point out that the buffalo survived in part to *private herds* and being turned into a food source for everyone.

                  • William O. B'Livion

                    Ducks Unlimited is one of the greatest conservators of “wetlands” in the US. I’m sure that other hunting organizations (IDK of any because I don’t hunt) do similar work.

                    Then there is all the money generated by permits and deer tags.

                    BTW, I should mention that I have a standing offer. If you’re a deer hunter and can’t afford a tag or want another tag where it’s legal, contact me and I’ll buy you as many as I can.

                    I’m at war with Deer, but I hate getting up early and wandering around in the cold, damp woods–so I hire mercenaries.

                    • My good sir were I not stuck in this wretched black hole that is LA I would take you up on that. I dearly love deer jerky and would give you first pick of the meat cuts.

                      Can. Not. Wait. To be a in saner state.

                    • If you promise not to make TX into a copy of CA you have an open welcome here. I do believe that a number of companies have relocated to TX.

                    • No reason to worry about that Emily. I’m actually a born and raised Midwestern girl, from Northern Indiana, with about 7 years of living in Tennessee under my belt.

                      The reason I’m in California, is because of my fiance. He didn’t have enough time in at his job yet to get a transfer.

                    • Let me know if you’re in the Dallas area and we can get a drink. If you are considering Dallas/Ft Worth contact me or the hubby and we’ll give you the low down.

                    • Thank you kindly! Will do. 🙂

                    • We’ve lately been tentatively thinking it might not be a totally bad idea, though your traffic terrifies me.

                    • Eamon J. Cole

                      You’ve been here, I know, but it is way different from the Springs. I lived in the Springs for about a year once upon a once, liked it. Live in DFW now, mostly tolerate it.

                      Outside of DFW, on the other hand — lots of areas I’d be happy to settle, economics being amenable. But I’m a lifelong Texan and am rather fond of the landscape.

                      That outta the way, we’d love to have ya!

                    • There are suburbs with much less traffic than on the major highways.

                    • Much luck on that. May I suggest somewhere more easterly, Southerly or Northerly, but more easterly? Texas is nice, I hear. Heck, most of the L states aren’t too awful bad, save the blue dots (major cities).

                    • We are actually aiming to end up in Arizona for a time. Most likely Phoenix area.
                      The fact that its constitutional carry there is a major perk.

                    • I’ve heard that it’s open carry in AZ. I mean open carry is legal.

                    • Yes it is.

                      And I look forward to being able to.

                      Not looking forward to dealing with the possible glitching of people as they realize that a pentacle wearer is also packing. That has never ended in anything less than me making my tongue bleed and wanting to ice pick my ears.

                    • I don’t fear pentacle wearers. I worry about Muslims much more.

                    • Lol, nah nah.
                      It’s the lectures I get from idiot christians (Sorry guys) about the pentacle OR the lectures I get from the fluffy bunny pagans about the gun.
                      Either way… eesh.

                    • A definite plus. Beautiful country out there, too. I’ve never been, but one of my friends was raised out that way.

            • Oy. Don’t get me started on neopagans. Every argument I get into with one makes me leave a dent in my desk.
              (Is it really so hard to understand that Iron Age Celts didn’t use a calendar promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church in 1582?)

              I get that they truly believe that history is just an agreed-upon lie.
              I also get that they want to replace it with a narrative that supports their beliefs.
              But would a little bit of consistency or acknowledgement of archaeology kill them?

            • Rob Crawford

              “There being an animal sacrifice at any time, to any god, is enough to show up the neo-pagan lack of connection.”

              The thing that struck me in Rome is how “Old West” some of the decorations appear. The cattle skulls everywhere…

      • *snaps fingers* Carthage! That’s where the baby sacrifice I was thinking of was!

        (sorry, but yeah, couldn’t remember; from the Mad Genius club discussion.)

    • To be fair, we have one of Mao’s propaganda posters in our home – it’s interesting as a piece of history.

      That said, the world would have been far better off if someone had shot him in WW2.

      • And I have a Red Chinese Army hat acquired in China that I leave in view.

        But there is a difference between displaying something as a curio or conversation piece and using it as art to set ambiance. Context matters. It’s one thing to display a Nazi flag that your grandfather got as a war trophy. It would be another to hang something a poster with a swastika in your kitchen.

        • Provided said Nazi flag from granddad and the poster had sufficient bloodstains and were framed by other evidence of war trophyness, go for it.

          Putting it up because you believe that shit is a different beast.

          • My adopted (long story) grandfather has a set of SS insignia et al with a note “taken from an SS officer who no longer needed them. Bastogne, Dec. 1944.” I know d-mn well what the stains are, and I grin every time I walked past them. He was one of the Battered Bastards of Bastogne, and to this day hates snow.

            • Eamon J. Cole

              Grand men, them.

            • I don’t blame him for hating snow. And good on your adopted grandad. He did good work.

              • What little he’s mentioned here and there gives me the willies, and I’m used to war stories. He was on the night shift on the perimeter.

                • Hoo boy. He’d have enough high octane nightmare fuel for the rest of your life – if he could ever be induced to tell anyone (unlikely – I’ve noticed those who have seen the really horrific things are very reluctant to talk about it at all. But you can tell they’ve been there. Something about the way they carry themselves.)

          • Take a different emblem: the Confederate Stars ‘N’ Bars, slap a shoulder patch of it on your right shoulder and the Che image (or Hammer & Sickle) on the left shoulder. Nobody doubts which will earn more outrage.

            • Nope. No doubts whatsoever.

              I vote for the total mindf$ck and using the dueling penises logo of the Russian Gay Neo Nazi group I mentioned over at Mad Genius Club.

              The brain spatter would be a delight to behold even if you’d want to scrub inside and out after wearing the thing.

            • They would have no idea what the Stars and Bars meant. You can freely display it or the Bonnie Blue without fear of blowback.

              The Southern Cross, OTOH…
              (Especially if it’s the version that wasn’t commissioned until after the war to commemorate the dead.)

        • Exactly the reasons why I refused to vote for Orlando in their 2015 Worldcon bid (their ad campaign was modeled in the style of Soviet propaganda and used as their shtick a “what if” of the USSR winning the cold war).

    • The Western Intellectual Lefties convinced themselves a long time ago that Socialism/Communism was going to land them in the diver’s seat of society. The ones smart enough to know this is why they are socialists are willing to do ANYTHING to achieve that end (rather like Stalin), the rest are too stupid to make the connection between mass murder and their wearing of a Che t-shirt.

    • You’d think, yes. The things that emerged from the Romanian secret police archives and the Stasi archives were sickening – and the Germans did a pretty good job of *keeping* that information open, too.

    • People will believe what they want to believe. There are still lots of people (mostly Russians, mind you…) who believe that the Katyn Massacre in 1940 (in which the Soviets rounded up a very large number of Poles, and shot them all; ironically, the Nazis, of all people, were responsible for letting the world know about it after they found the mass graves during the invasion of the Soviet Union) was committed by the Nazis and not the Soviets. This is despite pronouncements from the Russian government admitting responsibility for the thing.

      • When it comes to Poland, the slaughter was pretty much equally committed by Soviets and Nazis. Poor bastards got shafted from both ends.

        Unfortunately, the Soviets were on the winning side in World War II (unfortunate in that they were allied with the US and UK, not in that the US/UK/ etc won) so Uncle Joe was a good guy and those stories were just lies the Nazis told (yes, sarcasm).

        Certain segments being very much in bed with Uncle Joe’s propaganda machine didn’t help there, either.

  10. When males are outlawed, only outlaws will be men? (At which point you put tracking chips in them and there will be no more crime?)

    • My theory is they have Harems, and you have the islamic world, basically.

      • I highly recommend “A Brother’s Price” by Wen Spencer for a peek into just such an alternate reality. Unfortunately it’s not one she did for Baen.

        • I really don’t think it would work that way.

        • Birthday girl

          Then there’s Honor Harrington’s adopted planet, with a plural marriage patriarchy … gee, that could never happen …

          • I think that Grayson is more like than wen spencer’s idea.

            • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

              Well, Wen’s idea was that because males were fewer in number than females they’d be “protected” and women would do the “hard work” of ruling (including fighting wars).

              David’s Grayson was more the historical standard of multiple wives with men doing the “hard work” of ruling.

              While I enjoyed Wen’s book, I’ll admit that she’s likely in error about how a society with more women than men would work.

              On the other hand, she was writing a rebuttal to women who thought “if women ruled the world, everything would better”. [Smile]

              • She did invent a reason why the men could not just sleep around as studs. Whether the transmission of STDs really would work, epidemiologically, I don’t know, but she did have a reason.

                • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                  I give her that but IMO the more likely society in her setup would be Men ruling with multiple wives.

                  It annoyed me that her main male character wasn’t more aggressive.

                  • He was a wuss. I’m sorry but male behavior is not completely socially constructed. There’s a large biological component to it. The ideas behind Spencer’s book is giving me a ’70s flash back. The idea of living in female only communities is warmed over 40 year old nonsense.

              • “Including fighting wars”

                Wouldn’t that look like something out of “God-Emperor of Dune” with, IIRC, the Fish Speakers…?

            • masgramondou

              I don’t believe Wen thought it was necessarily likely, She just wanted to explore a possibility to see how it looked like.

      • You notice that low male-to-female ratio SF worlds, the men are cherished beyond belief.

        As would be only sane. If we had a world where that ration was sustained by every woman having nine daughters and a son, every woman would then have 180 grandchildren — each daughter contributing ten, and each son 90, because other woman’s daughters need daddies for babies.

        A woman who had eight daughters and two sons would lose ten grandchildren — and gain ninety. That’s the sort of reproductive advantage that puts evolution in overdrive.

      • William O. B'Livion

        Ding Ding Ding.

    • Christopher M. Chupik

      Sherri S Tepper would approve, I’m sure.

    • If you read the article the woman does suggest that the men should be kept segregated from the society as a whole. I guess that ultimately there would be tracking chips employed when they were let off their reservations…

      • You try and raise them right, you use a carrot and a stick, you give them food and a nice floor to sleep on and a job to do for society and what do they do? They run off! Yup. You’d have to chip them like a dog or a cat.

    • I’m suddenly reminded of David Brin’s “Glory Season” (and my apologies, but this will make *zero* sense to anyone who hasn’t read it). It’s set on a planet that’s been engineered as a feminist utopia, but it required completely changing sexual attraction and conception (this is part of the backstory).

      The world has been isolated from the rest of humanity, but that all changes when a single visitor arrives (and more will be following him). And, of course, there’s a certain sub-set of the female population that sees him and instantly thinks, “Oh, good! If we bring in more males like him, we can stop having male kids!”

  11. Christopher M. Chupik

    Yes. Eliminate 40% of the human race. What could possibly go wrong?

    • Actually 90% of 50% would be the loss of 45% of humanity.
      Sorry for the nit, it’s a math thing, and I bees an engineer.
      Historically speaking there have been occasions when the male population became drastically reduced, usually war related. Did not seem to have anything like the result Ms. Femitheist is going for.
      Hate to be judgmental, but delusional twit is the best I can come up with.

      • Paraguay post-1870 comes to mind; other examples?

        • There would be a big difference in societal reaction to a one time shock to gender balance vs a new normal (epidemic destruction of a gender).

          Britain after WWI (loss of men), China now (loss of girl babies) — those are examples of the first. Assuming the cause is not repeated, it will even out again in one generation. Society adjusts but is not permanently disrupted, social behaviors don’t do an emergency change (harems in the UK did not sprout up).

        • Paraguay had about a 3:1 adult female to male ratio, after the war (I think). 10:1 is a whole different beastie, the above was bad enough…

      • Basically she is another of the endless line of raving nutters who imagine that if the world were just a little different, they would be running it as they ought.

        And the cold fact is that the vast majority of such vermin cannot even run their own lives, much less anything else. The minority that are competent to cary through any plan more complex than going out to Starbucks for some legal stimulant are vicious thugs like Stalin, Mao, and Castro and should be exterminated as soon as they are identified.

    • “Yes. Eliminate 40% of the human race. What could possibly go wrongworng?”

      Fixed that for you…

  12. Twenty five years after the Communist dominoes showed that there was at least one case where the domino theory held true (even if not the one the left liked to laugh at), the vileprogs haven’t recovered from discovering their utopia wasn’t, and they’re getting more and more deranged as the world (and particularly the USA) continues to fail to recognize the wonders of their thoroughly discredited, murderous dream.

    I can believe that Kate was on another continent during the ‘fall’ of communism. Here the popular press did not place emphasis on the various discoveries of the inner workings of communism in practice. The prevalent attitude seemed to run more to a ‘Ding, Dong, the Witch is Gone,’ let’s celebrate and put that all that communism as bogey man scare behind us.

    We did get a bit about the atrocities of the petty dictators like Ceausescu. The popular press did not blame communism for the conditions. Rather a feeling conveyed that somehow this happened because we were so set on opposing and cutting off the communist world.

    Even after the breakup of the Soviet Union when it was discovered that the internal records indicated that Hiss was a communist and that the Rosenbergs were involved in espionage there are still those who try to deny that it was so.

    • Yep. Here our press blamed the ANTI-Communists.

      • It has been a failure of the right that such excusers for mass murder are still consulted on matters of art and ethics. Why would any self-respecting good person have anything to do with them going forward after that? Yet we do.

        • ‘Neptune’s Brood’ by Charles Stross has one big SJW brain-fart near the end of an otherwise good book, claiming that every capitalist society needs torturers to keep their populace frightened into line. Followed by the character gushing about how wonderful the society she lived in was, where the people had hacked their brains to only be abe to think in communist terms and lived in collective autonomy ‘freedom’ as squid-robots. Don’t think he’s admitted where the torturers were, yet.

          • Christopher M. Chupik

            I guess that’s why all those Occupy types were waterboarded, I guess.

            That happened, right? 😉

            • They may have tortured themselves with the smell, I guess. If they were really terrified of the government doing it, I doubt they’d be defecating on police cars.

          • Rob Crawford

            Never understood why Stross gets ANY respect.

      • At least the Oz press hadn’t lost ALL integrity at that point.

    • That’s… an appalling dereliction of duty.

      The Oz press managed to make it clear that the combination of Communism and a criminally insane megalomaniac ruler in the form of Ceausescu was the problem, because there was nothing anywhere that could act as a counter to his whims.

      So when he decided that Romania needed more babies, he could decree it and ban all contraceptives – which of course led directly to the AIDS kids and the horrific orphanages where there was simply insufficient *everything* including people willing to spend time with all the kids people couldn’t feed.

      And those were among the least horrible things that emerged.

      • Rob Crawford

        It wasn’t a dereliction of duty, because the American press hasn’t viewed their duty as reporting the facts since at least the mid-1970s, if not earlier. They view their “duty” as “bringing about change” by telling us peons what to think. That they knew they were being led by Soviet agents and fellow-travelers is an open question.

        Ace had a good bit on this today.

      • Dereliction of duty??

        Doesn’t that depend what you think their duty is?

        If you think the MSM has a duty to assure the citizens of the world’s oldest continuing democratic republic have the knowledge necessary to make intelligent decisions about the people leading this country, yes, they were probably derelict.

        If, OTOH, you understand the MSM’s duty as ensuring that the public makes the choices they would arrive at if only the public was as wise, empathetic and kind-hearted as the MSM, then you understand why it was not-permissible to allow any news that might be interpreted as demonstrating that Reagan was right.

        Just as it was more important that the Trayvon Martin shooting be presented as a racial morality play, requiring retouched photos of each participant and creation of the new racial identity: white hispanic.

  13. I was living in West Germany during the collapse. People love to blame the Americans for the mass exodus west that occurred at the time of the wall collapsing. If people ever want to convince me of the “greatness” of communism they first have to purge my brain of the sights we saw from the German press. There was something disturbing and eye opening when you had refugees(the best way i can think to describe them) braving mine fields to ensure that they were in West Germany when the DDR reasserted it’s control.

    And that is the truth of it. The East Germans were so convinced that the world couldn’t change for them that they risked death instead of waiting for the West Germans to come and help get their side back up and running.

    And sadly i work retail and thought my faith in humanity couldn’t get any lower and i get to see how some lady wants to cull my part of the gender because of some serious jacked up belief that all men should be slaves.

    • They were refugees all right. I don’t think anyone in the West truly understood just how *bad* it was until the archives started opening and the horrors began to emerge.

      The number of people who tried to cross the Berlin Wall even after it got the “upgrade” to the version with the death strip should have been a flashing neon light to the intelligent adults (I wasn’t – I was… um… a very naive 22 year old when the wall fell).

      Of course, this does presume that the adults were intelligent, and I’ve had my doubts about that for some time now.

      • Oh, hell. Explain to me in small words why Utopia needs a fence to keep people IN.

        Whenever I hit a Lefty with that they would change the subject, get aggressive, or (usually) both.

        • Yeah, this was a long-standing issue with the Communists. And they were aware of it. Their attempt to combat it typically turned things around.

          “You in the West are so mean. You keep everyone out of your countries. We Communists are much nicer and let in anyone and everyone who wants to join.”

          In a way, it’s kind of like Bigwig and Woundwort in Watership Down. Woundwort asks Bigwig why Bigwig wants to join the warren, and Bigwig’s response is essentially, “Is there any reason I shouldn’t want to join?” Woundwort knows that no right-thinking rabbit should want to join Efrafa of his own free will, but he can’t exactly come out and say that.

        • Rob Crawford

          “Explain to me in small words why Utopia needs a fence to keep people IN.”

          Have you BEEN to Utopia?

          (It was a commune in the 19th century. It — and the other towns along the river — got wiped out by floods. The other towns bounced back; the commune couldn’t take two floods.)

        • Yeah, funny that… If it was utopia there would not have been so many jokes. “What’s the definition of a string quartet? An East German orchestra after its tour of the West.”

        • Patrick Chester

          IIRC, Bill Whittle is fond of asking this question when people praise the “glory” of communism et al:

          “Which way are the boats going?”

      • My father had a near heart attack when, on one of the first days of our living in East Berlin, I darted forward across this thin strip of grass from the visitor’s walk way to touch the pretty graffiti all over the Berlin Wall. I was seven years old. He told me I nearly got killed, because he was pretty sure that snipers were aiming for us from the towers. That, I think, was the start of my ‘waking up’ to reality, because I think he decided there and then that the best way for us to survive and avoid making stupid mistakes was for us to know what was going on.

        • Your poor father! (I would have done something similar at that age).

          And good on him for teaching you what was going on and doing his best to stay informed.

          • Yeah, looking back, I’m not really sure how he was able to condense an explanation of the Cold War to a seven year old in a way that makes sense, but I got the gist. He also drilled into us that we weren’t supposed to talk about our American-citizen relatives – which was fine since I didn’t really know them much at the time. He bought a few history books with lots of photographs and left them where we could get at them, pointing out photos of when the Wall was being built.

            One of the things I remember the most was him pointing out the bullet holes in the stone façades of the buildings around the Linden Plaza and Brandenburg Gate. From World War II. It was one of those things that kinda hammered home the history of the place, that the black and white photos on the books were of the places where we were walking.

            We got moved later on to an apartment block that was right in front of the North Korean Embassy, just a street or two away from Checkpoint Charlie. We’d regularly get mailbox notifications of ‘demolitions work’ being done and to please take our fragile items down from shelves so they wouldn’t break. Those demolitions? Were attempts to destroy Hitler’s old bunker. Windows and floors would rattle and coffee would spill over the edges of their cups at the explosions.

            • He built that thing to last.

              That kind of history lesson tends to stick – provided there’s someone who’s prepared to *teach* it.

  14. leading to such delights as “Neocons” (which appears to have started as a way to describe socially conservative wannabe dictatorial types)

    Oh, now that is funny– I’ve only ever seen it thrown at folks who have foreign policy that goes beyond “pray they never want to come here.”

  15. Neocon…Fascist – all labels are suspect for accuracy. Sort of like all natural on your fruit juice bottle. You have to know who is labeling it.

    • Indeed so. And when your only real source for the labels is a not terribly well informed one with a large streak of bias, you just might get it wrong…

      • You shouldn’t believe the labeling done by people who openly despise and call for your exclusion? That…that would be…discriminating! *sobs openly*

  16. — only knows how you would actually address managing the number of males in the population for the ‘best’ functioning outcome. The author of this piece claims she is not for culling, but what else would sex-selection abortions be?

    If your goal is to keep males for breeding and heavy work purposes you want to make sure the ones that are kept are selected carefully. Yhere would be fetal genetic testing, and a culling at that point. Then do you raise and train the remainders to a certain age so you can see their full potential before the next cull, or do you test and cull at various points along the way? Would this eventually lead to the elimination of homosexuals, as they may not serve for breeding purposes, or do you utilize artificial insemination for greater control in reproduction? Using artificial insemination would mean that you could eliminate pesky relations between male and female populations and spread the male’s genetic material over a greater area. Do you eliminate those males who have aged and no longer serve their purposes?

    Thinking about this seriously has me feeling more than a bit ill. 😦

  17. Political Correctness speech had already started in the universities a few years before the fall of the Soviet Union. I remember the incident that brought this term to the public eye– I wish I could find it with google-fu. But I will do a guess that it was in the mid-80s more or less and an Asian man who was trying to study in his dormroom called a woman a “cow” because she was noisy and disrupting his study time. The whole incident blew up and that was the first time I had heard the term. Of course it is diametrically opposed to “free speech” because PC speech was being imposed in public universities which are run by their respective States. — I am finding from my searching that it was the US socialists, etc that came up with the term before the 70s. Wikipedia– and we know how much you can trust that source.

    • iirc, he referred to her as a “water buffalo”.

      But otherwise, yeah. My recollection is that PC started to first appear in the late ’80s. It makes sense, though. Nonsense like political correctness can only exist when a society is stable and prosperous. And thanks to Reagan, the US was extremely stable and prosperous at that point in time.

      • I only heard it after several permutations– so water buffalo turned into cow in the media. *sigh But yes– exactly.

        • Yeah, because somehow “water buffalo” was more racist than cow, or loudmouth or idiot. And the kid didn’t have the resources (or the wits) to get a lawyer to argue that he was referring to Italian water buffalo, the kind that give us mozzarella cheese. We had a tempest in an A cup at my college because two freshmen idiots (but I repeat myself) put up a joking answering machine message about “we’ve been kidnapped by a short man from Algeria” and got the “opportunity” to take diversity counseling. Why’d they pick Algeria? Because it was early in the alphabet. *sigh* Now they’d be expelled and face all sorts of trouble from all the Islamic-rights groups.

          • Yep – sorry to hear about your tempest–

            • At the time (early 1990s) I thought it was silly that they had to go to counseling. I shudder to think what would happen now – the school went so far off the deep end that I’m not certain they remember where the surface of the water is anymore.

              • My opinion as well – I think that getting my degree with UMUC European division was the only thing that saved me (on Ramstein AB). The professors were not as tightassed as some of the professors in “good” schools.

    • incident occurred in 1993. From the Philadelphia magazine, A History of Political Correctness: 20 Years After Penn’s “Water Buffalo” Incident:

      On a winter’s night 20 years ago, a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania who was working on an English paper heard a ruckus outside his dorm. A group of sorority sisters was singing, stomping and yelling, and he couldn’t concentrate. So he shouted out the window at them: “Shut up, you water buffalo!”

      The young man, Eden Jacobowitz, was Jewish. The women he yelled at that night were black. He was subsequently accused of violating Penn’s policy against racial harassment. In the months that followed, what became known as “the Water Buffalo Incident” would threaten the confirmation of Penn’s then-president, Sheldon Hackney, as chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities; attract the attention of the ACLU, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee; provide the world with a thorough gloss of the Hebrew word behema, which translates more or less to “ox of water” and is used in Israel, where Jacobowitz had lived and studied, to mean “thoughtless, rowdy person”; and be dissected, in such forums as the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Times of London, Rolling Stone, the Village Voice and the New York Times, as the ultimate example of political correctness run amok. The women eventually dropped their complaint against Jacobowitz, stating that the media uproar prevented them from getting a fair hearing. He graduated, sued Penn, went to law school, and went into human resources. No one involved in the incident wants to talk about it today.

  18. “Which leads us to this little gem ( of wannabe dictatorial idiocy – the kind of thing that is only possible if you have the sort of utterly repressive regime the communists specialized in.”

    “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.”

    What the heck is so difficult to understand in that sentence?

    • The part where it keeps ’em from getting what they want.

    • Well, I think their analysis goes something like this: first of all, it says all men, so it is a sexist document. And dead white males of European descent wrote it, so it is a sexist document. And we didn’t get to vote on it, it is not our sacred document. Besides times have changed. We need a new modern document that addresses our better understanding. Any way, we don’t like how it is working, it doesn’t contain ‘positive’ rights, so lets throw it out and write a new one.

    • Christopher M. Chupik

      The difficulty is with all the stuff between “We” and “Happiness”.

    • FOr these folks, this is the understandable part. “.”

  19. Eamon J. Cole

    Would men be kept in isolation like stud horses?
    I believe we must remove men from the community and place them in their own specific sections of society, akin to subsidised or state-funded reservations, so they can be redefined. We can make not only men safer, but women as well. By subsidising said reservations through the state we can provide men with activities, healthcare, entertainment, shelter, protection, and everything that one could ever require in life. This will remove conventional inequality from society. By reducing the number of men to 10 percent of the total population, their socio-biovalue will be raised. They will live out their lives happily and safely, and male disposability will be a thing of the past.

    She is broken and insane.

    • And if we don’t want to be wards of the state?

    • Arwen Riddle

      Yeah, I really wonder about the background of anyone who would argue for the culling of men or women. Does she not know any decent men and therefore assumes there aren’t any? Is she just crazy? I would kill and even die to protect my family, male and female, especially the children. And I know there are plenty of other people who feel the same way.

      • Eamon J. Cole

        I suspect, as somebody mentioned earlier, she’s doing it for attention and clicks.

        But I think it should be treated with the same repugnance as calling for any other segment of the human population to be reduced by 90+%. I believe she should be reviled and condemned.

        I’m even hesitant to say mocked, because I have a hard time letting humor come into it. Complete and utter contempt.

        I may be having an off day, though.

        • BobtheRegisterredFool

          I think if we killed ninety percent of those who commit capital offenses, ceteras paribus, we would be better off. Of course, all other things are never the same. If it were easy to have the death penalty carried out more often without further undermining rule of law, we wouldn’t have some of the mess in the first place.

          I may well have misspelled my Latin this time.

    • I’d gut and dismember anyone who tried to take my Rhys and my son away from me and our daughter to be turned into ‘breeding stock.’

      • My mother is not big on guns, but I’ve seen enough of her to know that if anyone came after my father or brother (or me, but being female I’m in less direct danger in the opening stages of this scinario) she would go either for dad’s rifles or the medieval weaponry in my closet. (For sheer intimidation value nothing matches the morningstar flail…)

      • Exactly. These days I’m much calmer, but touch my sons and you’re in REAL trouble.

  20. Pingback: Fathers Better Parents? - BillLawrenceOnline

  21. Wow, I’m not even sure where to start. I was going to respond on the site, but it wasn’t opening the replay box….I wonder why. 😉

    She seem to be ignoring the fact that women can be as violent as men, if not more so. Kipling wasn’t kidding, the female of the species is more dangerous than the male.

    Reduce to 10 percent? Even with the genetic manipulation She appears to advocate, that is nowhere near sufficient to maintain a healthy population. Bad genes will slip through. Has She ever heard the phrase “in-bred” ? It tends to reinforce genetic flaws and produce defects. She need look no farther than ancient Hawaii or Egypt to see the results.

    Placing men in “reservations” and providing everything for them is a joke. Having everything provided for me is not something that would make me “happy”. It would have the exact opposite effect.

    So, if She’s not going to provide monetary reimbursement, what is she doing to pay them with, more breeding rights?

    Monitored and regulated .. .. .. this scared the daylights out of me. Sounds too much like Russia and Nazi era Germany.

    Taking children away from the family and having that state raise them – so the state can indoctrinate them. What if someone decided they wanted to raise the child themselves?

    “The purpose of living is merely to persist and perpetuate our species, and if someone is willing to give you all that you will require to survive and live comfortable, simply because you exist, then you have already achieved all that truly matters.” I don’t think I could possibly disagree more. Humans desire a purpose, conflict if you will. Life without a purpose is pointless. She’s reducing the human species to the level of non-sentience.

    In short, I see nothing in her views that are logical. In fact, what She is advocating would be detrimental to the survival of homosapiens

    • “The purpose of living is merely to persist and perpetuate our species, and if someone is willing to give you all that you will require to survive and live comfortable, simply because you exist, then you have already achieved all that truly matters.”

      One wonders how she feels about welfare recipients. And, for that matter, how many men would say “Well, if there’s an XBox, sign me up.”

      • Patrick Chester

        …as much as I game, I would have to say “No” to this sort of offer.

        (Okay, I’d be using a ton of profanity too. Gunfire if I believed it was necessary.)

    • ” Humans desire a purpose, conflict if you will.”

      How true.

      “It is well-recognized that intelligent children who are not sufficiently challenged in school, and who are made to repeat lessons they have already understood merely because others in the class, slower to learn than they, have not yet mastered them, frequently become disruptive, badly behaved, and even delinquent; it is less well recognized that this destructive pattern persists well into adult life. The bored—among whom are those whose level of intelligence is grossly mismatched with the requirements of their cultural environment—frequently solve the problem by fomenting easily avoided and completely foreseeable crises in their personal lives. The mind, like nature, abhors a vacuum: and if no absorbing interest has developed in childhood and adolescence, such an interest is soon manufactured from the materials to hand. Man is at least as much a problem-creating as a problem-solving animal. Better a crisis than the permanent boredom of meaninglessness. ”

    • “Has She ever heard the phrase “in-bred” ?”

      Hell, she’s the illustration of it.

      She belongs with the terra-cotta toothed imbeciles who think the Confederacy could have survived, and the morons who believe the Earth is hollow and inhabited by our Darrow masters.

    • Right on, Wyldkat. I was thinking something similar.

      Genetic bottlenecking is bound to occur, even at world population numbers (7.09 billion- remember that next time you hear out budget deficit in the trillions ), 700 million-some men. All from different groups in different places. With their own genetic variability. Big numbers, yeah. But made up of smaller regional populations.

      One of the reasons inbreeding is so damnably dangerous for humans (biologically/genetically speaking, not even considering the EW! factor) is that we are so close genetically speaking already. Why the hell does anyone seriously want to reduce that variability even further? Like we don’t have enough problems with vaccine resistant diseases already.

      And as an aside, I like women well enough. But I suspect there was a reason one of my best friends from college would call me up at odd hours to “get me the hell away from all these other women and somewhere sane for a while.” *chuckle*

    • I see nothing in her views that are logical. In fact, what She is advocating would be detrimental to the survival of homosapiens

      She puts the sap in homo sapiens.

  22. I have to chuckle a small bit when I see the back and forth that goes over articles like this and the bit of vileprog criticisms that will always pop up.

    If you were to take the whole conservative-liberal-whatever else in between and on the edges, and overlay it onto the pagan/neo-pagan world, you’d find almost zero difference from the larger whole of the population.

    You’ve got the libprogs who’ve gone full “fluffy bunny neo-pagan idiots” who are all Greek and Roman gods (now there’s some irony for you) that are all social justice, glittery hoo-hah, blah blah.

    Then you’ve a very distinct right leaning set of pagans, like myself. Many of which are Celts, Viking and as close to neolithic reconstruction as possible within known evidence.

    That… “female” in the Cedar’s article has an equivalent in the pagan by the name of Z. Budapest. If you get curious, you do so at your own risk.

    It’s actually rather encouraging to see smaller subsets like what I belong, having the same problems as the larger groups (that make sense?). Means at least to me, common ground for getting things fixed exists.

    • Patrick Chester

      You’ve got the libprogs who’ve gone full “fluffy bunny neo-pagan idiots” who are all Greek and Roman gods (now there’s some irony for you) that are all social justice, glittery hoo-hah, blah blah.

      …they’ve heard of Zeus’s amorous pursuits, right?

      • Usually there are four different reactions that I’ve been witness too.

        1) “With a wife like Hera do you blame him?”
        2) *shrugs* “We project our shortcomings onto the Gods so that we avoid their mistakes.
        3) “Zeus was married?”
        4) “Ebil unsympathetic ignorant christians wrote down those myths. They didn’t know they were talking about! *insert snowflake temper tantrum.*”

  23. There’s a game out that covers the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe.

    It’s called ‘1989’, and, as the name suggests, it’s about the year that the Communist governments all collapsed. It’s hard to believe, but the entire thing came crashing down in just one year. Obviously, some of the groundwork had been laid down well in advance. Solidarity, for instance, had been around for quite a while. But 1989 was the year that all of the governments collapsed and were replaced. Some of the replacement governments were merely rebranded communists. But the old governments were now gone, the Soviet influence was removed, and eventually even the rebranded communists fell out of power (though they might be coming back in some countries…). Unfortunately, it wasn’t all good news that year. 1989 was also the year of the Tiananmen Square protests, and the game has a track representing the course of that as well.

    The game is quite similar to ‘Twilight Struggle’ and ‘Labyrinth: The War on Terror’, if anyone here has played either of those games.

  24. Has anyone considered the implications of the MALE reaction to such proposed eugenics? I mean, with an obscenely disproportionate number of soldiers and policement and what have you being male, and therefore trained in some way to Do Unto Others, wouldn’t there be some kind of immediate backlash of destruction if this was ever really proposed? I don’t think you could write a book about the struggle, because PC, but it sounds like the storyline of a great Dystopian world.

    Seriously, though, I think modern man may be docile and accomodating on the surface, but think of the implications of 100 million angry men with access to all the destructive technology (or even just whatever they can find in their garage) going on a rampage.

    • Yeah, the male reaction to a plan like this has been mentioned a couple of times in earlier posts. Suffice to say, the special snowflakes that come up with plans like this tend to instantly think that males having perfectly sensible reactions (i.e. “You want to do WHAT to us!?”) merely prove how violent and base males in general are. As such, it’s unlikely that they’ve given much thought to the actual carrying out of plans like this aside from, “Well, it’s so imminently logical that of *course* everyone will go along with it…”

      That reminds me…

      In the book that Brandon Sanderson released earlier this year, there’s a character whose intelligence changes from day to day. Usually he’s somewhere around a reasonable baseline. But sometimes he’s very,very stupid. And sometimes he’s very, very smart. By his own decision, he’s locked away from the general public on the days in which he’s stupid. But he’s also locked away on the days in which he’s very, very smart. You see, on those days he tends to espouse things like culling the stupid part of the population for its own good…

    • modern men are only apparently docile because he channels his aggression in positive ways. Also his peers enforce this social order. If men knew that they were for the long jump, they’d fight against this in self preservation. However this clinically crazy idea will NOT be allowed anywhere near me and my family. I’d do everything I could to save my husband and other male relatives and friends.

      This idea shows how misandrist our society has become. Replace “men” with women or blacks and you’d hear death threats so fast it’d give you whiplash.

    • The Insidious Plan ™ would likely include doing something like how they snuck in Prohibition–Get involved in a major war, send the majority of men off to fight, and then get as many killed as possible before implementing said Insidious (read “Idiotic”) Plan ™.

      One good thing about today’s gender norming of the armed forces is that this would be somewhat difficult to enable, since I see an equitable draft in the immediate future including a major WWII-scale war. The current exemption for women registering with the Selective Service ain’t going to survive an event seeing several million young men being called to the colors, no way, no how. Which may be a good thing.

      • I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop with “Gender Norming” the military; some group of male troublemakers is going to sue because THEY are required to register for “selective service” and their sisters aren’t.

        Or has it already happened and our “unbiased” media swept it under a rung?

        • It’s only a matter of time. My best guess is that the end result will be the destruction of the Selective Service system as we know it, and the inevitable panicked reconstruction thereof the next time we need such a thing.

          For what its worth, I simply do not see a situation happening where every single Jane Doe is required to register for the draft. They will shut the system down before that happens, because I suspect that drafting women for war is going to be a Third Rail ™ for at least the next few generations. I could be wrong, but that’s the way I see it.

          • Oh, and for those missing the subtle difference: Peacetime political considerations are going to be far different than the ones taken during an all-out war for survival like WWII Redux. Right now, should someone raise the issue, we’ll likely insist that there’s a huge difference between Jane Doe, teenager, and Johnny Doe. So, the likely result of the whole thing going up for evaluation is going to be the shut-down of what we will likely see as the “unnecessary” Selective Service system.

            Then, the next time we need mass manpower, the whole thing is going to have to be re-invented, and I simply don’t see any way forward from here that will allow them to have a males-only draft. More than likely, they’ll be taking whatever they can get that can pass the tests, and who is physically fit enough to serve, male or female. I shudder to think what all these kiddy couch potatoes we are raising are going to go through, and the long-term effects on their health, particularly the women. But, society is asking for it, and will likely get it. Allowing the growth of things like ISIS doesn’t bode well for our children and grandchildren to be left in peace, and I don’t think they will be.

            • Or the draft will be unnecessary. As Einstein is reported to have once said, “I don’t know what weapons World War III will be fought with. But World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

              Keep your fingers crossed. There’s a lot of really, really stupid people out there, and one of these days one of them will end up in charge of the wrong country…

              • It’s already happened. Who do you think is running the US, right now? And, the likely end state for the actions this set of idiots have undertaken in the last six years pretty much means that we are very, very likely to be in a fight for our lives within the next generation or two.

                Cleaning up after Carter’s idiocy required decades of work, and we still haven’t entirely undone all that he did. Digging out from under this current crop of disengaged ignoramuses is going to be the work of generations, and we may well have to do what the Brits did in the First World War, and sacrifice a generation or two upon the battlefields. I hope not, but the odds are not good. Should the nice people with ISIS, many of whom we once had in custody and saw fit to release under this crew of jackasses, get what they want? We’ll be in an existential fight before long, and probably here on our own shores with some of our own current fellow citizens. I hope you haven’t missed the significance of what is going on in Ferguson, right now, and what the potential effects on radicalization and recruiting for organizations like ISIS will be. Or, for that matter, what has come across our Southern borders, since we re-purposed the Border Patrol to daycare…

              • No, one of them will end up with a basement lab and a genesplicer.

                • Which scenario answers the Fermi Paradox quite nicely. In my darker moments, I can’t quite get away from the suspicion that any species sufficiently competitive enough to evolve intelligence like ours is also probably both competitive and irrational enough to manage to exterminate itself before ever getting off the planet of their origin. Wanna know why we don’t see signs of intelligence elsewhere in the universe? Look at the folks like ISIS, and the idiots in the West who are replaying the response to Hitler and the Nazis.

                  Sometimes, when someone publishes a manifesto, they really do mean what they say in that manifesto. Anyone who read Mein Kampf in its original version and was then surprised by the events of WWII should have been sterilized, their bloodlines treated similarly, and then been secured in an institution for the criminally stupid–Especially if they were in a position of political power. Same-same with the crew we have running things, today. The people behind ISIS told us precisely what they meant to do, how they were going to do it, and when. Our brilliant administration decided, in their infinite wisdom, to release these people back into the wild, instead of putting them down like the vicious animals they are.

                  Don’t be too awfully surprised if you see similar scenes to what happened to the Yazidi here in the US, within a generation or two, where your recently converted neighbors decide to get in on that good looting, rape, and concubinage in order to make things right with the Moon God. With the ineptitude our government is demonstrating, it is almost an inevitability within a generation or two. Anyone who has sense should be working to find like-minded souls who are willing to form enclaves and resist what is coming, because coming it is. Lone wolves are only going to last so long, and then they’re going to die when they have to get some rest. You need others of like mind that you can trust, and who you can trust at your back.

                  Personally, I’m giving serious thought to conversion to Mormonism, because they’re about the only group here in the US I see as having enough cohesion to effectively resist when things turn insane. The only thing that concerns me is that all too many of their leaders still have that “turn the other cheek” mentality, and may not gear up for active defense the way they should be. If I were in charge of the faith at the moment, I’d be giving credit for missionary service to anyone who joined the military and took training, and I’d be stockpiling the hell out of ammo and weapons. Not to mention, doing my level best to co-opt and take over National Guard units when the time comes, because I just don’t see the current leadership of this country doing anything effective while the rest of us have our feet swept out from under us.

                  For examples, please examine the history of Islamic conquest throughout the former Christian majority Near East. Syria was once a bastion of the Orthodox faith, as was Egypt. Now, there are hardly any Christian Syrians left, and the remnant Copts are slowly being drowned in a sea of ignorant fanaticism. That’s our future, unless our government wakes the hell up. Do you think the Ferguson rioters wouldn’t love to take part in something like what’s happening in Northern Iraq, right now? Do you think that the people behind ISIS wouldn’t love to leverage that unrest and lack of purpose in those rioter’s lives, and then turn it into jihad against quaint old middle America? Think again, carefully: This is a disease process of the national soul, and we’re just as vulnerable to it as Byzantine Syria was. Perhaps, even more so.

                  • Eamon J. Cole

                    Remind me, what was the political theory in Byzantine Syria regarding the value of the individual and his rights?

                    Kirk, you do your countrymen a disservice. Ferguson drags on as it does because most people still believe in the rule of law. This belief underlies why there has been no rioting in the streets over .gov overreach to date. Americans expect the rule of law to work it out.

                    While this could certainly drag on too long and irreparable harm to our way of life is possible, the Islamic State in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma is not.

                    • Give great thanks that isn’t possible.

                    • You’re missing the point of what I’m saying: Both the Zimmerman fiasco and the current situation in Ferguson represent battlespace preparation, with the intent of neutering any attempts by the system to exert control in wide swathes of the urban US. Create “no-go” areas for law enforcement and self-defense by non-minorities, and you’re halfway to creating the opportunity for the creation of Islamic enclaves. The process is quite elegant, when you examine it: Make the current law enforcement/justice system untenable in these areas, and then allow chaos to reign in those areas. Once there’s been quite enough of that, move in and offer Islam and Sharia law as an alternative. Co-opt the thugs, establish “safe areas”, and then you’re looking at a classic “reverse ink-blot strategy” from insurgencies of the past. I’ve actually read intel reports where this strategy was laid out for use in Iraq, and it was only by the skin of our teeth and their overreach that it didn’t work. Historically, it is also pretty much how the Islamic conquests were consolidated.

                      The most worrisome point for me is that the people and systems who should be serving as our national “immune system” have been co-opted, and are actively setting the conditions for this sort of thing to happen, and succeed. Why else do you suppose the Justice Department is now investigating on behalf of the criminal thug that was killed, and why that same department of our government was engaged in drumming up the mobs for the Zimmerman fiasco?

                      We may recover from this, but that’s not the way I see it going. Whoever wins the political contests in the next four years or so will be the ones who will have to counteract all this insanity, and if they don’t…?

                      Keep your powder dry, and find friends of like mind. You’re going to need them as things spiral down. And, don’t think that the same things that have happened elsewhere can’t happen here–After all, we did elect and re-elect this administration, knowing full well what they stood for. There was no secret about the Ayers or the Muslim Brotherhood connections in 2008. That was all ignored, aside from a relatively tiny minority.

                    • Eamon J. Cole

                      I may be missing your point.

                      My point remains. These things drag on because the majority believe in the rule of law and are allowing the process to sort the situation out.

                      In your version these little enclaves become self-contained breeding grounds for violence and hate. Fair enough, already happening. And then they move out to subjugate the wider population who…

                      Wait, what does the wider population, the majority, do when the legal institutions fail to address the growing problem? Unlike Byzantine Syria, or Iraq (c’mon, you were there man, you know Iraqis are not like Americans), the wider population in America will not continue sitting on the sidelines when the official structure breaks down. Look to any natural disaster where the official structures are overwhelmed.

                      I said the Islamic State of Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma couldn’t happen, not because of the power and efficacy of the .gov, but because “you handle it, or we will” is a natural response.

                      While I was still in Iraq and the insurgents were going about cutting off heads in the name of the Iraqi people and Islam, and the military was having a hard time sorting it out because they melted back into the population. At the time, I said it wouldn’t happen that way in Louisiana (or Texas, or…) because some nut would cut somebody’s head off and proclaim he was doing it for Catholicism and the greater Cajun nation — and then nobody’d hear from him again.

                      The last thing he’d likely hear is “You do NOT speak for me.”

                      Your premise requires two things: People so reliant on the .gov that they cannot function independently and there being no line which the American people will hold to.

                      Both are BS. Set up a Sharia court and condemn a girl to stoning for speaking to a boy at the grocery store and see.

                    • Eamon, I hate to tell you this, but you’re being entirely too optimistic.

                      On the other hand, I’m being perhaps too pessimistic. However, the things that are going on out there should scare the crap out of anyone, and I would not just blithely trust that “someone will deal with it”, because so far…?

                      There ain’t been anyone stepping up to the plate to do that, now has there? All we have seen are a bunch of dumbass, ineffective and totally oblivious Republicans using what’s been going on for purely political reasons, thinking that this whole situation “isn’t serious, yet…”. And, that they’re going to be able to use it to get elected. It’s like they’re on the Titanic, arguing over who gets what deck chair, while the water is rising around their damn ankles.

                      My question is, when the hell is it going to be “serious enough”? When we have an enclave of the new caliphate established here in the US, and we’re having to worry about slave raids taking young women for sexual servitude from suburban walled compounds? How bad is it going to have to get before someone does something that is actually effective about all this crap?

                      The trends are there, the syndromes are there, and it ain’t looking good for the home team, folks. Take a drive through Detroit, or Memphis, and then tell me how the hell you’re going to wave some magic wand and get all those people living productive, law-abiding lives? Hell, you can’t even criticize their “life choices” without being termed a racist. Good luck fixing that whole situation–We can’t even talk about it.

                    • Eamon J. Cole

                      Oh, I find the things going on very disquieting, and I’m certainly not going to blithely trust that “someone” will deal with it.

                      The political class is corrupt, and ignorant in their elitist assumptions and their politics as usual game playing. These things I won’t argue with you about.

                      Nor will I propose wand waving miracles to erase the damage of generations, it’ll take generations to correct such.

                      But it is a far cry from random gang violence and cultural neglect and corruption to an organized Islamic revolution sweeping across America.

                      When the rule of law is insufficient to the task, then action must be taken. Not before, or the rule of law is undermined by its supporters.

                      And the rule of law is still working. You know how I know? Because Detroit is an abandoned city, not a mass graveyard ruled by warlords.

                      It’s not sunshine and roses (well, really it is for the bulk of 314 million people, but anyway…) but it ain’t the last days, either.

        • It’s a perennial bill in congress, right along with getting rid of the all volunteer force. They don’t like that all humans aren’t identical.

    • This creature didn’t even consider the reaction of mothers being protective of their sons, husbands and brothers.

      Hell, parents reacting violently to having their sons killed. Children reacting with “DON’T YOU HURT MY DADDY”

      Does this flaming moron think that the males will quietly line up for their casualty chambers to be quietly slain?

      • I didn’t read is as actually killing anyone, just making sure they weren’t being born. (Not that that’s much better.)

        • My instinctive response? “Over my dead body.” There’d be women just NOT going to a doctor rather than risk it, and probably a response of underground doctors who have a better grasp of biology than the idiots in charge. But this sort rarely seems to think of the human level resistance and only the mechanical problems.

  25. I wonder about this Femitheist’s child.
    Is this child male or female? Where is the father? While the child’s mother is in school, who is taking care of the child?

  26. Our September read is In Fury Born by David Weber.

    I have also created a folder in which writers can ask for help, such as beta readers or opinions on self-publishing covers or blurbs.