Pages

Thursday, January 9, 2014

Control Choice Mommies, Not Guns

That's the obvious take-away message after reading this:
Sons of Divorce, School Shooters
By W. Bradford Wilcox
December 16, 2013 12:06 PM

Another shooting, another son of divorce. From Adam Lanza, who killed 26 children and adults a year ago at Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Conn., to Karl Pierson, who shot a teenage girl and killed himself this past Friday at Arapahoe High in Centennial, Colo., one common and largely unremarked thread tying together most of the school shooters that have struck the nation in the last year is that they came from homes marked by divorce or an absent father. From shootings at MIT (i.e., the Tsarnaev brothers) to the University of Central Florida to the Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Academy in Decatur, Ga., nearly every shooting over the last year in Wikipedia’s “list of U.S. school attacks” involved a young man whose parents divorced or never married in the first place.

This is not to minimize the importance of debates about gun control or mental health when it comes to understanding these shootings. But as the nation seeks to make sense of these senseless shootings, we must also face the uncomfortable truth that turmoil at home all too often accounts for the turmoil we end up seeing spill onto our streets and schools.

The social scientific evidence about the connection between violence and broken homes could not be clearer. My own research suggests that boys living in single mother homes are almost twice as likely to end up delinquent compared to boys who enjoy good relationships with their father. Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson has written that “Family structure is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, predictor of variations in urban violence across cities in the United States.” His views are echoed by the eminent criminologists Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, who have written that “such family measures as the percentage of the population divorced, the percentage of households headed by women, and the percentage of unattached individuals in the community are among the most powerful predictors of crime rates.”
Clearly, passing laws to prevent the the sane and law-abiding from possessing scary looking inanimate objects have little to no effect on preventing criminals or crazies from killing using those frightening implements. So then what then are we to do?

To answer this question, I'll (temporarily) adopt a left-liberal mindset and set aside any of my usual right-wing philosophical restraints on the proper use and role of government power, and arrogate to myself the mission to keep the lower orders safe from harm and prevent them from harming themselves and/or doing harm to others.

In this vein, I propose that, rather than trying to disarm evil, perhaps we would do better to go straight to the seminal event that produces these evil killers in the first place--choice mommyhood, that self-perpetuating act of straight-up solipsism that is directly responsible for so much mischief. We would do better to configure the machinery of government to proscribe acts that bring forth children without (or strips from them) a father to civilize them.

In short, we should ban, or at least severely restrict, choice mommyhood.  For the children, of course.

The positive effects of this would more or less be immediate.  The drop in crime, the rise in academic achievement, the shrinking welfare rolls, the drop in teen pregnancy rates, the all-but-disapperance of spree shootings at schools--all a product of a common-sense prohibition on choice mommyhood.

How would something like this be accomplished?  The following common-sense rule set comes to mind:

1) Pregnancy shall be illegal without a license; unlicensed pregnancies shall be punished by a hefty fine or jail time, or both.  Children born of unlicensed pregnancies brought to term shall be forcibly adopted out.

2) Gestational licenses shall be granted free of charge only to marriages or civil unions that involve a resident man

3 Divorce shall be permitted, but a rebuttable presumption of custody shall be awarded to the father, and the mother shall be awarded visitation every other weekend, spring and winter break, and 1/2 the summer, and required to pay child support equal to or greater than her ability--measured against other women her age--to provide

4) Widows who do not remarry shall be financially supported by the State

5) Forcible rape--i.e., rape-rape, not gray rape--shall be a capital crime

Other rules are certainly possible to deal with the inevitable few choice mommies and their baby daddy enablers who would seek loopholes so as to inflict their illegitimate spawn on our little shiny happy utopia.

The mind reels with the benefits such goodness would yield.  What's keeping us, then, especially since racial minorities would reap the biggest benefits?  Only racists could want the status quo, one that results in a lopsided 1/3 more women than men in black neighborhoods...those missing black men being "found" either in jail or six feet under.

43 comments:

Elusive Wapiti said...

I'll open comments by noting that writing this post convinced me that conservatives, neo-trads, libertarians, whatever one calls those who don't square with the liberalist agenda, are bringing slingshots to a gunfight.

"Solving" problems, as seen by left-liberas, so-called Progressives, liberalists, is way easy. Their worldview is literally unrestricted; government can do what it wants, when it wants, if it wants. The only barriers to realizing their fevered utopian Whig dreams are right-wingers.

You know, those evil, retrograde chaps who observe a morality proferred to them by some fanciful Flying Spaghetti Monster and who advocate for a form of government dreamt up by dead white Euros. It is, after all, racist to ask non-Euros to adopt a faith promulgated by a Semite and sign on to a system of governance developed by slightly swarthy Mediterraneans and perfected by Anglo-Saxons and Scots.

The Right is constrained by Biblical morality, the fundamental, God-created dignity of humanity, and governing principles that required some 2,500 years to develop. The Left otoh, rejects all of these things.

As a result, they enjoy far more freedom of action and maneuver, and if there is one truism about warfare, those that enjoy freedom of manuever, those that control the initiative, find their fight to be far easier.

Borepatch said...

While we're at it, how about making it a felony for a newspaper or broadcast media company to report on any school shooting not in their immediate media market? Don't want to encourage copy cats, and there's no right to should "fire" in a crowded theater.

2b17e114-7955-11e3-a75e-000bcdcb5194 said...

Wouldn't favouring fathers in divorce court just mean that instead of women frivorcing their husbands, men will frivorce their wives? Don't pretend to me that men are perfect angels and would never take advantage of it; all people suck, regardless of gender and when given the incentives will do bad things.

Also, how do you explain the VT shooter? He always had a nuclear family and yet still shot up his school.

ray said...

spot on

i've been writing about this issue since the late nineties, both online and letters to editors etc etc, insisting that the only way to stabilize society, and stop the understandable rash of "random" shootings, is for amerika and the west to STOP stomping on males from cradle to grave

... 'course, everybody made sure i "got no traction" and then patted one another on the back for putting me in my place . . . while kids are gunned down in schools, cause putting me in my place is so much more important eh?

way to go folks! you done great! you won!

i'd add to your list, presumptive father custody, and as you infer, there MUST be an adult male in EVERY household in which there is a male child

period, no exceptions (and much preferred, biological fathers)

guys in the US are absolutely enraged, and the big problem is, they SHOULD be (and, of course, our gyno-police State loves and profits from the very rage they create, fund, and futher)

putting cops in schools, confiscating guns, etc, these are all just naive and childish wish-fixes from a culture that cant face its obvious mistakes, and wishes to paper over the painful and unpopular solution (stop crushing males and stop "choice mommyhood")

then, on cue, up jumps michael kimmel and the other paid feminist liars to assure us that the problem is "white males losing their privilege" and the solution is to further double-bind and persecute them

the blood of the US killings is on kimmel's hands, obama and hillary and napolitano's hands, bush and reagan hands, and all the other cowards and selfish scum who permit and enjoy the status quo, while kindergartners are murdered in their classrooms

Father is NOT going to intervene to stop this madness, bc this is the madness that western societies freely CHOOSE and DEMAND

i'm glad to see you writing passionately about this issue EW --the truth is extremely rare, as so many people now are highly invested in maintaining the matriarchy, they will only keep putting forward "solutions" that are useless, and that do not even begin to address the real problem

may Christ's Kingdom of the Father come soon to this rotten and vile planet

cheers

His Lady said...

Whoa down there, fellow commenter of the long string of characters. Less aggression in your questions and you'll get along much better.

But as you raise the point that some (too many, of course) men might feel incentivized to blow up their families much like many women currently do, would you agree that it would be preferable to eliminate "no-fault" divorce altogether? We have to do something about this epidemic of violent delinquency, you know.

Seriously, though, EW isn't putting this forward with intent that it be considered. After all, what right-winger in the known universe would trust the government to provide "gestational licenses", given how badly they handle everything else?

His Lady said...

i'd add to your list, presumptive father custody, and as you infer, there MUST be an adult male in EVERY household in which there is a male child

Hi again, ray.

Let's take a look at the case where a woman can't help but be without a husband: a widow. Do you propose to take the sons of her husband out of the home he worked to provide for them and toss them into the foster-care system? Or should she just go get some male, whoever it may be, to move in with her?

In the case of a woman being granted custody under the proposed system because her husband actually isn't fit to have custody: should she similarly go and find some male, any male, to move in with her, or have her sons thrown into the foster system?

I am interested to know how you would make this workable, without creating the same problem or making it worse.

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Borepatch,

"While we're at it, how about making it a felony for a newspaper or broadcast media company to report on any school shooting not in their immediate media market?"

That's a good idea and a noble task for a newly created Ministry of Information and Truth.

I'll add that media should be required to report on all shootings, not just the "man bites dog" varieties such as school shootings.

Imagine the good that would come of everyone being forced to reckon with the steady drumbeat of black males shooting and killing other black males...and occasionally offing a white or hispanic every once in a while.

After a few thousand stories like that inside the span of a year, perhaps then people will have to ask obvious questions as to "why?"...and then note the obvious differences in family structure...not to mention acculturalization (i.e., the "blame whitey" agitprop spoonfed by the financially interest-conflicted race hucksters)...but cultural messaging is a whole different can o worms.

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Overly Long String of Hexadecimal Characters,

"Wouldn't favouring fathers in divorce court just mean that instead of women frivorcing their husbands, men will frivorce their wives?"

Possibly. But default father custody was the rule prior to the early 20th century, and divorce rates back then were in the basement.

Have men changed since then? Surely. Have they changed so much that they'll ape women's frivorcing behavior? I doubt it.

As evidence I point to other countries with strong patriarchal systems (i.e., Moslem countries, esp those with Sharia law), and divorce is rare, even though men putatively have the power to frivorce their wife at will and keep the kids.

Don't get me wrong, men sin just as badly as women. Yet past history and current male behavior suggest that default father custody will result in a fraction of the marital disruptions as default mother custody does.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"Also, how do you explain the VT shooter? He always had a nuclear family and yet still shot up his school."

The same way I would 'splain the children of divorce that don't shoot up schools or engage in violent behavior, etc. Merely point to the behavior of the entire population, and note that choice mommyhood is tied to a whole slew of poor outcomes, independent of race, class, income, etc.

A school shooter that comes from an intact home doesn't invalidate the rest of the data that suggests broken homes generate far far more than their fair share of maladjusted boys--who shoot up each other, when not shooting up schools--and girls, to contribute to the violence by whelping the next generation of mutant criminals.

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ His Lady

"After all, what right-winger in the known universe would trust the government to provide "gestational licenses", given how badly they handle everything else?"

Indeed. I would be more than satisfied at disincentivizing choice mommyhood through (a) default father custody for children born inside a marriage, (b) default mother custody for children born outside a marriage, (c) abolishing chalimony, and (d) abolishing welfare, WIC, TANF, all that jazz. But that would lighten too many wallets.

I'd much rather the government stop competing with men to be The Man in American families and instead confine itself to protecting property rights, protecting civil rights, tax collection, border protection, etc.

If the family truly is the lowest level of government, it strikes me as quite Federalist to devolve as much power as absolutely possible to as low level as possible.

Oh and stop competing with the small-c church--i.e., individual parishioners--to dispense charity, and let the Body look after widows, orphans, the down and out.

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Ray,

""white males losing their privilege""

Not that I'm doubting you for a moment, but I can't believe Kimmel said that without being immediately called out.

Talk about a total non sequitur.

Aussie Realist said...

I agree in part, but just think about the potential for homicide: wife wants divorce, wife will lose custody, wife kills husband, gets insurance & custody. If police arrest her she can claim abuse.
Widows sometimes are so by their own actions...

Blkwdw86 said...

No need for new laws, controversial new rules, thenadministration needed to enforce that, or anything.

Just eliminate all forms of welfare. The problem will sort itself out and quickly. Bonus: we can get our national fiscal house in order!

2b17e114-7955-11e3-a75e-000bcdcb5194 said...

@ElusiveWapiti

Men in Muslim countries don't have an incentive to frivorce their wives because they can legally take a younger/hotter/tighter wife while keeping the old one. Why frivorce your old wife, even if divorce courts favour you, when you can keep both wives and hence have two sex partners?

People of both sexes HAVE changed dramatically in the past century. A century ago, we had concepts such as shame, and putting the needs of others before one's own. The current crop of 20-something men are so damn narcissistic and individualistic (as are their female peers). Men of my great-grandfather's generation would stay with their wives for life out of a sense of duty and honour, even if divorce courts favoured men. Men of my generation (btw I am a lot younger than you) WILL ape their female peers.

We should just repeal no-fault divorce altogether. Custody should go to the parent who is NOT at fault. If both parents are at fault, it should be split 50/50.

Eric said...

Borepatch & Wapiti:
Actually, President Putin put those kinds of restrictions on the Russian press right after the Beslan School Massacre, saying it would be a deterrent to fame-seeking types like these.

Incidents like that have actually gone down in Russia until recently: but I think the greater deterrent was when he also ordered the paramilitary units to stop taking prisoners in these kinds of attacks. Now, any prisoners taken in a mass-attack are to be tried by drum-head court-martial and executed on the spot.

To underscore the policy, after Beslan, he had the military surround the Chechen camp where the killers came from and emptied 20,000 Katusha missiles on it. But we don't have leaders with that kind of determination.

Eric said...

Long Character String:
You're totally wrong about the Moslems. First, their religion allows for polygamy, so divorce is not an option. Secondly, it's not as easy to divorce a wife in Islam as the femihag media here represents. Adultery is practically the only grounds for divorce---and the husband has to produce four witnesses to the adulterous act---not exactly easy when you consider it.

If a Moslem man brings adultery charges without witnesses, Sharia Law prescribes him to receive 80 lashes in a public flogging and he's disbarred from credible legal testimony for life.

"Custody should go to the parent who is not at fault, and in cases where both parties are at fault 50-50"

I think that custody should automatically go to the State. That would save millions in tax/welfare dollars and end 90% of frivolous divorces---and disincentivize women from marrying scumbags in the first place!

ray said...

yeah kimmel got called on it EW, but it's been his daily bread for thirty years

manson was fatherless from birth, btw... certificate listed as "No-Name Maddox" ... 16 y.o. unmarried mother, couldnt manage to care sufficiently to NAME the kid!

how's THAT for a start? welcome to the planet, baby!

it's v easy for satan to use them after that -- having had no earthly imprint of father

cheers

newrebeluniv said...

http://newrebeluniv.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/in-order-to-form-a-more-perfect-society/

My contribution.

--Hale

His Lady said...

I think that custody should automatically go to the State.

Yeah, it's called "public school". It's doing such a bang-up job so far, let's just go ahead and put the kids all the way in the State's power 24/7!

How about we just keep the State out of families unless it's an absolute emergency or there are actual crimes going on?

I agree in part, but just think about the potential for homicide: wife wants divorce, wife will lose custody, wife kills husband, gets insurance & custody. If police arrest her she can claim abuse.

Even in case of abuse, she doesn't get the insurance money. They typically have a strict no-killing, no-suicide policy on payouts. It keeps people more honest.

But if you have some hard statistics on the rates of wife-initiated murders of husbands back in the days pre-feminism, I would be interested in seeing them.

Acksiom said...

Isn't Vasalgel going to accomplish most of this anyways?

Why is nobody in the androsphere talking about that Men's Lib Black Swan on the horizon?

Oh, and a little Androphere Fail there, EW -- it won't be urban black youths on the news day and night. As of 2010 male suicides were 54% of all firearm deaths in the usa, and white males were 49.80% of the total, and that's including both accidents and legal intervention. Remove either, and white male suicides become the majority of firearm deaths in the usa in 2010.

These public shootings haven't been flareups *into* the homicide stats; they've been spillovers *out* of the *suicide* ones.

We're seeing spillover from suicide.

But, again, Vasalgel is an actually happening thing, and it's likely to accomplish at least some of what you want here.

Fierce moral sarcastration is all well and good, but it won't stop the PTB from putting the voodoo curse on Vasalgel or binding it up in the FDA, or. . .

You have one of the most LITERALLY "Red Pill" men's liberation technologies around the corner -- NOTHING is going to break young men out of the Matrix like this kind of control over their own fertility. Why is NOBODY in the androsphere talking about this, let alone hammering on it at every opportunity in preparation for 2016?

I understand the fun and appeal of mockery, but when exactly are we going to start behaving like the comparative adults we suppose ourselves to be?

Eric said...

His Lady:
You're right about the so-called public schools...

However, what I meant was that if NEITHER parent got custody in a divorce---excepting for good and clear grounds---the kids should be put up for adoption and nobody, including the divorce lawyers, should see a dime in profit off it, then the Divorce Industry would collapse.

His Lady said...

NOTHING is going to break young men out of the Matrix like this kind of control over their own fertility.

If this is about power and nothing else, then yes. Enabling cads (who, I'm told, are the only ones having sex) to cad about more freely is going to be a tremendously powerful thing and shift the balance even further toward them and away from Average Joe.

Divide and conquer...

Acksiom said...

No, I'm talking about the impregnation veto it's going to give ALL guys, cads and chumps alike.

Think about that. Think about men having personal VETO power over impregnation with their sperm.

You say you want our babies?

*You'd* better start *figuring out* and *getting good at* what *we* want, then.

Because GOOW is *already* better for many of us than what you're aiming to bring back. And that gap isn't just increasing; it's accelerating.

Understand? You're losing young men to the technology curve faster than you *can* gain them.

There's no way you don't understand the incredible power that women have gained from their *technologically* improved veto over fatherhood.

All you have to do is imagine what will happen when men gain comparable personal veto power over motherhood.

For at least little Squish's sake, I recommend you start soon. Her world is going to be very, very different from yours. . .just like mine was very, *very* different from my father's.

Eric said...

Acksiom:
Men can veto femihag sexuality right now, without drugs---stop having sex with them and leave them to the thugs they want anyway. Any offspring they produce will either be aborted or a dysfunctional retard, so men who have kids with real women will be more powerful in the end.

Meanwhile, the world's bigger place than the Anglosphere. Go meet some foreign women (i.e. real women) and the Amerobitches pale in comparison!

ray said...

hello young lady -


"Let's take a look at the case where a woman can't help but be without a husband: a widow. Do you propose to take the sons of her husband out of the home he worked to provide for them and toss them into the foster-care system? Or should she just go get some male, whoever it may be, to move in with her?"


the Church (the real one) will provide a suitable man to supervise and (spiritually) protect the women and children, when the bio dad isnt present, available, or (rarely) suitable -- suitable to the Church, not to the woman/children

neither the State (nor what are presently called churches) can even address, much less solve,these problems... hasnt this been sufficiently proven yet? why would a Christian even think of random foster "care"?


"I am interested to know how you would make this workable, without creating the same problem or making it worse."


well, to start, i dont resolve global problems, God does, when and how He decides

next i wouldnt try to fix spiritual problems that began in eden, with the structures and tools of human beings and fallen angels

what you ask requires humility, sacrifice, obedience, submission to God -- not new programs and schemes

happens individually, not by group fiat

that's one reason why the LORD ended the OT by telling his people in the last days to "turn the hearts of the fathers (bio dads and men generally) to the children"

the way to begin such a restoration isnt with projects and grand designs, but by changing the hearts of ourselves and others, in the way directed . . . and the physical manifestations will follow the spiritual beginnings, God will greatly multiply obedient works that follow his explicit (and simple, NOT complex) instruction


until the Kingdom of the Father is set up externally, we start small and simple, by encouraging the healthy interation of fathers/men with children, but especially boys



"God setteth the solitary in families: he bringeth out those which are bound with chains: but the rebellious dwell in a dry land." (Ps 68)



if men who dont want to marry, or arent allowed to marry, open their lives and hearts to God, then He will set them in His (not the State's) proper foster family -- the one most suiting their collective spiritual development ie closeness to Him

cheers

His Lady said...

ray, I'm glad you don't want to fight the State with the State, but you are missing the two large holes in the plan you propose about legislating the presence of a man, full-time, in a boy's home.

If the State finds an unacceptable situation for children, it removes them from the home and drops them into the foster-care system, because it doesn't run large-scale, warehouse-style orphanages. That's the only tool it has in its box. If you have the State legislating that the child HAS to be in a home where there is an adult male, then it will have no recourse but to take the children away if there is no male.

And as for "the Church will find a good man to replace her lost husband"--well, yeah, in the same way they preach "man up and marry those sluts". Furthermore, that doesn't account for the women who aren't in a home church, or who aren't Christian at all. I can see a large industry of green-card factories popping up--and then a convenient rash of "abandonment" claims for divorce and annulments. I smell serial monogamy run rampant, fraud, and the further cheapening of marriage--and lots of boys who wind up pretty much the same as they do now, only this time the problem was "solved" so obviously it's because boys are naturally defective, amirite?

Involving the government typically only makes things worse. This would do the same.

His Lady said...

@ Acksiom

Because GOOW is *already* better for many of us than what you're aiming to bring back.

Well, you can't negotiate with someone who's already decided that he only cares about what's good for him. He's already outside of civilization, so he has to be written off, and you deal instead with the people who actually are concerned with the long term.

So, no, unfortunately, once you've arrived at that point, there's no percentage trying to bring you back.

All you have to do is imagine what will happen when men gain comparable personal veto power over motherhood.

I can, in fact: If this male birth-control has the same or similar sociological effect to female birth-control (and it will: divorcing sex, family, and fertility further), then not only will the atomization of the population become complete, but there will be a steeper demographic crash in which white people--such as I assume you are--are replaced even more rapidly and completely by foreign others, those who are willing to reproduce (see, e.g., Europe).

You, white man, will unfortunately become an endangered species, particularly as white women submit themselves to the foreign invader in a bid to survive and be fruitful (and they will, as they already are).

Then the place where you live will devolve into a Third-World style dictatorship, because that is what the new dominant people will prefer, and not only will you lose access to the amenities and luxuries that make Going Your Own Way so comfortable, but you will probably become completely persona non grata (except those very few of you who are already among the ruling elite).

So you'll get to Go Your Own Way more than you even imagined, but at least you'll have denied those dumb women your babies, so there's that comfort.

*shrug*

Black Poison Soul said...

Our leftist masters also require some other things to bring this vision of our Brave New World Order to fruition:

1/ enforced sterilisation of single mommies
2/ enforced sterilisation of their bastard spawn
3/ enforced abortion of their unborn bastard spawn

Of course, a forward-thinking Ministry of Truth will begin the process of the general public's mental acclimation towards an end-goal of:

4/ lethal injection for these lawbreakers

Further, money (and power) talks. Allow exemptions for a million dollars per, it'll cut down on bribe-attempts. All comrades are equal. Some comrades are more equal than others.

Acksiom said...

>Well, you can't negotiate with someone who's already decided that he only cares about what's good for him.

No; rather, would you like to know what I think you should do with those slave chains and collar you're jingling around in your hands at me, there?

>He's already outside of civilization,

No; liberty, rather, is the hallmark of civilization; it is compulsion that lies outside of it.

In light of the privileged, elitist, exploitive attitude you display of expecting other people to prioritize your best interests over their own by default, I don't think this is worth continuing.

ray said...

hello His Lady-

yr comment shows you either didnt read or understand my response, i excluded both State and (current "church") from decisionmaking

obviously you wrote whatever you'd already decided on regardless

ps i have no "plan" (that'd be God) and i wrote nothing about "legislating" anything

if i ever need someone to put words in my mouth, tho, i will be sure to call on you first!

paulmurray said...

The Right is constrained by Biblical morality, the fundamental, God-created dignity of humanity, and governing principles that required some 2,500 years to develop.

We are discussing the same god that wiped out nearly all of humanity in a flood? The one that is going to put nearly all of humanity in a chip fryer for all eternity? That god?

Why did he need 2,500 years? Democracy comes to us via the pagan Greeks, common law via the pagan Romans, no bronze-age semitic volcano-gods required.

paulmurray said...

"Wouldn't favouring fathers in divorce court just mean that instead of women frivorcing their husbands, men will frivorce their wives?"

Men do not get cash and prizes when they divorce. But yes: there would have to be safeguards against divorcing simply to upgrade.

paulmurray said...

"I think that custody should automatically go to the State. That would save millions in tax/welfare dollars and end 90% of frivolous divorces---and disincentivize women from marrying scumbags in the first place!"

The problem is that the state tends to sexually abuse children in its custody. One very disturbing thing about (real) rapists is that they tend to have been sexually abused by women when they were boys. State-run boys homes are factories churning out disturbed men with excellent reason to hate women. The miracle is that so many of them do not go on to become rapists.

Elusive Wapiti said...

"We are discussing the same god that wiped out nearly all of humanity in a flood...why did he need 2,500 years...Democracy comes to us..."

No. I'm discussing Man, using his God-given Reason to create better forms of governance. All part of His plan, of course.

And common law--the sort we're familiar with, anyway--was established by the Anglo-Saxons, not Romans, so sorry.

But those secularists, they're an enlightened bunch, they have so many gods that they don't need a God or his Semitic chosen people to show the way.

sunshinemary said...

Ann Coulter has written quite a bit about how bad choice mommies are for civilization. The information is out there, the statistics are strong and widely available, yet progressives cling to their narrative. Very odd, that.

It's like they are saying: Liberal beliefs are right, therefore if reality does not conform to liberal beliefs, then reality is wrong.

Unknown said...

Ray,

It's always hard to understand what you're saying with your lack of punctuation and proper capitalization.

But she perfectly asked a question that you completely dodged, or purposely misunderstood, or just simply didn't read... so yes, there is that.

His Lady,
I loved your response to Acksiom.

But I'm just a woman out to destroy manhood, defeat him, and chain him up to "heaven forbid" a couple of offspring that shares his dna, so my views are just hogwash. There - so ray and acksiom don't have to say it.

-C

Eric said...

Paul Murray:

"One disturbing thing about rapists is they tend to have been sexually abused by women when they were boys."

Oh, nonsense. That's based on the same feminist abuse-industry junk science like those that the MHRM manginas are always palming off on men as a way to play the victim card themselves.

http://www.eivindberge.blogspot.com/2013/01/beware-of-sex-negative-mras.html

"Democracy comes to us via the pagan Greeks...No Bronze Age Semitic Volcano Gods required."

Ummm...yeah, and the Greeks had a Pantheon of their own, in case you didn't notice. Like the Hebrews, they understood a relationship a relationship between God and mankind---and Democracy evolved out of that, just as Theocracy (a informal governmental system run by Judges) evolved in Judea.








ray said...

"We are discussing the same god that wiped out nearly all of humanity in a flood? The one that is going to put nearly all of humanity in a chip fryer for all eternity? That god?"



yep that'd be Him alritee

whoever goes into the Deep Fryer will damn well deserve it too, and i cant wait to be rid of them

btw He also allows whole peoples to go into slavery, including His own people if they deserve it

what is it exactly about actual justice that bothers you? you and i are Special?

i'm GLAD i have a holy God who HATES unregenerate wickedness, whose Son is about to restore boys to daddies all across Planet Gyno, satanland

perhaps if you really knew the condition of fatherless little boys in the u.s. over the past forty years -- a heartbreaking and brutal business -- you'd be more likely to share my relief and (eventual) elation at their coming reconcilations . . . instead of resenting the God who fixes and forgives our rotten and selfish sins and screwups

cheers

His Lady said...

I always find it amusing that feminists and certain manospherians (like Acksiom) will reflexively respond by declaring the conversation pointless because any dissenters are evil and horrible and just want to take away their FREEEEEEEDOM. It's almost like they have something in common...

Anyway.

Acksiom, if you consider a functioning civilization (which no, we no longer have) to be slavery, then there is nothing to discuss. Chains are what you'll really have when there are much, much fewer of YOU than there are the people who don't mind being slaves as long as they can get your stuff: namely, the foreigners and home-grown thugs who WILL replace you.

I don't expect you to understand this because you have put your faith in this new panacea.

His Lady said...

ray, I was simply proceeding to explain what the problem WOULD be with such a system. I do that just for intellectual purposes sometimes. You should remember that by now. *smile*

I recognize you don't want to legislate anything, that God has charted the course for things, and I fully agree. Don't go looking for a fight where there is none!

His Lady said...

Paul, the concept of individual parts of the whole governing themselves by minimal government and established, unchanging laws, and occasionally coming together for purposes of mutual defense and overall identity (the original model of the United States, in fact) was pioneered by Israel.

The "representative republic" model--which is what we nominally have now--was invented by Rome, not Greece. Of course, the schools love to teach us that we're "a democracy", but America is not a democracy, not by a long shot. If we were a democracy, we'd vote on bills instead of Congress doing it for us.

ray said...

"ray, I was simply proceeding to explain what the problem WOULD be with such a system. I do that just for intellectual purposes sometimes. You should remember that by now. *smile*"



uh ok it was rhetorical, but dont expect others to automatically grok yr personal nuances via text

ps obviously i'm even further confoozled, as i dont remember our past correspondences, unless youve used another handle,cheers

Olde New England said...

One of the facts about Adam Lanza that was quickly glossed over in the local newspapers (and then never mentioned again) is that he started to get whacked out after his parents divorced. One could argue that his father kept him grounded and sane. One could also argue that his crackpot mother drove him nuts. At any rate, I doubt that this would have happened, nor would Lanza have degenerated into a paranoid freak, if his father had custody of him.

Another point mentioned by the media once and then hushed up: At the divorce hearing, Lanza's mother got custody by swearing she would take care of him forever. But it was also mentioned in the news that she had told her son shortly before the shootings that he needed to move out of the house and go out on his own. Then, she left for a lavish vacation at a mountain hotel.

So here you have a liar and nut-job mother with guns in the house watching her son degenerate from an autistic into probably a paranoid schizophrenic. Blacked- out bedroom windows, and only communucating with momma by email... and she goes on vacation. I place the entire blame for the shootings on Mrs. Lanza. Too bad she's dead only from the perspective that she should have been tried for child abuse.