Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Ban Bob Costas from Owning Hand Guns

The media only seem to call for hand gun bans when there is a high profile murder, especially involving celebrities. Costas now wants to ban hand guns in the wake of a murder suicide-committed by an NFL linebacker named Jovan Belcher. So if famous people like Bob Costas are successfully prohibited from owning hand guns, there would presumably be fewer shootings among them, and the media will not be so eager to ban hand guns.

Another solution is to ban people. As long as the implicit goal is to prevent all hand gun deaths, banning people would be more efficient than banning hand guns because it is more difficult to hide a human than conceal a hand gun. Also, there are far fewer murders per square mile where there are fewer people. Absurd goals deserve absurd solutions.

Friday, October 19, 2012

Cincinnatus not Ceasar

Cut all benefits to the troops other than base pay and healthcare.

The tradition of American warriors emulating Cincinnatus dates back to America's founding. At the conclusion of the Revolutionary war, George Washington handed over his sword to civil authorities, relinquishing power to them. He emulated Cincinnatus not Caesar. Before we explain how all this relates to modern soldiers, we must first describe the difference between Cincinnatus and Caesar.

Cincinnatus was a patrician farmer who served as temporary dictator during Rome's war with the Sabines. After leading a successful military campaign against the Sabines, Cincinnatus relinquished his power to the Roman Senate, the civil governing body, and returned to being a farmer. This was actually the tradition of the time.

On the other hand, several hundred years later, Julius Caesar chose to retain dictatorial powers, the first step to forever transforming Rome from a Republic to a Dictatorship. Caesar chose to hold on to military power. Today, American schoolchildren are far more likely to know about Julius Caesar than Cincinnatus, much to the detriment of what their concept of the ideal soldier should be.

The example of Caesar holding on to power relates to American soldiers in how they enjoy lifelong freebies and benefits for a service term, even after they retire. The present system of payment in the military does not encourage the spirit of Cincinnatus, ie., someone who fights a necessary battle to defend his country and then retires to civilian life, expecting nothing in return other than a modest salary for the duration of his service and esteem from those he defended.

American soldiers should fight only for such causes they believe in, and not out of desire to be a soldiers of fortune. How might they be soldiers of fortune? If they sign up in order to receive college scholarships, to see the world, acquire wealth and other freebies, or receive a nice pension. The US government should not be allowed to bribe people into becoming soldiers with said things. Men should only become soldiers because they want to fight in combat in defense of America. They should receive no greater benefits from government than civilians do.

The goal is for soldiers to fight only to fulfill a specific need and return to private life, as Cincinnatus did. They should not continue to demand tribute from Americans in spite of their service ending. The primary exception is that combat veterans should receive free healthcare, since combat duty necessarily involves a high rate of injuries, many of which last a lifetime. The free healthcare would serve as sort of preemptive workman's comp. Perhaps pensions could be extended but only to widows of fallen soldiers who have children. Any work-related disabilities would also be covered. Soldiers who never see combat or a war theater would not receive free lifelong healthcare, so that they would not sign up just to get free healthcare without having to risk their live. There is always the worry that "combat" may be so broadly defined that almost any soldier would get lifelong healthcare.

George Washington quelled a potential rebellion by Continental soldiers who were upset about not receiving pay for their services in the Revolutionary War. If not for his allegiance to the concept of Cincinnatan military service, he perhaps would have joined them in rebelling. America would have had a much different history, perhaps never becoming a Republic as Washington became ruler and the soldiers his government. But Washington shamed them into not rebelling and yielding to their state governments. Their only satisfaction was similar to the lyrics of this song:

"I once was a seaman stout and bold,
Ofttimes I've ploughed the ocean:
I've ploughed it all o'er and o'er again,
For honor and promotion.

Aboard of man-of-war and merchantman,
Many be the battles that I've been in;
It was all for the honor of George Washington,
And I'll still be the jolly, jolly soldier."

The solider forever ascends into to an archetypal ideal type: "I'll still be the jolly, jolly soldier." This is his primary reward. Though he may return to civil life and no longer receive any payment from the military, his soul will be that of a jolly solider. Notice also that the soldier fights for honor and promotion, not for a pension or college. In other words, he willingly fights for something he believes in because the fighting itself is noble.

Granted, receiving no pay or health benefits is a harsh thing, like what soldiers experienced in Washington's day. Soldiers should not be in a situation like the Bonus Army protesters were in 1932 either. But it seems that lifelong free healthcare for combat veterans mentioned earlier, a reasonable flat rate of pay for the duration of service, pensions for widowed mothers, and compensation for combat-related disabilities should suffice. Otherwise, they should receive no greater benefits from government than civilians do. No free college, no personal pensions, no other benefits.

However, there is a problem with such a policy. A standing army is necessary for America's defense. Obviously, members of a modern standing army cannot be like Cincinnatus because they would need to stay on active duty for at least 25 years in order to mentor and train their successors. But if the standing army is kept to a skeletal minimum that can be filled in quickly if war breaks out, then the wartime recruits will have the chance to be like Cincinnatus and return to civilian life after service. The problem is that many of them will look to their lifer counterparts and want to keep their military jobs after the war just like the lifers would. They may push politicians to kow-tow to their desire to stay employed with the military. It seems even a semi-Cincinnatan policy is a lot more easily conceived than implemented.

What's more, a totally Cincinnatan policy of payment seems to be impossible in the modern world due to the need for a standing army. But the ideal of Cincinnatan military service should nevertheless be sought after within the confines of strong defense.

Foreign Policy Implications
Although the impetus for wars that are unpopular with the majority of people usually comes from big oil, or unseemly profiteers, these forces cannot commence with wars without manpower, ie., troops, so the soldiers' complicity with such wars is necessary to wage them. But on the margin, Could the policies I recommended earlier reduce the number of soldiers who are willing to fight such wars?

If military recruiters had less collateral with which to entice young people into the military (eg college benefits, etc), then hopefully unpopular theaters of war could not be populated without a draft. The military would have to force people into wars to which they are not naturally drawn. If the people didn't want to fight, the hope is that they would vote out the politicians who permit the draft and thereby stop the unpopular wars.* A draft is more forthright and honest than the incrementalist bait and switch tactics employed by recruiters today. Thus the practice of a Cincinnatan compensation system bereft of tantalizing freebies would be more conducive to a non-interventionist foreign policy because those on the margin who join for benefits or a job would not be lured into joining and would vote out politicians who support a draft.


However, this relies on the assumption that Americans would oppose a draft quickly and cause their representative to oppose one. But would they? It took a little over two years since the inception of the second Iraq war in 2003 for a majority American public opinion to finally turn against it. For much of these two years, the majority of Americans may well have supported a draft too, which would have condemned many objectors to potential death and disfigurement. If involuntary military service is a greater evil than subverting the Cincinnatan ideal of a soldier, then perhaps the freebies would be preferrable to a draft. While everyone must agree that both are undesirable, it is not clear that compulsory service would conflict with emulating Cincinnatus, since we do not know whether he fought willingly or only because he was elected to do so.



Another question is: How many join for the honor and how many join for the benefits? If they all join for honor, then wouldn't foreign policy be potentially just as interventionist if benefits were taken away? But this is not the case because many soldiers admit to signing up just for the freebies, so at least some of them wouldn't join, and thus the foreign policy would have to be that much less interventionist, assuming people don't put up with a draft.




Another problem is that a person may join for both honor and benefits, and this makes things murky. Wars of plunder can involve aspirations of valor and heroism. For example, the Saxons plundered, and they had a high system of honor among themselves. Indeed, Caesar himself probably displayed heroic traits in manoeuvering his troops.

But as in times past, there must be both Caesars and Cincinnati in the present. Perhaps many would-be Caesars could be brought up to be more like Cincinnatus if they were taught about him in school. Regardless, if Cincinnatus could win in battle, so can modern Cincinnati. And if the military is composed of modern Cincinnati, then resources that would have been spent in unnecessary fighting will be put into building up civil society. In such a case, the ultimate winner will be our civil Republic.
______________________________

*Many reading this paper may point out that prohibiting a military draft is a good way of stopping unnecessary wars. This is true but a topic for another article because one could presumably be a Cincinnatan soldier even if drafted into combat as long as he leaves with minimal or no post-combat benefits.

Monday, October 8, 2012

Feminism is Demographically Self-Refuting

Feminism is probably one of the most genocidal influences in the entire world. Wherever feminism is present, there are substantially lower birth rates, which usually cline toward being below replacement rate, leading to eventual extinction. This is true of nearly all of Europe, Japan, and among most peoples of the United States.

Such an argument based on this correlation alone may be called a loose one, because the aforementioned nations are also plagued by materialism. We must concede that acquiring more wealth and leisure time is mutually exclusive with having more children. For example, a significant amount of time one would have spent relaxing would be spent caring for the children; and much extra money spending money would then go to clothe and feed them. Actually, desire for leisure time does not imply materialism but rather falls with materialism under a broader category of selfishness and desire for self-indulgence.

There is, however, a deductive argument that explains the aforementioned correlation of low birth rates as directly caused by feminism, and proves that feminism alone is sufficient to induce such low birthrates.

Feminism's main goal is for women to attain a cultural standing equal to that of men. To do so, women must wield an equivalent level of power. Thus, women must have an equal place in the business world, legal profession, etc. Women must, in essence, become men insofar as men are powerful, while retaining a superior feminine sense of empathy and sensitivity.

But women, of course, are far more involved in childbearing than men. If a husband and wife wish to have children, it will invariably harm the wife's career more than the husband's, because she will need more time off, and will be encumbered physically. Thus, having children interferes with and prevents women's efforts at striving to have equal power with men, the main goal of feminism.

Thus, the highest aims of feminism are necessarily incompatible with having any children at all. The extent to which feminists have children is the extent to which they compromise their feminism.

Now that we have explained external data with the deductive argument that feminism causes too few children to be born, we must ask the question: Is a maladaptive trait within a population a trait worth maintaining? If everyone becomes a feminist, then within a few thousand years or less, humanity will die out along with feminism itself, since there will be nobody left to believe in it. The virus will have run out of hosts. So is a belief that is demographically self-refuting worth having at all?

Aesthetic Proof
A lamentation must be made for the many beautiful women who pursue careers and allow their motherly potential to be unfulfilled and left barren. Indeed, beautiful traits in women often directly correspond to their bodies' ability to nurture life itself into being. While they tromp high heeledly and consume caffeine, cigarettes, and unhealthy food in deference to their demanding career schedule, the flower of their countenance withers and decays fast. They are bound in angular stone-colored garments, as shapeless as a slab. Their beauty is unfulfilled, being expended on acquisition of power or material gain. Some come to their senses later in life, and often struggle to have even one child. But though every woman's beauty is bound to fade, it may be in some way passed on to her children, or perhaps the loss of beauty could be rectified with the knowledge that it bore fruit. Even if one is too old or is infertile for another reason, a woman should encourage other women to have children and fulfill what their body naturally wants to do.

Feminism does not esteem demographic maintenance as a virtue, but if it did, it would allow for its own continuation. If such sacrificial altruism were held above the desire for power or material gain, then perhaps feminism would be more truly feminine... and not self-refuting.
________________________
Addendum
Some may object to this write-up and allege that it should also condemn nuns and vows of chastity. Such an allegation is not applicable because in the modern Catholic church, almost no one becomes a nun, so the small number who do are demographically insignificant. Additionally, the reason most Catholic women do not have a sustainable number of children is primarily due to the the prevailing feminism and the church's responsorial compromise of permitting "natural family planning" aka the rhythm method. But feminism led the way and church went along. The idea that women who have not made vows of chastity should stave off pregnancy originated outside of Catholicism. Catholicism had existed for nearly 2,000 years, with Catholics never dying out and only multiplying. Feminism came around in the 20th century and only since then have Catholics' birthrate begun to decline. Moreover, Catholicism enforces gender roles within the church and has never discouraged motherhood among lay women.

In the pre Vatican II Catholic church, when there were more nuns, women had huge families because the church forbade all birth control, and the popes expressly stated that the primary purpose of marriage was to raise children up in the Catholic faith. In the words of Padre Pio, marriages were to be "beautifully crowned with children," in order to "populate the earth and paradise." If only he could see demographically imploding, secularized Italy today... Anyway, neither the modern nor ancient Catholic paradigm is necessarily demographically self-refuting and the modern one is only to the extent that its adherents are selfish and/or adhere to feminism.

Friday, August 24, 2012

Brandon Raub and The Soviet Art of Brainwashing

Brandon Raub was released on August 23 from being detained without warrant by the FBI at a psychiatric ward. The ObLure does not endorse Raub's views on 9/11 or his decision to vaguely post violent rap lyrics on his Facebook page. However, we are appalled that the FBI morons would use such behavior as a justification to detain him. Raub made no actual threats whatsoever, and hence the judge correctly ordered that Raub be released. Raub should be able to sue the FBI and win a large settlement.

Interestingly, the idea that a sane person who criticizes government officials should be put in a mental hospital has been expressed in a book called "The Soviet Art of Brainwashing" in the 1950's. Admittedly, the book is fake and was not written by actual communists, but it contains some chilling ideas about institutionalizing people who criticize what are called "psychopolitical operatives" ie communist insiders:
Should anyone attempt to expose psychotherapy as a psychopolitical activity, the best defense is calling into question the sanity of the attacker... The next best defense is the actual removal of the attacker by giving him treatment sufficient to bring about a period of insanity for the duration of the trial.
What is scary is that officials can force a sane person in a psyche ward to take drugs that make him crazy, in an attempt to justify the initial detainment therein. Hopefully the FBI didn't hurt Raub by means of electro shock therapy and like while he was in there.

If a person is legitimately crazy to begin with, and is doing obscene things in public or actually threatening people, then committing him seems like the right thing to do for his protection and that of others. For example, if a deranged homeless man is defecating in public or harassing people and has a history of doing so, then a mental hospital seems like a necessary remedy.

But if someone merely has bad taste in politics or music and isn't crazy, he should not be institutionalized. Although many of us may bemoan his bad taste, people need to be free to make mistakes. Sometimes a person's involvement in politics can eventually lead to the acquisition of better, more sophisticated beliefs. Today's conspiracy theorist may evolve into tomorrow's political theorist.

Also, sometimes conspiracy theorists, because of their intense scrutiny of those in power, actually have better overall political inclinations than many non-conspiracy people and are less likely to be bamboozled by politicians. This is because they tend to apply a higher standard of honesty to politicians and others in power. Thus, sometimes mistaken beliefs or those based on conjecture can have good side-effects.

People like Cass Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar, advocate government intervention to stop people from believing what he calls "false conspiracy theories". This makes one wonder whether the FBI targeted Brandon Raub according to such reasoning, since many people randomly quote violent rap lyrics but only a conspiracy theorist was arrested for doing so. Was the detainment of Raub an attempt to associate craziness with conspiracy beliefs? In any case, people should only be committed for legitimate craziness and not aberrant political beliefs or conspiracies.

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Demonic Possession in Zombie Attack?

UPDATE June 27 MMXII
The results are in. The autopsy reveals that Eugene, the face eater, "was apparently not high on bath salts or any other exotic street drug at the time of the attack." He could still have been on some unknown drug for which there exist no forensic tests. But this finding leads us to the conclusion which we suggested earlier: that "if no drugs were found, possession may be the only explanation."

______________________________________________________

The face-eater, Rudy Eugene, allegedly growled at police after being shot and, of course, tried to eat a living homeless man zombie-style. Given the disturbing nature of these events, something more than drugs may have been influencing him.

Many have speculated that a drug referred to as bath salts was responsible. Others claim it was Zanex or a combination of things.

But his girlfriend maintains that he was a decent man who did not do drugs: a man who watched televangelist Creflo Dollar every morning and was good with her children. Additionally, a Bible was found in his car.

However, famous exorcist Fr Malachi Martin contends that even seemingly religious people such as priests can become possessed.

Eugene's girlfriend believes he was drugged by somebody, but as we stated earlier, it seems even a drug could not make someone act just like a zombie. More believably, a drug may have set the stage for a demon to manifest itself in him and make him behave like a zombie.

Malachi Martin also stated that no one can be possessed against his will. Rudy Eugene may well have explicitly allowed some being to possess him and may not have used drugs.

But if drugs were involved, he still could have been possessed, but only if he willingly took them. The reason, according to Pastor Joe Schimmel, an expert on how drugs can be a gateway to demonic possession, is that when one willingly takes drugs, he chooses to open up his will to the influence of the drug, and by virtue of this, the drug may accept the demon on his behalf. Schimmel notes that the founder of LSD experienced psychedelic feelings by accidentally absorbing the drug but did not experience what is called the "LSD demon". He experienced this demon only when he purposefully took LSD so he could enter an altered state of consciousness.

This is a very interesting idea, that there are indirect methods by which someone can accept possession through accepting something else that subverts the will to a drug. Schimmel notes that this occurs when sorcerers take things in order to experience another level of consciousness and connect with the spirit realm. One example of this is the use of peyote by Indians in traditional shamanic practices. According to Schimmel, drugs can function much like a ouija board would in terms of being a gateway to the demonic, as long as the person is looking for it.

Schimmel puts a new wrinkle on things by comparing the decision to experience a heightened reality through drug use to Adam and Eve's decision to eat the forbidden fruit and gain knowledge of good and evil. Just as Adam and Eve disobeyed God, so also drug users disobey God's will that they be sober and not indulge in pharmacia, which Schimmel points out is a cognate to sorcery, and those who practice sorcery will not enter the Kingdom of God according to the apostle Paul. Yet, whereas Adam and Eve fell from grace from eating forbidden fruit, drug users participate in an even greater evil that leads them not only to fall from grace but to become possessed.

However, Malachi Martin contends that there is no known criteria by which someone can be prone to becoming possessed. If drugs were a serious gateway, we would expect Martin to say drug addicts were much more likely to become possessed. It should be noted that despite being an experienced exorcist, Martin held some heterodox views on possession, including that people can become what he termed perfectly possessed.

But if someone were in a state of grace as Catholics say, or had Jesus in his heart as protestants say, then one would obviously be incapable of being possessed since a demon cannot reside where Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit is active. As long as the person wills it to be with Christ then the demon cannot possess him. But if a person doesn't have Christ in his heart, he can become possessed but only if he accepts possession.

If it is true that one can become possessed through ceding his will to a drug, then the act of doing so necessarily rids one of having Jesus Christ in one's heart and opens one up to possession. This is why the Bible forbids pharmacia, or use of mind altering drugs. Since drugs take over the will for a long period of time, it is possible that during this time the person cannot stop himself from doing what any would-be demon wants since his will is gone. And if he were possessed after taking drugs, he had to have taken them willingly.

Malachi Martin notes that there are a variety of demons and that each have specified functions. Could there be some sort of zombie demon out there? And if so, why haven't there been previous reports of such incidents? Could the demon have gotten the idea from a zombie movie, or could a demon have actually inspired the idea of there being a zombie, and then fulfilled it?

There is the possibility that there was no demonic possession involved. Could the abundance of zombie movies have affected Rudy Eugene somehow? Did he watch too many of them? Did whatever drug he was taking lead him to believe he was a zombie, and Did he find the prospect delightful?

Another interesting theory is that some drugs subvert the will more than others. Some are more conducive to possession than others. Could certain drugs always induce demonic possession? Could it be a sort of possession that is totally contingent on the presence of the drug? Would this necessarily be possession then, or simply a profound effect of a drug?

Only an autopsy can answer whether drugs were involved, but potential demonic possession must be left up to speculation. If no drugs were found, possession may be the only explanation. If drugs are found, then it is still a possibility.

Regardless, this incident may be a sign that the public needs to take a break from drugs and zombie movies for a while, or at the very least not combine the two.

Thursday, June 7, 2012

The Population Conspiracy

Much of modern American culture and politics is conveniently conducive to population reduction.

Many conspiracy theorists believe genetically modified crops, certain vaccines, bio-weapons, and particular chemicals in the environment are part of a stealth plan by the elite to reduce human fertility and hence reduce population growth. These conspiracies, if true, are certainly important; after all, Thomas Ferguson of the Office of Population affairs stated "The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or disease, like the Black Death." ¹

However, we would like to point out some less scary forces that lead to a reduction in population, forces that may be hiding in plain sight. The methodology for this article is deductive, that is, it is not focused on amassing evidence per se, but on answering the question: "If I had a lot of power and wanted to reduce the world's population, what sorts of cultural norms would I promote among the people that would lead them to have fewer children?" This article is not meant to take the side of someone of that persuasion, but merely to discover some methods that such a person would use so that he can be stopped.

Before answering this question, some evidence is necessary to prove that at least some people in power are asking it. Consider the following quotes:
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." -Ted Turner, media mogul

"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature." -Georgia Guidestones

"The Population Act of 1981 declares it to be the public policy to promote national population stabilization...[and directs] all Federal agencies to use reliable demographic research in planning and decisionmaking which affect national and global population characteristics." ²
A notorious supporter of the failed The Population Act of 1981, Richard Ottinger, makes it very clear that "population stabilization" means zero population growth.¹ Ted Turner and the Georgia Guidestones go even further by setting a number that is less than one tenth of the present human population of the world. Moreover, Ted Turner obviously has power over what airs on CNN and other Turner Broadcasting companies. The Georgia Guide Stones were allegedly created by a powerful person as well. The entire country of China imposed a one-child policy as a means of population control.

Many of these individuals may keep their beliefs secret so they do not jeopardize their business interests or elicit public resistance, so Turner and promoters of the never-passed Population Act of 1981 may be just the tip of the iceberg of de-populationists. So inevitably, there are people in positions of power who want to stop population growth and many still who wish to reduce world population. A question we will leave unanswered is just how many of them exist and how much power they wield. Regardless, what follows are some means they would use to reduce population.

Warfare
Breakdowns like in El Salvador...won't be enough to make a difference in global population growth... But [such breakdowns] could easily degenerate into a hundred Cambodias, where, if they haul off and kill one-third of the population-which would be delightful for the demographers-this is a much more plausible way to affect world population growth. -Harlan Cleveland 1981, former diplomat and US ambassador to NATO³
Advocating war in order to reduce population is nothing new. Thomas Malthus was one of the earliest thinkers to suggest war as a means to reduce population. His intentions, however, were not all that sinister considering economic theories prevalent in his day, the early 19th century. Malthus believed that population would increase at a faster rate than food supply. Sooner or later, there would be no food left to sustain population growth.⁴ Malthus must have reasoned that people would be continually starving to death in such a state of affairs, and that the most humane way to deal with it would be to start wars which would clear out the excess hungry bellies, leaving more crop yields left over for the survivors so that they would not have to live in conditions of constant starvation; that is, until their population numbers started rising again.

There were two factors, however, that undermined Malthus's population theory. The primary one was improvement in crop yields, which to this day have kept up with increasing population. Another was new contraception methods. Malthus had correctly assumed that humans would be unable to resist acting out on their passions, but he did not anticipate the development of new contraceptive methods.

Malthus's theory probably wasn't borne out of hatred for humanity, similar to how many people view humans as a "cancer" of the planet today, because another influential thinker of his day, David Ricardo, had a similar theory that labor would always trend toward a subsistence-based level because of certain economic forces. These men lived before the days of powerful unions, efficiency wages, and welfare programs, so if technology and other forces had remained as they were in the early 19th century, Malthus may well have been right.

Today, modern Malthusians forecast that humanity will eventually run out of food. Chief among these is Paul Ehrlich, who has been proven wrong so far, because a population apocalypse has never arrived... yet. The same factors of contraception and advancements in agriculture have, at least for the moment, doomed his theory to be unfulfilled. But there are individuals on the global scene who push for continual war, especially for the US. Might they have population reduction as one of their goals of calling for war?

Women in Combat
It is conceivable, however, that if powerful people believe such a population apocalypse is coming, they may consider warfare as a way to stave it off. One "problem" with modern warfare is that it usually involves only men. Even if the male population were significantly reduced due to warfare, one man could circulate through multiple women, and thus cause almost as many births as if there had been no wars and more men around. It is socially unacceptable among most people to cause civilian casualties, so population reductionists cannot achieve the deaths of women that way. To fix this "problem", they would have to put women into combat. This way, it is guaranteed that there would be less potential for births because there will be fewer women.

Indeed, if a man donates to a sperm bank, he can become the father of hundreds of children only if there are hundreds of women. But if there are hundreds of men and only one woman, there can only be one child. Therefore, it would make sense to have women instead of men go into combat if the war's main goal is the reduction of population. The founders of Mormonism understood that women were more important than men when it comes to multiplying one's numbers, and for this reason they allowed men to have multiple wives. Conversely, the key to reducing population lies in reducing the number of women. The Chinese have done this through abortions of female babies. Assuming some western elites wanted to put women in combat to reduce population, is there any evidence of this happening?

One of the most popular modern singers, Katy Perry, just came out with a music video depicting a young woman who, having her heart broken by a womanizing boyfriend, joins the military. The implication is that she will one day participate in combat, because she engages in combat training in the music video. In recent news, two female army reservists have sued the army claiming discrimination over not being allowed to be in combat.⁵ The news media is all too happy to take their side, but it seems like an all too happy coincidence for those who want population reduction.

Incarceration as a Prophylactic
In combat women can either be killed or maimed to the point where childbearing is impossible. But it often happens that women become pregnant in the military by their lonely male counterparts. An even more sure way of preventing pregnancy would be to confine women to an area where there are no men for the duration of their fertile years. But women commit far fewer violent crimes than men. Therefore, we would expect a population control advocate who wants women to be in jail, away from men, to support laws that put women in jail for as many non-violent offenses as possible since they commit so few violent ones. Chief among these non-violent offenses would be drug violations. Keeping drugs illegal means more women in jail, where they cannot become pregnant. If they can be kept there until they are no longer fertile, then population is effectively prevented from increasing and even reduced. This would also please eugenicists, who probably view the type of women who go to prison as having genes.

Promotion of Homosexuality
For a very long time a concerted minority of liberals and homosexuals have promoted the normality of homosexuality, primarily through entertainment, selective news reporting, and more recently, public education. This minority has blossomed into a slight majority, especially among young people. Population reductionists would be delighted with this cultural development, and would actually have an incentive to promote homosexuality, even to the point of pushing people into becoming homosexuals since such people tend to have fewer children. (Obviously, they are also incapable of engaging in procreative activities with their "partners".) It is a strange sight that elite entertainment figures like Madonna are much more likely to be found kissing a woman and promoting homosexuality than members of a small band playing a gig in a little bar. Much of the push for homosexuality has come form places of prominence and power, including elite ivy league universities, according to David Kupelian in The Marketing of Evil.

One sad story related by a public school teacher involves an instance of pro-homosexual propaganda actually peer-pressuring a young girl into partaking in a lesbian relationship. Although the girl in question frequently told the teacher of her attraction to male classmates, she admitted one day to reluctantly going out with one lesbian student who had asked her out. She said she was afraid that saying no to the lesbian would constitute bigotry, and felt compelled to date her despite having no feelings for her. Nothing could be more pleasing to a population reducer.

Prolonged Educational Requirements
Many people, especially those with graduate degrees, spend so much time in school that, after they finish and finally get their careers started, many are totally infertile or have few years of fertility left. So a population reductionist would certainly push for many, many years of education.

Feminism
All forms of affirmative action for women would certainly please a population reductionist. If women are career-oriented, they will put off having children until they are on firm ground in their careers. But the more concerned they are with their careers, the more they may forget about any dreams of having a family.

Barbie Dolls
In the '50s little girls played house and carried along with them doll-babies, with whom they would perform various motherly duties. Today, they play with Bratz dolls, where the emphasis is not on pretending to be a mother, but rather on fashion styles for the doll. All the Bratz do is party. Barbie had many careers but also a house and Ken as a husband and even a baby. However, even Barbie drew attention away from being a mother. Staying fashionable is expensive and far less affordable if a woman has to raise children, notwithstanding any physical toll bearing children may take.

High School Sports
Sports in high school are great, but when sports become the main thing, they distract a student from real, achievable career goals since most people are not athletic enough to be professional athletes. This sometimes prolongs the career-finding process since the person is too busy with sports in high school. A more distant career often means a longer time until marriage and child-bearing.

Considering all these things, if population reduction promoters can be found among the ranks of people advocating these things, this Population Conspiracy will gain a little more clout. This isn't to say that these phenomena do not have supporters who genuinely believe in feminism, drug prohibition, many wars, idealizing homosexuality, etc. Even a population reductionist might genuinely believe in these things, but we should not forget his other motives.
___________________________________
Sources

1. "Congressmen plan hearings to impose population control" EIR Volume 8, Number 12, March 24, 1981. Page 55
http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1981/eirv08n12-19810324/eirv08n12-19810324_055-congressmen_plan_hearings_to_imp.pdf

2. S. 1771 (97th): Global Resources, Environment, and Population Act of 1981 Introduced: Oct 26, 1981.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/97/s1771

3. "Harlan Cleveland: 100 'Cambodias'" EIR Volume 8, Number 11, March 17, 1981. Page 53.
http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1981/eirv08n11-19810317/eirv08n11-19810317_051-stockmans_global_2000_approach.pdf

4. History of Economic Thought Harry Landreth, David C. Colander - Houghton Mifflin (2002)

5 "Women in Combat" New York Times. June 3, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/04/opinion/women-in-combat.html?_r=1

Special thanks to Br Michael Dimond

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Why Evangelicals Like Rick Santorum

Growing government, taking away freedoms, catering to lobbyists, hysterical warmongering, deference to the UN; what do these things--Santorum's true trademarks--have to do with Evangelical Christianity?

Most evangelicals are suckered in by Santorum's grandstanding on social issues because they are too ignorant to have developed ideas on economic policy, so social issues are all they have to go on. (This is not a criticism of them in particular; most people know very little about economics and other policy-related topics.)

Evangelicals think about politics in a very idealized, impractical way. They'd rather vote for Santorum, a corrupt lobbyist lover, based solely on the fact that he sounds like them in ideals, regardless of whether he can actually deliver the moral utopia he seems to promise. Santorum sweeps them off their feet, and captivates them in his little conservative fantasy world...and once elected, he deceives them into going to unnecessary war, wastes their money and votes to take away their freedom.

Santorum doesn't seem to understand that when he votes to grow government, he necessarily spreads secularism since all federal buildings are prohibited from featuring religious materials. The supreme court rulings to this effect are unlikely to be overturned any time soon. True cultural change must come from the bottom up, from evangelization and not from Santorum. America became more liberal during Santorum's tenure in Washington despite what he would have people believe.

Evangelicals are also brainwashed into supporting the military industrial complex via their support for what they think is Israel. Dispensationalism is a tragically flawed heresy that perverts a Bible verse into meaning that one must support imperial wars commandeered by war hawks and war profiteers. The Iraq war that Santorum pushed for and war with Iran he's presently pushing for come to mind.

To make matters worse, the idiot media is now "Palinizing" Santorum by attacking not his corruption, lobbyist relationships, record of growing government during the Bush era, nor his confusing illogical rationales for supporting the unconstitutional Lybia war, or trigger locks, but instead they attack his alleged conservative cultural background. Thus, evangelicals are provoked into defending him just as they were into defending Palin because they believe they share his views on moral issues and view him as one of them. They confuse defending their evangelical morality with defending him, and then it's a wash; its all over for them. They follow their pied piper off the cliff and fall to tyranny...and another war possibly with a draft which Santorum's adult kids probably wont have to fight in.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Huffington was Moonstruck by Gingrich

Strangely enough, Ariana Huffington, founder of the liberal Huffington Post, was moonstruck by Speaker Gingrich in the '90s. According to Politico
Back then, when Gingrich helped the GOP recapture the House and took on the Clinton administration as speaker, Huffington was one of his strongest supporters. “She was a big champion of the Newt Revolution"

Now, she is an Obama fan and her website is critical of Gingrich. She must now think she was chasing moonbeams back then.

Concerning Newt's dreams of a moon colony, it reveals that despite his strong ties with the establishment, employment with Freddie Mac and friendship with the Tofflers. Nevertheless, Newt does have some eccentric originality to him. He has always been chasing moonbeams, or moon dreams rather, and has always considered himself to be a savior of the environment and of education, which explains his sitting on the couch in a commercial about "climate change" with Pelosi and his private visit with Obama on education in 2009. Newt's originality isn't up to our tastes...