In a world gone mad, I have to keep stating what should be obvious.
This makes me feel a little crazy myself.
Anyway, here’s another point that should be obvious to a sane person:
The whole point of men and women is the children.
John Galbraith, a leading liberal, talked about “The Higher Economic Role of Women.”
In my review of his book in National Review, I suggested that he write a book entitled, A Higher Role Than Economics.
Oddly enough, Galbraith never replied to this suggestion.
Like all liberals and respectable conservatives Galbraith insisted that intelligent white women should dedicate their lives to being economic units.
Like all liberals and respectable conservatives, Galbraith felt that economically productive women should not be wasted producing children. We could IMPORT children from the third world.
Why not? According to liberal and respectable conservative theology, all children are equal. It’s all a matter of Conditioning. So why not let smart white women be Economic Producers while we bring in adopted third world children to be Conditioned Americans?
If they learn the Bible, who cares what color they are?
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson agree that nothing can be inherited. They say God says so. They have both said over and over that if a tendency to homosexuality were inherited, homosexuality would not be a sin.
So God says there can be no inherited tendency toward homosexuality.
All the “Christians” tell us that there is nothing more Holy than adopting third world children. I insist that they have no right to do this, because they have no right to give away the country that belongs to white children.
Nobody will allow that point of view to be aired publicly, least of all the “conservative Christians.” So intelligent white women are either Economic Units or conduits for teaching the Bible.
What they are not is the mothers of a new generation of white children.
And, say liberals and respectable conservatives, the job of every man is to insist on this.
But the purpose of men and women is children, children who look like them.
There is nothing theoretical about heredity and environment. There is nothing theoretical about Wordism.
Wordism is genocide, and it makes no difference at all what the Word is.
#1 by Peter on 02/21/2005 - 6:41 pm
Gee Bob, I’m starting to learn my ABCs…
#2 by Scott on 02/22/2005 - 8:48 am
Great Blog entry. Just a comment on homos…
Where Falwell, Robertson, et al go wrong is that even if homosexuality were inherited, and in some cases the tendency might be, it would still be a sin. They spend so much time insisting it’s not inherited, but out of the other corner of their mouth they say we are born with a sin nature, which is true. Everyone has a weakness. Everyone has a sin nature. I believe some people could even have a higher tendency to murder. Does this mean they will inevitably murder someone? Perhaps they have a hot temper and have a hard time controlling themselves. This doesn’t excuse them for murder… they would still go to jail. Not all hot-tempered people kill.
Why are so many priests child molesters? Could it be that many homos who want to repress their nature join the priesthood because of Catholicism’s arcane rules against priest marriage and, since they wouldn’t marry anyway, want to try and serve God that way? Some would naturally stray and, like many homos, their true nature would come out in the form of child molestation? Some might stay true and repress it all their lives, staying celebate, and good for them if they do! But either way, there is no excuse for homosexuality. They should still go to jail.
Scott
#3 by Peter on 02/24/2005 - 12:38 pm
I remember when I was little, when I was still in elementary school, in fact and thinking that men were women’s servants. Men had to work for someone else they didn’t like outside the home. Men had to do all the jobs at church. I seldom saw my dad; he is still a dedicated worker and wage-earner. I though women had it best. They got to stay home and run the center of everyone’s life: the home. When I heard someone say, “A man’s home is his castle,” as a kid I thought they were joking. Obviously the home was the women’s castle.
I used to miss my dad — a lot. He worked hard all day, and often went to the office on weekends. When I heard on the radio the words “women’s lib,” I asked her what that meant. She said something to the effect that it meant that both parents could work now. Of course I was wondering why that was a good thing. I knew how tired out my dad was whenever he came home. I asked my mom more questions, and she told me that both parent could work forty hours a week. I thought this meant that my mom would work half and my dad would work half. That meant my dad would be home more often and we could go out and hunt or whatever it was that fathers were supposed to teach their sons.
Wrong. The next thing I knew, my mom had my dad pack his bags and out the door he went. I never saw him from the age I was eight until I was sixteen. He continued to work hard for us in the office, though, and sent child support. My mom, then went to work. Her life fell apart. She became abjectly miserable all the time. The house became a mess, symbolic of the chaos that society had become.
Yes, maybe I used to be bitter. It doesn’t matter anymore. But ask me how I define “women’s liberation” and I will tell you “mother stealers,” and if you get my trust, I’ll add on “home-breakers,” “child abusers,” — and yes, “women-slavers.”
I still have trouble dating women with short hair.
#4 by Anonymous on 03/01/2005 - 1:43 am
RE: Where Falwell, Robertson, et al go wrong
It is much easier to discuss where Falwell, Robertson et al go right. See my comprehensive analysis below.
——————————————————–
begin comprehensive analysis
end comprehensive analysis
——————————————————–
#5 by Don on 03/01/2005 - 2:10 am
RE: But the purpose of men and women is children, children who look like them.
You are so right. When I see a couple who to all appearances are of good genetic material choose to go childless so they can avoid responsibility and spend more time amusing themselves with stupid and insignificant activities, I regard them as pathetic, shallow creatures leading meaningless lives.
RE: All the “Christians” (ought to) tell us that there is nothing more
Holydespicable than adopting third world children. I do not believe in hell but these are some of the most deserving people I know of.P.S. The anonymous comment wasn’t.
#6 by Horace on 03/02/2005 - 11:44 am
Hey Anonymous. Did you include anything else between the beginning and end of your comprehensive analysis of the things Falwell and Robertson get right?
#7 by Don on 03/02/2005 - 12:15 pm
Falwell and Robertson are the religious equivalents of politicians like Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. They stink to high heaven.