Sex, Evolution, and the Left

Darwinismby N. A. Halkides7/9/15
It’s been a rough three weeks for us Conservatives, although neither of our two recent losses in the Supreme Court were exactly unexpected:  it would have been surprising if Chief Justice Roberts had grasped the opportunity offered by a generous Fate to correct his mistaken opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius by simply taking the plain language of Obamacare at its face value in King v. Burwell, or if Associate Justice Anthony “Sweet mystery of life” Kennedy, having previously divined a “right” to abortion where none existed in the Constitution had failed to divine a “right” to same-sex marriage there as well (Obergefell v. Hodges).  Roberts seems determined to save Obamacare at all costs and equally determined to savage his future reputation, while Kennedy seems unable to constrain his inner Jonathan Livingston Seagull (would that he would simply one day fly away) – and since I have no immediate plan of action on how to permanently fix a broken Supreme Court that is as lawless and incompetent as Barack Obama himself, I thought we might find some relief in turning the Left’s professed embrace of science against them on the subjects of homosexuality and same-sex “marriage”.

All of us know well the insufferable air of superiority the Progressive exhales:  “We’re so good, you’re so bad; we venerate science while you Conservatives bitterly cling to unreasoning faith; etc.”  Actually, until relatively recently few Progressives even majored in the sciences, finding more welcoming surroundings in the humanities where far less rigorous thinking was required (to put it too mildly), although today we find that even the hardest of “hard” sciences is becoming corrupted by Leftism.  Still, the typical Progressive knows far less than he thinks he does about science (of course he knows less than he thinks he does about anything).  And this gives us an opportunity, for while debating Progressives is generally a waste of time, their own supposed respect for science is quite easily turned against them.  An obvious target is Anthropogenic Global Warming, but that’s too complicated to get into here (and the science itself has become too corrupted to be analyzed easily).  Let’s instead have some fun now beating Lefty over the head with the logical implications of one of his favorite scientific theories, that of Evolution by Natural Selection.  We will assume for this discussion that the theory is absolutely true.

To begin with, the physical differences between the human sexes and the different amount of time each has invested in the process of reproduction implies that the two should have differing reproductive strategies and therefore different sexual psychologies – and perhaps even different capabilities.  (The idea is that natural selection will tend to optimize male and female sex psychology separately, increasing the differences as a result.)  And this is buttressed by the known differences between homologous structures in the male and female human brains, for such a difference in structure implies a difference in function.  But this must mean – horrors! – that gender is not a social construct after all!  (And by the way, let’s all start using the term “sex” instead of “gender” since it seems to so upset the feminist Left).

Next, let’s consider another Progressive bugaboo, “heteronormativity,” the hate-filled, culturally-biased idea that heterosexuality is normal.  Of course, if by “normal” we mean behavior which supports the continued existence of the human species (indeed, any species), then we run into an obvious problem with homosexuality:  it can’t lead to reproduction.  Indeed, if homosexuality were normal, say the proportions of gay and straight were reversed with homosexuals forming 99% of the population and heterosexuals only 1%, human extinction would be inevitable.  Behavior that leads to the extinction of the species cannot be considered “normal,” and since no one can suggest any necessary purpose served by homosexual relations, homosexuality should be regarded as deviant, abnormal behavior.

Homonormativity advocates sometimes point to the animal kingdom, but of course the same argument applies there:  homosexuality, if practiced instead of heterosexuality, would lead to extinction.  And with animals, there is another factor:  being non-human, they may imitate sexual behavior without a true sexual intent (see The Animal Homosexuality Myth).  And there is another argument, based on homosexual sodomy, that at least strongly suggests homosexuality isn’t normal, but I won’t get into it here because, frankly, it isn’t very nice to think about.  Sorry, my Progressive friends, but hetero is normal.

So homosexuality is abnormal after all.  But what is the cause?  If genetic, it is obviously beyond the control of the individual just as having, say, six fingers on a hand would be.  But if not genetic, and if it should be chosen voluntarily, then it becomes a matter subject to morality (only that which is not within the realm of human choice is beyond morality and moral judgment).  Much research has been done trying to pinpoint a genetic cause, but to no avail.  A complex argument, which I’ll outline here, explains why we should expect the negative results we’ve seen.

Evolution imposes strict penalties on genetic attributes that are deleterious to an organism’s ability to reproduce.  Because homosexuals leave no descendents (unless they abandon homosexuality at least for a while), they suffer the maximum evolutionary penalty of passing on no genetic material, including any “gay gene” that might have been present.  But this implies that the homosexual population would soon die out, unless spontaneous mutations of the “gay gene” continued to occur, and at a high enough rate to explain the 1% or so of the population that is homosexual.  In other words, homosexuality would be created anew each generation.  Unfortunately for this theory (and this is where it gets complicated), the best estimates of the human mutation rate are simply not high enough to explain so many homosexuals and still account for all the known genetic abnormalities that are known to arise through mutation.  I won’t provide linked references here, but they’re available.

Actually, there’s an easier argument, but the one above has the advantage of likely causing the typical Progressive’s head to explode as he tries to grapple with concepts (and – ugh! – mathematics) he’s never heard of (even though he should have, if he were as big on scientific learning as he claims).  It is simply this:  studies of identical twins have proven that homosexuality does not have a genetic cause.

The Left hasn’t really started to push polygamy yet, probably because it’s still trying to calculate how much more damage it can inflict just through same-sex “marriage,” but it’s really only a matter of time before some of them do since that was their plan all along.  Can we devise any scientific arguments against polygamy?  Yes!  Evolutionary biology comes to our aid once again if we compare humans to chimpanzees.

The indelicate fact is that chimpanzee males have much larger testes than human males, allowing them to produce a much larger quantity of sperm for more frequent mating (with different females).  Since Man does not have this evolutionary adaptation, clearly Man is not meant to live the chimpanzee lifestyle.

So Darwinian Evolution, which every Progressive accepts as true (you can bet most aren’t familiar with the arguments pro or con), tells us that (1) men and women are different, (2) homosexuality is abnormal, and (3) polygamy is not the correct rule for our species.  Indeed, a reasonable hypothesis based on these facts is that since monogamy, and with it a degree of commitment, is the rule, the male and female should have evolved different and complementary skills when it comes to raising children – in other words, the best environment for children is a household headed by one man and one woman who stay together.

Now all of the foregoing, while absolutely logical according to the dictates of evolutionary biology, is not meant to replace the priceless wisdom gained only through long experience, which is another of those things we Conservatives are fighting to conserve.  Over thousands of years, mankind learned that the welfare and continuance of his society depended on children being raised properly in households (even if they were only grass huts) by a man and woman who were joined together by social expectation and by whatever traditions and laws had evolved up to that point.  More recent experience has only confirmed these ancient beliefs (e.g. polygamous societies are unfair to the multiple wives and inferior to the monogamous West).  But if we find ourselves in a debate with those who stupidly ignore the received wisdom of their ancestors, or who understand as well as we do that the destruction of marriage will help bring down our civilization but proceed with their attack upon it anyway, we may take a certain satisfaction in turning their own professed adherence to science against them.


Nik is a freelance writer, former professor, and has written for FrontPage Magazine.
About Author  Author Archive  Email • (1890 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Sex, Evolution, and the Left

  1. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Damn it Nik, would you please stop using facts and logic in your arguments. It will get you absolutely nowhere with the majority of people in the world. You have to come up with catch words like “marriage equality”, “homophobia”, “haters”, etc. Then you will be able to grab the attention of the public before it effervesces in a nano-second. These words also have the advantage of being simple to remember.

    Nice article.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    I will note that there was a third bad decision (written by “Stand Tall in Georgetown” Kennedy) allowing the use of “disparate impact” to judge racism in housing.

    The long-term effect of homosexuality on population would explain its popularity with liberals who, deep down, hate the human race and wish to see it eliminated. (I’d be willing to accept their sincerity if they made sure that they went first.)

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      I’d be willing to accept their sincerity if they made sure that they went first

      Thank you for the bedtime laugh.

      Some of them actually appear to be willing to do this. I look at the sexual promiscuity of our homosexual friends in the 1980’s and 1990’s even though they knew their behavior was extremely dangerous. Yet this did not stop them and how many died of STD’s or immune system diseases which resulted from AIDS?

      Do you think push for sexual deviancy would be as strong as it is if they hadn’t come up with a cocktail of drugs to treat HIV?

  3. oldguy says:

    I like the idea of gay marriage. In fact I think it should be a felony for a homosexual to have sex with a straight person.

  4. Steve Lancaster says:

    I recall a song, I think by Waylon Jennings, Looking for Love in all the Wrong Places. It came out in the 80s. The bonds that make a marriage, and for simplicity sake just a male and female, always difficult to reach and continue through the years. Yet, it is this bond that makes the relationship.

    Homosexuals have the added challenge in their relationships of reaching through their own XX or XY to understand the feelings of their partner. Its much harder then they think. I suppose that explains the high incidence of infidelity.

    Its ironic and sad that the very bonding that homosexuals seek in their relationships is made even harder to achieve because of their relationships.

  5. Great analysis, Nik. Thanks.

    I think another point against homosexual marriage deals with the spiritual, psychological growth provided by a long-term heterosexual marriage. Men and women are mentally and emotionally so different that it takes a tremendous effort to understand and value the opposite-sex partner’s way of seeing and doing things. This effort forces growth and acceptance of those who are like ourselves. Homosexual marriage is like wanting full credit for course you only pretend to take.

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    The Left hasn’t really started to push polygamy yet, probably because it’s still trying to calculate how much more damage it can inflict just through same-sex “marriage,” but it’s really only a matter of time before some of them do since that was their plan all along.

    The rebuttal to that, Nik, (and I can always play Devil’s Advocate) is that polygamy smacks too much of either traditional Mormonism or some of the arrangements in the Old Testament.

    The Left, first and foremost, is looking for revolution. And legalizing polygamy would seem to be “reactionary” in their brand of thinking. And certainly it wouldn’t quite have the effect of vandalizing the culture as is their wish.

    And polygamy, in practice, is almost always one man and several wives. Again, this doesn’t fit the metric whereby women are to be elevated over men. I don’t see much of a push happening for polygamy. Far richer fields await for the Vandals in the area of pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Liberals won’t push for polygamy, but polygamists themselves will, and use the logic of the Kennedy decision (to the extent that it wasn’t pure sophistry) as a basis for their argument. But the lack of a popular (and especially liberal) Cause behind it will probably doom their efforts, since what logic there was in the decision was purely intended to come up with the desired result by whatever means they needed. Given the existence of NAMBLA, pedophilia will probably be the next libertinist Cause.

    • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

      Interesting point, Brad, but remember the Left never worries about being consistent, which is why they pretend to be all for “women’s rights” while allying with the brutal misogynists of Islam against the common enemy – us. I maintain that polygamy is indeed coming and the Left will push for it, though perhaps not as hard as they did for same-sex “marriage”. Here’s why:

      Remember, the Left’s goal is, as you say, revolution – the overthrow of the existing social order (the definition of the social-political radical). To do that, the pillars of that order must be attacked, and marriage is one of them. Because attacking marriage openly would have been risky, the Left chose its usual “Indirect Method” as I call it of attack: instead of saying “marriage is bad,” raise up something less than marriage to the full status of marriage to depreciate the institution. The gays in the SSM movement were the “useful idiots” who helped camouflage the Left’s true intentions.

      Therefore we must expect the Left’s attacks on marriage to continue until the institution is dead or at least moribund. SSM is a tremendous blow, but the pro-polygamy crowd is out there, surprisingly not all Muslims (there are a number of Unitarians who have wanted polygamy for a while, or so I’ve read), and they will serve as the next wave of “useful idiots” to front the continuing assault on marriage.

      Also, the defenses against polygamy are very weak, because the same reasoning SCOTUS relied upon to legalize SSM can be employed to legalize polygamy. E.g. if marriage to the person of your choice is a “right,” then how can we discriminate against someone who says his happiness depends on being married to three women, or two women and a man? Of course a moderate Progressive might attempt to say, “Well, you can marry any one person of your choice – equality demands that – but you cannot marry any two or more persons.” This in effect alleges some logical reason to restrict marriage to two people (which there is), but this reasoning was completely ignored in Obergefell.

      I think we can hold the line on bestiality and pedophilia a while longer, although advocates for both are already out there, because we can raise slightly different defenses than we could for traditional marriage, and because the Left will most likely soon achieve its goal of destroying marriage. It has no real love for bestiality practitioners or pedophiles, although it generally has no particular problem with them either, and isn’t going to expend a lot of effort to aid them once it’s succeeded in tearing down the institution of marriage.

      So I will stick to my prediction that polygamy is coming unless marriage is effectively dead (say down at the level of the inner-cities) before the pro-polygamy crowd decides its moment has come.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I have to agree with Nik. The Left is happy to champion anything which will damage our culture.

        Some years back I wrote the following as to why polygamy is a horrible institution;

        Have you ever lived in a country where polygamy is practiced? I have and have associated with numerous people from these unions, so let me give you some of the arguments against it:

        1. Woman are treated poorly by men.
        2. Envy, jealousy and hatred between the various families.
        3. Multiple children who see their father only occasionally i.e. an absent father figure.
        4. Poverty because it is expensive to support many families.
        5. Deserted families because it is expensive to maintain them and with so many families the bonds are not often as strong as the bonds in monogamy.
        6. Lack of wives for single men.
        7. Young girls being married to old men.

        And please don’t say that some of the same things happen in the West. The differences are large and I have seen them.

        Please give me examples, other than the Mormons, where polygamy has been practiced in the West. There is a reason for this. Have a look into Joseph Campbell and the age of chivalry. Even if he is not 100% correct, the Western view toward women is completely different from that in Asia.

        If you want to have Asia in the United States, just go ahead and allow polygamy here. Also, if you want millions more depending on social services go ahead with polygamy. We already have an analogue in the USA. It is called a 70% illegitimacy rate in the black community, about 50% for Latinos, about 25% for whites and about 37% overall.

        Theoretical social engineering, such as you seem to favor, is the bane of mankind. In this case, womankind.

        I really wish one of you “libertarians” would write a reasoned article why your “beliefs” should be taken seriously and on what factual grounds you base them. “Because I feel like it” doesn’t fall under the umbrella of a reasoned article.

        Can anyone imagine what will happy to welfare once polygamy becomes legal? How many families can a man support on government assistance? Does anyone not understand that Muslims will take advantage of this and more will try to immigrate to the Great Satan?

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I have to agree with Nik. The Left is happy to champion anything which will damage our culture.

          You’ll get no argument from me in that regard, Mr. Kung. Still, we’re going to start sounding silly if we say the Left wants to allow smoking in schools because it would damage our culture. It would indeed. But that’s not likely going to happen.

          It can be difficult to find the method in their madness. But I believe much of this stuff was laid out by various Communist or Marxist thinkers decades ago. And it’s not that the Left is consciously following that plan. It’s just that the people who wrote those goals were part of the movement and understood the basic urges.

          Part of the urge is indeed to take a sledgehammer to our culture. But it is a selective sledgehammering. After all, if it were not, if we were to say that anything that undermined our culture was something the Left would inevitably pursue, then we’ve entered the realm of a tautology: If the Left pursues it, it must be as a means to undermine our culture.

          Well, yes and no. There are many things that would damage our culture that the Left won’t likely do. We shouldn’t forget that the Left, by and large, has a vision of society. Breaking the current one (which is obviously done, at times, just for sport) is ultimately a means not an end.

          Given your point of polygamy exploding the welfare roles, that would be a very Alinsky-like way of breaking society so that the socialist revolution could commence. After all, how many low information voters know that Obama worked with ACORN whose very purpose was to expand welfare roles and to collapse the system?

          I wonder, though, if the Left (at least in America) won’t begin to back off their use of Islam as a sledgehammer against our culture. At some point, perhaps when they think they have the power and control they need, Islam will be seen as a liability. After all, the Left actually does not want a man-centered polygamist world. The Left does not want women to be second-class citizens. The Left does no want homosexuals murdered and thrown off buildings. The Left does not want a religious society. We’ll know we’re in really deep trouble when we start to see the Left distance themselves from using Islam as a wedge.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The key to mandating the legalization of polygamy (and perhaps to any other form of legalizing it) will be pressure from Muslims, who are allowed up to 4 wives (theoretically they have to be able to support them and treat them equally, but the important thing is that they can do it — and their pressure would disarm the race-oriented liberals).

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Yes, I forgot about that faction, Timothy. That’s a good point. If Islam remains an official victim group (as perceived by the Left), that’s precisely how we could get polygamy.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Interesting point, Brad, but remember the Left never worries about being consistent

        Yes, but they’re not random. If they can fit polygamy under the umbrella of “sexual liberation” and take a sledgehammer to middle class values, they’ll do so eventually. I just think there’s good cause to believe that legalizing polygamy won’t be high on their list. Frankly, unless the deviants are stumping for it, it’s unlikely to show up on their radar. One of the main driving themes of the Left, as articulated by Rush Limbaugh, is that those who feel alienated from mainstream society are trying to normalize their behavior so that it becomes mainstream. And because I don’t think there are many deviants clamoring for polygamy, that’s why I don’t expect that to show up on the Left’s agenda.

        And the one man/several women aspect of polygamy probably makes it a dead end cause for the Left which is inherently man-hating and feminist.

        And regarding the defense against polygamy being weakened by the reasoning of the Supreme Court, that’s a little beside the point. If the court were judging such things via logic, reason, precedent, law, etc., then there is now no principled reason why I can’t marry my dog and gain tax breaks. But “reason” is not generally how this stuff works. The Supreme Court doesn’t “reason” their way to these judgments. They’ve already decided what they think is good and then back-fill with reason (rationalizations). How they, and others in society, come to the judgment that some things are good is the million dollar question. And regarding these judgments, we’ve somewhat left the land of cause-and-effect, at least in terms of measurable quantities, and entered the bizarre and schizophrenic world of pop-culture-meets-angry-juvenile-Marxists. Who can predict?

        Not that traditional Mormons won’t suddenly stump for polygamy. That’s certainly the faction who could drive the issue. I’m not sure how many practicing polygamists there are.

        Anything could be coming. It will be interesting to see those who fell for “marriage equality” squirm when pedophiles demand “love equality.” What can they say? Why not? It’s got that magic word, “equality,” attached to it after all.

        Why pedophilia? What are the reigning Leftist paradigm or paradigms that would come into play? Sexual liberty would be one. But the over-riding influence is juvenilism, the romanticizing of all things child-like.

        There’s been a push for a long time now, for instance, to allow children to sue their parents. The child is now viewed as The New Man before he is ravaged by racism, sexism, capitalism, greed, pollution, etc. The Left shares the idea of Rousseau that man is basically good. And in the child, the Left has found an ideal. A child is idealized as enormously creative — so much so that adults need to move out of the way lest they damage or put a damper on their natural inclinations. This is, after all, precisely the ideology behind much of public school education.

        The Left has a forever-young ideology, and this is one way to understand the drive to legalize pot. It’s a symbol of their youth. Trust no one over 30. But, shit, what do you do when you reach that age or more? Well, we’ve seen the cosmetic attempts by many to turn back Father Time. And we’ve seen emotional or psychological attempts to do the same. We’ve seen parents cave to their children, refusing to play the adult. As Mark Steyn would say, entire societies have sloughed off the desire to make adult decisions. The idea of adulthood — rather than just marriage, per se — is arguably the thing under attack by the Left as a going concern. Pedophilia fits very comfortably in this paradigm. It just needs to be packaged well. Objections need to be chipped away at.

        • Steve Lancaster says:

          If you want to make progressives eyes bug out, and spit up their $7 lattes just suggest that fair is fair for both sexes and if they insist on polygamy than polyandry should be a fine idea also. Somehow their fantasy of one white man and multiple white women does not fit when its one woman and multiple men of different races.

          Progressive sexual fantasies are always male centered, sexist and racist.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            It’s a mess of terms, Steve.

            Polygamy can mean a man with several wives or a woman with several husbands.

            As you’ve noted, polyandry is one woman and several husbands.

            Polygyny is one man and several wives.

            Peace and quite is Brad at home reading his books without all that drama. Five wives? Oh, please, perish the thought.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          There are probably plenty of deviants who practice polygamy (or want to). But they aren’t the sort of deviants liberals like, so the effect is much the same.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I count vouch for the veracity of this list, but it says it’s drawn from Cleon Skousen’s “The Naked Communist.” Here are some of their stated goals. I’m not making this up. Maybe someone else is:

            11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind.
            15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
            16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
            17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
            18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
            20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
            21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
            22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
            23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
            24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
            25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
            26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
            27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
            28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
            29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
            30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
            31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
            32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
            38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
            39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
            40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
            41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

            I’ve got Skousen’s “The Naked Communist” laying around here somewhere. I’ll have to verify this list. But let’s assume this was from 1963. I’m pretty sure similar goals have been outlined decades before that. And we know that all of the above has been attempted, with varying degrees of success…some nearly absolute.

            When glimpsed as a whole like this, you can see why Communism (call is by whatever name you like) is a sickness. More specifically, a moral sickness. Quite possibly connected in some way with an evil larger than this world.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              Sounds authentic to me. Notice how little is has to do with economics? As I keep saying, these bastards have gone after religion and family first as they know once these institutions are gone or sick the rest will fall into their hands.

              This is why I tire of libertarians. They, like Leftists, seem to believe only in homo economis.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Notice how little is has to do with economics?

                I may have skipped over a few bullet points that dealt with economics. But point taken. This is about creating a different culture. The centralized, all-powerful economic and political system are just a means. They long for The New Man, for the state to give meaning to their lives.

                Like I said, I find myself uncomfortable in church. But, good god, who is comfortable in the equivalent of the Department of Motor Vehicles as their cathedral? That’s just creepy.

    • Rosalys says:

      But legalized polygamy would greatly benefit the advance of the Islamic caliphate! It will be part of jihad to out-reproduce in those countries foolish enough to allow it. (And the US has been a very foolish country as of late!) Read Brigitte Gabriel’s testimony. This is what happened in Lebanon.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        But legalized polygamy would greatly benefit the advance of the Islamic caliphate! It will be part of jihad to out-reproduce in those countries foolish enough to allow it.

        Well, if it’s the inevitable, let me see if I can come up with a coherent plan:

        + A wife to cook and clean
        + A wife to take hiking or biking
        + A wife to read and share books with
        + A wife for, well, you know
        + A wife for shopping and dining out
        + A wife for sporting events
        + A wife for watching movies

        That should about cover my immediate needs, unless I missed something. But I figured it’s best to be prepared.

        • Anniel says:

          Brad, Bear says you’ll be too busy to make money, so you’ll need to put them all to work. It’s economics after all. Remember the 72 needed in Heaven.

          Bear once told a Muslim Sheik we met in Chicago that any man who has more than one wife deserves them.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Right…good point. Therefore I need to add about three or four wives who are doctors, lawyers, etc., who can finance the whole harem thingie.

        • Rosalys says:

          Are you planning a counter jihad?

  7. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Speaking of evolution, there are a couple good articles currently at Evolution News and Views:

    Checkpoints and Repair Systems as Evidence for Design. The gist of this article is that there are repair systems in the cell that necessarily are forward-looking as they try to prevent errors that would be harmful to the cell. Neo-Darwinian theory does not allow anything to be forward-looking. It’s based on a a completely blind process.

    In Evolution’s Grand Challenge the point is brought up that in-place information systems tend only ever to be degraded…particularly by random changes (mutations). Therefore the idea is that all life, to some extent, is degrading and can’t, without the conscious input of new information, do anything else. The path is toward less complexity, not more.

    There’s nothing particularly tricky or rhetorical about either of these ideas. They’re pretty straightforward. And this second article, in particular, states that Neo-Darwinism is growing weaker and weaker as a useful explanation.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The checking systems are similar to (or at least remind me of) the complex blood-clotting mechanism from Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box with its activators and deactivators for each process.

  8. Ray Cole says:

    Your list Mr. Nelson are the goals of the Cultural Marxists from the Frankfurt School of Communism. Fellas like Gramsci and Marcuse….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *