The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

At War With God and Nature: @AmandaMarcotte’s Darwinian Fate

Posted on | March 20, 2014 | 53 Comments

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
Genesis 1:28 (KJV)

“I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . .
“I like not having a giant growth protruding out of my stomach. I hate hospitals and like not having stretch marks. . . .
“This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”

Amanda Marcotte, March 14

Every girl should have a sister, every boy should have a brother, and an ideal family might be two boys and two girls, but things don’t always work out so neatly, which is how my wife and I ended up with six kids: In our quest to provide our eldest daughter Kennedy with a baby sister, we had four boys before Reagan came along.

Despite my joking about the Victory Through Breeding™ program, there wasn’t really an ideology behind our large family. However, by the time our youngest children were born, I was familiar with concerns about demographic decline — the problem of long-term below-replacement fertility rates which had attracted the attention of researchers like Ben Wattenberg (The Birth Dearth, 1989) and others. Low birth rates lead to economic stagnation and other social and political problems, which pro-life activists have been warning about for years.

“In order to turn things around . . . young people getting married have to be thinking of having four or more children.”
Jim Sedlak, American Life League, 1999

Jonathan V. Last’s recent book, What to Expect When No One’s Expecting: America’s Coming Demographic Disaster, is the latest attempt to call attention to this crisis, but because of liberal hegemony in the media and academia, most people don’t even realize there is a crisis. For the past half-century, our elite culture has been dominated by the neo-Malthusian “overpopulation” myth popularized by Paul Ehrlich, a myth fostered by a eugenics cabal led by David Rockefeller (see Donald Critchlow, Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government in Modern America, 2001). Progressive feminists like Amanda Marcotte refuse to acknowledge that their “pro-choice” ideology wasn’t developed with an eye toward the rights of women, but instead originated with a racist billionaire who was worried that poor brown people were having too many babies.

A diminished sense of irony is one of the consequences of progressive ideology. If they had any concern for intellectual integrity and philosophical coherence, they wouldn’t be progressives in the first place, which is why a fanatical commitment to radical egalitarianism requires a remarkable ability to tune out the cognitive dissonance inherent to such counterfactual beliefs. This was evident in the controversy that inspired Amanda Marcotte’s weird anti-baby rant last week, namely that “the atheist/skeptic community is in an uproar on the subject of abortion” even though “nearly all non-believers are pro-choice.” The proximate cause of Marcotte’s anger — although she’s so perpetually angry she does not really need a reason to begin ranting like a lunatic — was a post by “pro-life humanist” Kristine Kruszelnicki offering non-religious reasons for protecting the innocent unborn. Among other things, Kruszelnicki pointed to opinion polls showing that 1-in-5 atheists are pro-life, a percentage that doesn’t quite square with Marcotte’s “nearly all” claims about the pro-abortion views of “non-believers.”

Facts and logic can never persuade the ideologue, and Marcotte’s beliefs are clearly rooted in emotions that are deeply irrational and intensely personal. No one who does not already share her radical feminist ideology could be persuaded by Marcotte’s arguments. She is losing, and she knows it: 50% of Americans are pro-life, compared to 41% who are pro-abortion, and the trend toward a pro-life majority is one of those facts which are incompatible with Marcotte’s worldview. This explains the wrathful vehemence with which Marcotte denounced Kruszelnicki:

[I]f wasting time typing that shit out amuses you, knock yourself out. But don’t pretend that you’re advancing the cause of free thought while doing so. That’s because rational, free discourse is predicated on the understanding that everyone involved in the debate is arguing in good faith, and I can assure you, after years of dealing with this issue, that anti-choicers are not arguing in good faith.

Marcotte describes Kruszelnicki’s arguments as “infamous,” and calls Kruszelnicki a “forced-birther.” The disproportion between Kruszelnicki’s stimulus and Marcotte’s over-the-top response is remarkable, signifying the desperate importance of abortion as the philosophical sine qua non of Marcotte’s feminist sensibility.

If killing babies is wrong, Amanda Marcotte doesn’t want to be right.

Christians may perceive in Marcotte’s wicked depravity confirmation of the Bible’s prophetic truth, for she is “full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity . . . without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful.” But when the mask slips and her ghastly hatefulness is revealed, Marcotte goes off an another deranged rant about “compulsory child-bearing” and “traditional gender roles,” in a transparent effort to distract attention from her own problems.

Ah, “the personal is political,” as the ancient feminist maxim declares, and the psychiatric root of Marcotte’s animosity toward “traditional gender roles” is obviously a sour-grapes rationalization: No man has ever wanted her to become the mother of his children, and the reject pretends to be the one doing the rejection. Her boyfriend/roommate is IT director at the Center for Reproductive Choice. No one is trying to impose “compulsory child-bearing” and “traditional gender roles” on her.

Bitter much, Amanda?

Thus the unacknowledged irony of Marcotte addressing her rant to the Darwinians of “the atheist/skeptic community.” If evolution is about the “survival of the fittest,” Marcotte is manifestly unfit, a reproductive reject, a Darwinian dead end approaching her own extinction. And as Pete Da Tech Guy points out, “By choosing not to have children, she is conceding the future to people like the Dugger family.”

It’s completely irrational, but of course, she’s a feminist.

 

Comments

53 Responses to “At War With God and Nature: @AmandaMarcotte’s Darwinian Fate”

  1. Esther Williams
    March 20th, 2014 @ 2:56 pm

    The ideology of liberalism seeks death. It is death.

  2. Quartermaster
    March 20th, 2014 @ 2:57 pm

    The natural way is procreation. Marcotte is not just simply proabortion, she’s pro-death. She is marked eternally by her sterility and her hatred of God and His order.

  3. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 20th, 2014 @ 3:14 pm

    There is something seriously off with that girl. It is good she is not procreating and I suppose she gives a home for some cats who otherwise would not have one. She is a angry twisted piece of work. It is telling she makes access to her very self revealing piece “Pound of Flesh” on how when she thought she might be pregnant unavailable on line. That is the one where her boyfriend offered to marry her and that absolutely filled her with rage (how dare he offer that). She was all fine aborting a fetus (actually a child) that she thought weighed a pound (so not some brainless embryo in the first couple of weeks after conception).

  4. RS
    March 20th, 2014 @ 3:16 pm

    It’s always easy to know when you win an argument with secular, pro-abortion types. After you’ve advanced Secular Humanist and biological arguments for the Pro-life position, your actual words and arguments are ignored, in favor of ad hominem epithets “Christian” or religious fanatic. The Marcottes of the world are incapable of perceiving any secular argument contra their position. That’s what she means by pro-Life people “always” arguing in bad faith. For her, it is unassailable truth that any argument contrary to her position is based only upon God and not secular philosophy. In truth, her reaction demonstrates her philosophical immaturity.

  5. RS
    March 20th, 2014 @ 3:20 pm

    Separately, I would note that those of Marcotte’s ilk tend to be Progressives and espouse all of the various Progressives causes regarding social programs and wealth distribution. It absolutely destroys their Pro-Abortion position when one notes that those same social programs and wealth transfer initiatives rely upon warm, working bodies to pay taxes to redistribute. There have been something north of 50 million abortions in this country post Roe v. Wade. Consider what our country’s financial situation might be if, oh say, 60 percent of those people were alive and paying money into the government coffers.

  6. wmiller
    March 20th, 2014 @ 3:23 pm

    I cannot imagine the bleakness that must be her mind.

  7. concern00
    March 20th, 2014 @ 3:40 pm

    The movie Idiocracy wasn’t all that idiotic after all.

    As conservatives we all know that there are plenty of women out there who don’t constantly claim victim-hood as there raison d’être. It was refreshing, however, to see the following post on an Australian news site:

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/working-women-must-stop-blaming-men-for-their-troubles-says-sunrise-presenter-natalie-barr-who-has-never-been-discriminated-against/story-fni0cwl5-1226859496003

  8. DaTechGuy on DaRadio
    March 20th, 2014 @ 3:44 pm

    By my calculations even if Ms Marcotte decides to have a child for the future voting power of the sisterhood by the time said child is born and of voting age the McCain Clan will still be outvoting the Marcotte clan by 3-1.

  9. Julie Pascal
    March 20th, 2014 @ 3:50 pm

    I usually argue pro-life from non-religious grounds. It seems more useful. Those willing to listen to “God doesn’t like it” don’t need persuading and those who won’t listen… won’t. Plus I’m libertarian (sort of) so I tend toward “the fetus also has rights as a human being and this is why…”

    Marcotte is not alone, BTW, the comments on the article are the same emotional outbursts of outrage at the apostate. In fact, a whole bunch of religious terms could be used… the author has violated doctrine, is a heretic, etc. In fact, it was amazing to see just how unwilling to understand another point of view the comments were… not to disagree, but to *disallow* disagreement.

    I won’t say I was *amused* but one comment caught my attention… the person announced they had no desire for children, ever, and would never ever have children in the future. Now, I’m actually rather supportive of people who just don’t want to have kids (unless they present it as the moral choice and look down on breeders) because not all of us want to be parents… but this person declared she did not want children and never would, and *if the condom broke* she’d not be forced to carry the child, she’d get an abortion. And I’m all…. wtf?.. you’re a dedicated non-breeder for life, and you’re using god-love-us CONDOMS as your primary birth control method?

    The number of people who publicly and apparently without any shame, present themselves as short-sighted idiots who can’t even figure out how birth control works… amazes.

  10. RS
    March 20th, 2014 @ 4:04 pm

    No less an authority than Thomas Aquinas argued that appealing to the authority of God in disputations with atheists is bad rhetorical practice. Paraphrased, he said we gotta be able to play in the other guy’s ballpark.

  11. rd
    March 20th, 2014 @ 4:14 pm

    Ms. Marcotte,
    Please stick to your convictions. There are many people that should not procreate. You are one of them.

  12. robertstacymccain
    March 20th, 2014 @ 4:23 pm

    “people who just don’t want to have kids (unless they present it as the moral choice and look down on breeders)”

    Except, of course, such people almost always do present it that way. You’re never going to meet an avid pro-abortion person who says, “Hey, it’s cool that you’ve got 4 or 5 kids, but I’m just not the kind of person who has much patience for dealing with kids.” No, inevitably, the pro-family “choice” is deeply offensive to such people, and they don’t even bother to hide their contempt for “breeders.”

  13. robertstacymccain
    March 20th, 2014 @ 4:25 pm

    “… those of Marcotte’s ilk …”

    Fortunately, it’s a small ilk.

  14. Durasim
    March 20th, 2014 @ 4:35 pm

    “a racist billionaire who was worried that poor brown people were having too many babies”

    Progressives and feminists have attempted to “resolve” that contradiction in their usual deranged fashion. They do not react the same way towards brown babies and white babies. If brown people have a lot of babies, the usual progressive refrain is that we must provide ever more foreign aid and welfare.

    They reserve most of their anti-fecundity opprobrium and outrage for stable white families that have more than two (or any) children. If you suggest that it is unwise and difficult for a poor single black or brown woman to be having five or six children, they will immediately denounce you as racist. Yet, when it comes to families like the Duggars or your typical upper-middle class Mormon family with 4+ kids, the feminists and progressives are just creeped out and demand that such families be driven out or treated like the Children of the Corn. Few things vex the feminists and progressives more than stable families who have a lot of children and can actually support them. I wonder why that is?

  15. Phil_McG
    March 20th, 2014 @ 4:38 pm

    Their barren wombs mean they’re a biological dead end, but as long as there are ugly, bitter, angry women, there will be radical feminists.

    And as long as those dysfunctional women wield disproportionate influence in academia and the media, they’ll continue to recruit impressionable young women and fill their heads with bile in the hopes of making them as full of inchoate rage as they are.

    It’s the same process that goes on in politics and sociology departments in colleges. Most of those Occupy kids were victims of disgusting old Marxist professors who abused their trust and indoctrinated them with socialism instead of educating them.

    Leftist identity politics is a cancer that will subvert and destroy every institution that fails to excise it. Why do you think that even to this day they spit on the name of Senator Joe McCarthy?

  16. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 20th, 2014 @ 4:48 pm

    That is exactly what I think. Her soul is like the desert, but without any romance or beauty (or oasis)

  17. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 20th, 2014 @ 4:52 pm

    It definitely bothers them. That is because most prochoice people recognize abortion is not a good thing (they just lack the moral clarity and want to keep their options open just in case).

    Hence the reason why you almost never see Hollywood movies that celebrate abortion as a good thing. Rather they switch the argument around and show “evil” nuns treating unwed mothers badly.

  18. RS
    March 20th, 2014 @ 5:09 pm

    I’m not so sure it’s small. Your post cites 41% as pro-Abortion. And, as someone below points out, the Left is inconsistent in it’s application, preferring the birth of lots of kids who will be wards of society while raising abortion to the status of sacrament for those who might rear independent, hard working taxpayers,

  19. Dana
    March 20th, 2014 @ 5:20 pm

    Though it’s always easy to target a person like Miss Marcotte for her statements, I’d say that this story makes a bigger point. Our friends on the left know, as surely as we do, that the Social Security system on which they will eventually draw, is going to be starved for funds as the ratio of people paying into the system vis a vis the people receiving benefits continues to shrink. Whatever you think of Miss Marcotte’s morality and wisdom, she isn’t stupid.

    The feminist left, the “free thinkers,” are telling us that reproduction is a choice, and they choose not to participate. That means, inter alia, that they are depending upon other people to reproduce to help support their retirement years.

    To me, that is strikingly reminiscent of what William Teach calls the “Warmists,” the global warming/ climate change Chicken Littles ( http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/wteach/Global%20Warming/end-is-nigh-al-gore_zpse6cad4f3.jpg ) do, live in huge houses, have huge carbon footprints, and take private jets al across the globe to tell other people that they must cut back, that they must live less well. In the mentality of the left, other people must support their lifestyles, but they are exempt from the social duties they would impose on others.

  20. Dana
    March 20th, 2014 @ 5:23 pm

    Well, it certainly bothered them that Todd and Sarah Palin had five children! And it bothered them even more that, when the Palins learned that their youngest child would be born with Down Syndrome, they didn’t choose to have him killed.

  21. Southern Air Pirate
    March 20th, 2014 @ 5:29 pm

    A couple of quibbles. First off it wasn’t just that the early supporters of choice were racists, they honestly believed the rhetoric attached around misunderstanding Darwin’s theory of evolution as well as Hebert Spencer’s theories on economics with regards to natural selection and the mechanisms of that concept. The idea that we could achieve utopian style society (not Garden of Eden to the believers of today’s secularism) by weeding out the bad genes which caused mental defects, criminal behavior (the “science” then honestly believed that genes caused criminals to act a certain way), poverty, alcoholism, etc and etc. Any social ill could be cured by only the “right and proper” people breeding. So that is why you have such a hard on amongst the secularists to believe that all anti-science folks are hate filled Christian bigots (because none of the other religions but Christian can be anti-evoluntinary or anti-science).
    Second is the demographic issue is very important if only because without the people being born to work and put money into the systems she champions such as the ACA, UI, or welfare or any of the other social nets; then where will it come from?
    Import more slave…I mean undocumented workers from overseas? There will come a point that even they won’t come anymore if the opportunities shrink or become hostile to their beliefs.
    Those are just two of the problems with her theories that are more then just talking about her being on the crazy train. That most progressive folks that I have listened to rant like her get a deer in the headlight look when you start asking serious questions like what is the lowest level of income that you wouldn’t tax to support your programs if the work force doesn’t exist to support it as well or why do you support the vestiges of an out dated and bigoted policy such as Eugenics. They don’t have an answer typically because they chose to sit in the rut that by being progressive they are helping society progress towards a better condition. They chose to ignore the 2nd or 5th order effects of their decisions.

  22. M. Thompson
    March 20th, 2014 @ 5:36 pm

    Good points. The future belongs to those who show up (i.e. have kids).

    Also, there are times when I feel like taunting some of my friends with the picture there, but then tact comes in.

  23. Julie Pascal
    March 20th, 2014 @ 5:49 pm

    True, in some senses Eugenics (thank you Darwin) fires in all directions… it’s just that part and parcel of it was that amongst the mentally infirm (the criminals or dummies) were assumed to be everyone in the world who wasn’t white.

    The “religious” classic “we can hunt Tasmanians because they don’t have souls” thing was never ever ever accepted by any church or religion… while “we ought to encourage brown people not to breed” was a central tenet of “Good Genes” and no real reason to think it’s any different now. Pro-abortionists protect situations like Kermit Gosnell’s house of horrors because he “served” poor brown immigrant women.

  24. Julie Pascal
    March 20th, 2014 @ 5:56 pm

    I recall very well this conversation.

    Guy: Oh! (points at my big tummy) Your first?
    Me: (holds up three fingers.)
    Guy: — (after a moment of uncomfortable shock decides to genuflect my amazingness to make a joke of it.)

    What blows my mind is that at four I’m a slacker. I *appreciate* people who have more. It’s important that we show up for the future.

  25. K-Bob
    March 20th, 2014 @ 5:59 pm

    For some slightly O/T humor (it’s about @BelleKnox) check out this article at the “We are so screwed since Hitchens died” Atlantic:

    Berlatzky: Students Who Do Sex Work

    He pointedly avoids noticing Stacy’s work on this topic. Them blinders is on tight, peoples!

    And if you get there soon, there’s a bonus laffer in the upper left flogging a story, the title of which I won’t spoil, but will bust out a grin or I’m Barbara Boxer. If it’s gone, click here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/the-monogamy-trap/358625/

    (UPDATE: What a supremely depressing article. If I ever feel too happy, I’ll read Atlantic. Well, you don’t so much “read” Atlantic, really, you more or less “speed dredge” Atlantic. I’ve seen more concise, understandable effluent when dealing with septic tank issues.)

  26. RS
    March 20th, 2014 @ 6:07 pm

    The Pro-Abortion Lobby and the Enviro Lobby all have the same agenda. Read this, written by a renowned environmentalist. Skip to the end if you get bored. It sets it all out. They wish to precipitate a crisis to reduce human population to less than one billion people. Remember, the author is considered an expert, not a loon. In that context, it’s very scary stuff.

  27. Anon Y. Mous
    March 20th, 2014 @ 6:09 pm

    That piece by Kristine Kruszelnicki is very good. I’m thrilled that Marcotte was so vociferously put off by it, leading RSM to link it. I doubt I would have seen it otherwise. Thanks Stacy!

  28. RS
    March 20th, 2014 @ 6:15 pm

    Sandra Loh wrote an article in the Atlantic a couple of years back when she decided to leave her loving husband because she fooled around and “fell in love” with someone else. I don’t think I’ve read a more solipsistic piece of trash in my life. The woman actually said something to the effect that, “Gee, my kids don’t appear hurt by my actions, so I guess they’re really ok with it.”

    (Found the earlier article here in The Atlantic archive. Read it and weep.)

  29. K-Bob
    March 20th, 2014 @ 6:19 pm

    Yep.. She gets to something similar in the piece I linked. She’s nuts.

  30. Southern Air Pirate
    March 20th, 2014 @ 6:36 pm

    Actually Darwin’s famous thesis is one of those texts that everyone loves to throw around but no one has actually read. There was a list I saw some years ago about 50 books people love to rave about and yet have never actually read except to a point that supports their ideals or points. Darwin’s book was in the top ten of that list with such things as the Federalist and Anti-Federalists as well as the three major religious texts (Torah, Bible, Qu’arn).
    Darwin’s ideas do not and have never fully supported eugenics. However, what did happen as it is happening now with other scientific research, is that someone read portions of his concepts and portions of some social philosophy that was out at the time to explained why the Europeans were “civilized” and specific to those that were WASPy or even WASC (Catholic instead of heathen protestant) was because those ethnic groups succeed and the others weren’t successful came from genes and the right breeding. Just like now we have policy wonks misusing science for political goals; the same is true then that policy wonks and progressive idealists used science to advance policy that made them the superior class and would grant them the power to maintain their positions. It is a horrid little secret that most progressive heroes of the 19th and 20th century were eugenics believers because the science was settled and until the full in rejection of religion under Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist belief patterns that said that science was the path to utopia. It wasnt u til the misuse of eugenics by the Austrian and his boot lickers in the 30s and 40s that lead most people to begin to reject it’s premises; yet the progressives have allowed some of the laws to stay on the books for a full century or longer here in the USA even as those laws were used for civil rights abuses and even now the Progressive wings of political parties at the state level are fighting a silent fight to keep from paying good people harmed by those laws that we harmed even in the late 70s.

  31. Bob Belvedere
    March 20th, 2014 @ 7:41 pm

    The Ideology of Fascists seeks death – and Putin is a Fascist.

  32. Bob Belvedere
    March 20th, 2014 @ 7:43 pm

    …those of Marcotte’s ick

    There…FTFY.

  33. Bob Belvedere
    March 20th, 2014 @ 7:44 pm

    Her Soul is riddled with the cancer of Nihilism.

  34. Bob Belvedere
    March 20th, 2014 @ 7:45 pm

    DaTechGuy does da Math!

  35. Bob Belvedere
    March 20th, 2014 @ 7:47 pm

    As long as it doesn’t involve compromising one’s morals, I agree.

  36. Bob Belvedere
    March 20th, 2014 @ 7:48 pm

    …they didn’t choose to have him murdered.

    FTFY.

  37. K-Bob
    March 20th, 2014 @ 7:52 pm

    Oh, look! Atlantic has found a replacement for Hitchens!

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/david-frum-joins-the-atlantic-as-senior-editor/

    All he has to do is learn how to write, think, smoke and drink, and he’s nearly there.

  38. RS
    March 20th, 2014 @ 7:53 pm

    I agree completely. Aquinas’s point was that God’s Truth could be demonstrated by Reason without resorting to a mere appeal to authority, which is of no effect if one’s opponent doesn’t acknowledge the authority.

  39. jakee308
    March 20th, 2014 @ 7:53 pm

    Thank God those genes will be lost forever.

  40. RKae
    March 20th, 2014 @ 7:54 pm

    I have to say this every time, but moral beliefs and decisions are not genetic traits. She is not “conceding the future to people like the Dugger family.” That is utter nonsense.

    I am the product of my parents procreation and upbringing and I believe nothing that they believed.

    Do the people of the United States today believe what the people of the United States in 1900 believed? Hardly.

    Human beings respond to (and are shaped by) propaganda and cultural happenings more than upbringing. This is even truer today, and it gets worse with every passing year. It was bad enough in the TV age; it’s worse now in the Internet, one-parent age.

    The left swells their ranks by using all the tricks of language (from repetition to ridicule). They don’t need to reproduce biologically. They reproduce through mind control.

  41. jakee308
    March 20th, 2014 @ 7:59 pm

    Nihilists usually find what they seek.

  42. K-Bob
    March 20th, 2014 @ 8:49 pm

    Another good reason to have lots of kids is that it maximizes the chances your genes will carry forth. That sounds like simple math, but it’s got more to do with what you wrote about here.

    If you have six or seven kids, one or two will be naturally “conservative,” and the rest will happen upon it in stages, when they get mugged by reality.

  43. G Joubert
    March 20th, 2014 @ 9:02 pm

    “There is something seriously off with that girl. It is good she is not procreating…”

    This. Let’s count that as a blessing.

  44. jakee308
    March 20th, 2014 @ 9:58 pm

    Oh, poor you. The tediousness of having to remind the seething masses of their ignorance how can you stand it?

    (I’m assuming you’re referring to my comment about her genes?)

    You made a quantum leap there as what I was referring to was her appearance although I do believe that we have a tendency to be attracted to certain ideas as they “fit” within the “patterns” in our brain which of course the size and shape of is determined by ones genes and whose development is guided and reinforced by ones parents.

    So although you may think you don’t believe anything that your parents believe, you’d be wrong. For one thing you really have no idea of all of what they believe/believed. Only what they’ve let you see and what you think you’ve deduced and what they believe currently. I can guarantee they believe things you have no idea that they did/do(if they’re still living)

    And you’re also wrong about how propaganda has more influence than someone’s upbringing. Care to cite references? Unless the propaganda has gone on longer than ones upbringing then no. In the case of longer then maybe but who can then separate the upbringing from the propaganda being purveyed to ones parents and the need to at least appear to accept it. So very long term propaganda can be an equal influence to upbringing but mostly second hand.

    So spare us the pontifications concerning genetics and stick to practicing reading comprehension.

  45. Adjoran
    March 21st, 2014 @ 12:27 am

    Why do you keep using 15 year old pictures of Mandy Marcotte?

    They are the ones she might choose to use on an internet dating site.

    She’s 36 and looks 46, easy. Here she is about a year ago; http://po.st/QKbNdK

  46. K-Bob
    March 21st, 2014 @ 3:12 am

    Looks like someone doesn’t understand how comments work, and has followed you here like a lost dog.

  47. Kirby McCain
    March 21st, 2014 @ 3:19 am

    Thanks a lot pal, I had just eaten.

  48. Art Deco
    March 21st, 2014 @ 7:48 am

    Jonathan V. Last’s recent book, What to Expect When No One’s Expecting: America’s Coming Demographic Disaster,

    Subreplacement fertility is a wretched problem in the industrial Orient and in a number of European countries, especially Germany. It is not a problem in the United States, Britain, France, Ireland, or Israel, each of which have adequate total fertility rates.

  49. Art Deco
    March 21st, 2014 @ 7:52 am

    Wouldn’t say 46 unless the hair is dyed, but ’tis true she’s aging. The bf is gap toothed and bald.

  50. Esther Williams
    March 21st, 2014 @ 9:23 am

    Regardless, Putin is right about the fact that people who share a common language, religion, ethnicity, and culture have the absolute right to self-determination. Putin’s courage and ability to defend Russians is to be applauded.

    He obviously knows that these states, incapable of defending their borders against an enemy as weak as 20 million TB-ridden mestizos, is powerless against legitimate adversaries.