May 31, 2012

For liberals, diversity trumps everything

Disraeli had a character exclaim in one of his novels, "Race is everything." Increasingly, it appears that for liberals, all other values, such as gender equality, are subordinate to the prime directive of Nobody Notice Nuthin'.

For example, Dana Milbank opines in the Washington Post:
Republican’s abortion bill risks alienating Asian Americans 
Republicans long ago lost African American voters. They are well on their way to losing Latinos. And if Trent Franks prevails, they may lose Asian Americans, too.
The Arizona Republican’s latest antiabortion salvo to be taken up by the House had a benign name — the Prenatal Non­discrimination Act — and a premise with which just about everybody agrees: that a woman shouldn’t abort a fetus simply because she wants to have a boy rather than a girl. 
The problem with Franks’s proposal is that it’s not entirely clear there is a problem. Sex-selection abortion is a huge tragedy in parts of Asia, but to the extent it’s happening in this country, it’s mostly among Asian immigrants.  
For Franks, who previously tried to pass legislation limiting abortions among African Americans and residents of the District of Columbia, it was the latest attempt to protect racial minorities from themselves.  
“The practice of sex selection is demonstrably increasing here in the United States, especially but not exclusively in the Asian immigrant community,” he announced on the House floor Wednesday afternoon. He quoted a study finding that male births “for Chinese, Asian Indians and Koreans clearly exceeded biological variation.” 
Democrats found Franks’s ­paternalism toward minority groups to be suspect. Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.), identifying herself as a member of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, said the bill would “lead to further stigmatization of women, especially Asian Pacific American women.” Various Asian American legal and women’s groups opposed the bill.  
In an interview Wednesday afternoon, Franks didn’t dispute that Asian Americans would be targeted. “The real target in the Asian community here is the Asian women who are being coerced into aborting little girls,” he told me, adding: “When the left doesn’t want to make abortion the issue, they say you’re being against minorities.”  
Franks is a principled and consistent opponent of abortion, but his strategy has raised eyebrows before because of its racial component.

One aspect of Milbank's complaint is the sacredness of abortion, but the bigger part is that some hick from the sticks has dared to notice something ungood about a minority group. Granted, the protected group is only Asians and what he's noticed -- aborting girl fetuses -- is pretty bad, but still ... This Republican white guy noticed. What can be worse than that? We must shame him into not noticing anything.

Here's a great topic for Milbank to take on next:
Koreans Busted for Stamina Pills Made from Dead Babies

If any white Republicans object, they're racist! And thus they deserve to lose the crucial East Asian-American vote, both eaters of dead babies and their co-ethnic non-eaters of dead babies who must stand shoulder to shoulder in racial solidarity with the dead baby eaters. Now, you Republican racists might say that most Asian voters object to eating dead babies on principle, and thus most Asian voters wouldn't allow Democratic demands for Asian racial solidarity to trump their aversion to eating dead babies. But that just shows what a white Republican racist you are to even hope that there won't be complete racial solidarity among Asian voters on the eating-dead-babies thing. As we enlightened white Democrats know, race is everything! Or, at least it ought to be when it comes to how nonwhites vote. So, if legislation against eating dead babies would have disparate impact on any minority, then it's racist to even imagine there should be a law against eating dead babies. What can't you understand about that? I, Dana Milbank, would personally eat a dead baby to prove Republicans are racist.

86 comments:

Anonymous said...

And Dems keep losing white voters.

Anonymous said...

If gop should act just like dems to win the color vote, why have two parties?

Let gop keep losing color vote and let dems keep losing white vote.

The real worry for gop is losing middle class vote by sucking up to wall street

Anonymous said...

Why do a lot of pro-abortion people think sex-selective abortions are a tragedy?

How could an unborn child not have a right to life, but still have a right not be discriminated against on the basis of sex?

I think it's giving the majority of pro-choice folks way too much credit to think they are concerned about the adverse affect on society of having permanent bachelors.

Anonymous said...

Why do a lot of pro-abortion people think sex-selective abortions are a tragedy?

How could an unborn child not have a right to life, but still have a right not be discriminated against on the basis of sex?

I think it's giving the majority of pro-choice folks way too much credit to think they are concerned about the adverse affect on society of having permanent bachelors.

Anonymous said...

let's have affirmative undocumented same sex child-birth, aka sex-based abortion, to win over the yellow vote. also dog eating and cat boiling to be culturally sensitive to asians.

Anonymous said...

but if someone okays aborting gay kids--if such is possible--, watch libs go nuts.

i still say free abortion for underclass women.

Anonymous said...

Why are you touting this pro-life idiocy? Derbyshire's last article links to a New Yorker piece about how this country spends ridiculous gobs of money torturing old people by keeping them alive long past their expiration date. It's right-wing morons who screech about "death panels" and the evils of euthanasia who we have to blame for this. They'd force society to care for babies who are in conditions just as bad if they could.

Anyway, Milbank's point makes sense. Sex-selective abortion is a problem only if it goes on on a large scale. But Mr. Sailer is too busy riding his hobby horse and trying to be clever to bother thinking about what others are saying.

Anonymous said...

But this it must be said. The guy is merely going after sex selection abortion as a roundabout way of going after ALL abortion. It's like using intelligent design as a backdoor entry for creationism.

GOP opposition to abortion is as stupid as its embrace of amnesty(by bush and mccain). I say let blacks and yellows abort their kids(in any shape or form). As long as rightist whites refrain from it, abortion is fine by me.

Lucille said...

Is there any real reason that dog and cat meat should be outlawed? If you're a vegetarian, your position is consistent; if you approve of eating meat, your position is consistent, but to say meat eating is acceptable, except for a couple species? That makes no sense.

Yes, dogs and cats are kept as pets - so are other animals like rabbits, but we don't outlaw rabbit meat.

concern troll said...

Yeah, you right-winger wingnuts need to wake up and smell the coffee about the moronic extremist idiocy of trying to restrict useless proles from being aborted. It's a total waste of taxpayer money, that needs to be spent on other things. Divisive.

Lucille said...

Anon @ 2:32

Yeah, and let's legalize infanticide while we're at it.

Anonymous said...

Koreans Busted for Stamina Pills Made from Dead Babies

Are you aware of what the asians at Pepsi-Cola have been up to?

I. KID. YOU. NOT.

Hapalong Cassidy said...

The irony of sex-selected abortions among Asians in America is that American society values Asian females much more than Asian males, so the Asian-American community has everything backwards and is only hurting themselves.

Anonymous said...

A bit off topic, but is it possible that Liberals don't mind sex-selective abortions killing girls because they might believe it will lead to more gays? Liberals are so pro-gay, they might not care if the entire world is destroyed to ensure more homosexuality!

Anonymous said...

Just saw this story from a website:

Congressman Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the author of a bill that would criminalize abortions whose purpose is to eliminate a fetus because the gender is not preferred, said he still supports including a ban on race-based selection in the bill, but that it was removed for political reasons. The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the bill Thursday morning.

God forbid! You know, soon you'll be able to pick the physical features of your fetus. Wouldn't want any kind of selection going on there.

Steve Sailer: Champion of gender equality, miscegenation, nd dysgenics.

Anonymous said...

I am a MOBY, in case anyone was wondering.

HomelessLawyerPostingFromLibrary said...

i agree with your observations, but again and again and again you bring up these observations (which are obvious to me) but you fail to ask why this is so.

Why? Because rich people want it this way. Having the so called Left in america be obsessed with the rights of minorities is something that helps rich people. So that is why this situation exists in america.

And when you admit that, you admit that you are a leftist. Just like me.

Anonymous said...

"GOP opposition to abortion is as stupid as its embrace of amnesty(by bush and mccain). I say let blacks and yellows abort their kids(in any shape or form). As long as rightist whites refrain from it, abortion is fine by me."

The GOP would be better served by focusing on returning abortion to the states for just this reason.

Anonymous said...

Well, Koreans are about 30 percent protestant and many evangelicals. There are large Korean evangelical churches in La and Orange. One new song is more liberal and similar to the emergant church movement among white evangelicals. Those from Vietnam about 30 percent of them are Catholic so they are social conservatives among asians and some of them are more social conservatives than hispancis but this is not known.

eah said...

...it was the latest attempt to protect racial minorities from themselves.

What a perverse, hideous thought and sentence.

Shouting Thomas said...

What most blacks want from politics is welfare and quotas in their favor.

To curry favor with black voters, the Republican Party would have to abandon white voters who are opposed to (and punished by welfare and quotas).

So, this writer is essentially arguing that neither party should lower itself to represent the interests of white (non-SWPL) voters.

John D said...

"And Dems keep losing white voters."

In keeping with hyphenating all Americans, I prefer to call Whites "American-Americans." Imagine the shrieking that'd elicit on liberal blogs. Ought to be good for a few laughs.

Daniel Williams said...

Perhaps opponents of abortion believe (for some *thoroughly discredited* reason, no doubt) that abortion is Wrong, like how murder or arson is Wrong. And they—if you follow me—they don't want to see more of a Wrong thing, even amongst "blacks and yellows".

Anonymous said...

"How could an unborn child not have a right to life, but still have a right not be discriminated against on the basis of sex?"

Because it's the living who are doing the discrimination. Abortion is a celebration of choice, sex-selective abortion is a sign of an attitude tainted with gender-inequality.

And thus they need to be taught gender-neutrality until they learn not to discriminate in anything.
Except when it's for correcting previous wrongs against womynkind.
Which might include choosing female embryos over male ones in various fertility treatments, so that Hanah Rosin can give more TED talks.

DYork said...

...it was the latest attempt to protect racial minorities from themselves.

Not nearly as effective as Dana Milbank's Scots Irish brethren's need to protect minorities from the Evil Goyim, otherwise known as Republicans, conservatives or the bizarrely labeled "non-Hispanic whites".

The main political question with abortion is why Republicans continue to do everything possible to promote the births of future Democrats. If the Democrats want to reduce their future numbers, or really reduce the increase, let them.

Obviously religion gets in the way of that for Republicans.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Yes. Diversity really does trump everything.

It trumps the working class.
It trumps a polite civil order.
It trumps peace.
It trumps environmental stewardship.

I could go on.

Diversity uber alles.

Power Child said...

It would be useful to have an established hierarchy of sins to keep things in perspective. Abortion would be near the top, since it requires killing humans, and so it's good to oppose it—even if by committing the much lesser sin of targeting racial minority groups.

It's only when, as Progressives did a century ago, you use racial targeting to go after people who want to get a little high on the weekends—a much lesser sin still—that targeting minorities can really be said to look bad by comparison.

So basically, the rule of thumb should be to get worked up over the worst sin being committed at a time, rather than skipping over it to get worked up about a lesser sin that is more fashionable to care about.

Anonymous said...

Republicans long ago lost African American voters. They are well on their way to losing Latinos. And if Trent Franks prevails, they may lose Asian Americans, too.

Farcical.

The implication being that the Republicans 'had' the Latino or Asian vote in the first place.

Only if you torture 'had' into meaning 'an absolute majority of them already vote Democrat'.

Mannerheim said...

The funny thing is that the response to the law is such a dodge. "How dare he propose such a thing, it stigmatizes women! it's racist against Asians!" Fine, whatever, but do you, the Democrats, agree or disagree with sex-selective abortion? If you think it's totally fine for parents to view girl babies as worthless and preemptively kill them, just say so.

Paul Mendez said...

The other thing about this article is it shows how liberals like Milbank keep assuming that every non-white racial group behaves just like black Americans.

Blacks Americans are a relatively homogeneous group. They share the same language, same culture and same history. Therefore, it is not surprising that their political viewpoints are equally homogeneous, and they can vote 95% Democratic.

Hispanic Americans share the same language, and come from similar but not identical cultures. But they have many different histories. A Cuban and a Mexican and a Puerto Rican will have very different stories to tell about how they got to the US. Therefore, it should not be surprising that while a majority of Hispanics vote Democrat, a significant minority don't.

Asian Americans, on the other hand, might have vaguely similar cultures but do not share the same language or history. Why would Milbank assume a Japanese, a Chinese, a Korean and a Filipino would all share the same politics? Why do liberals assume that having an epicanthic fold means you must vote a certain way?

Anonymous said...

I don't think that sex-selective abortion is a bad thing. Part of the reason why groups that do have stable, nuclear families is because there is a high male-female ratio. Some groups in the United States have a male-female ratio of 83:100...and look at the rate of divorce/out-of-wedlock births in that community.

Dennis Dale said...

Sex-selective abortion is a problem only if it goes on on a large scale

Their opposition is religious-moral, not libertarian-amoral. Yes, there is no economic basis for their opposition. Troglodytes!

Dana had a similar column attacking Jan Brewer for not getting her, excuse me, head-count right when noting the Mexican drug cartels' practice of leaving headless bodies in the desert. Yes, as in "oh, there weren't nearly that many heads." Of course, the running tally continues apace--but Dana's moved on.

I don't recall if Dana titled that one "Republican Opponents of Decapitation courting Political Suicide" or not, but he should have.
In the interest of ideological consistency and keeping the forces of reaction in check, Dana, I suggest for your next column:

"Public Library of Science assaults Immigrants, courts political Suicide in New Study"

Ron Mexico said...

Milbank’s piece appears to be lifted from a future psychology textbook, in the section which explains how the ‘anti-racist’ mental reflex is structurally isomorphic to the chronic masturbator’s habit: at some point, you don’t even know what you’re doing anymore, and it’s all just self-stim. The giveaway is the final line:

“Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.) countered that the Republicans were setting up a straw man. ‘As I listen to this debate, I’m not sure if we’re talking about India or China,’ he said. Neither, Congressman. Just people who come from those places.”

Yeaaah! *Feel* it hit your blood!

Consider after all that the piece, which originally scans as concern-trolling, is about a bill that *will never pass* and, a fortiori, *no one ever would have heard of if it weren’t for Dana Milbank*. Or are we perhaps to believe that this bill is reflective of a more general anti-Asian trend in Republican legislation?

As Sailer notes, there’s something dubious about the logic in the opening paragraphs—“everyone knows that Xing is wrong; but the only people who X are Asians; therefore...”—but that’s an irrelevant criticism of the genre Milbank is operating in: erotic fiction.

Anonymous said...

Isn't the big conspiracy on the nets that the Left, and parts of the GOP, is all about population control? Wouldn't folks, therefore, want to run interference for a practice, sex-based abortions, that will go a long way to furthering this?

A lot of these sons are going to be much less likely to have kids than their aborted sisters. Particularly in the US thanks to female bias against East Asian males. A bias even the Left has openly admitted and bemoaned. I don't think it will effect the South Asians as much.


Love the antiabortion act named for Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglas, both of whom espoused views similar to today's Tea Party.

Where is the Kafka or Twain of our times who can take this material and make it into a satire for our century? This stuff is begging for satire.

Richard Woland said...

Aborting female fetuses will slow down assimilation. While it has been pointed out that we will have an imbalance / surplus of South and East Asian men, they will be able to import their spouses with very little effort like is done in Europe. It is the women that will marry into the greater population first.

Anonymous said...

Aborting female fetuses will slow down assimilation. While it has been pointed out that we will have an imbalance / surplus of South and East Asian men, they will be able to import their spouses with very little effort like is done in Europe. It is the women that will marry into the greater population first.

It's an interesting thought that Asian racism toward Americans might be driving this (even if only subconsciously).

Anonymous said...

In Mandarin, the symbol for good is made by combining two other characters: woman/mother and SON. - not daughter.

Dahlia said...

Sex-selective abortion in other ethnic communities affects us all. The only question is how.

Nicholas Eberstadt from his article, "The Global War Against Baby Girls":

"Sex-selective
abortion is by now so widespread and so frequent that
it has come to distort the population composition of the entire human
species: this new and medicalized war against baby girls is indeed truly
global in scale and scope.

***

By the reckoning of UNPD, the overall global sex ratio at birth has
already assumed naturally impossible heights in the era of sex-selective
abortion, rising from 105 in 1975-80 to 107 for 2005-10. By the same
token, IPC puts the worldwide under-5 child sex ratio at 107 for 2010."

http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/race-and-gender/the-global-war-against-baby-girls2/

As an aside, if it is true that there is a demise of guys in the West and Japan from "arousal addiction", China must keep a tight grip on the censorship button and then they can plunder the women of these nations.
Ron Unz believes China will rise despite this gender problem so I guess we'll watch and see.

Beecher Asbury said...

Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.), identifying herself as a member of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, said the bill would “lead to further stigmatization of women, especially Asian Pacific American women.” Various Asian American legal and women’s groups opposed the bill.

Can we break out the category "Asians" into relevant component groups. I am getting put off by this term because it is being used to describe way too many people. Throwing in "Pacific" doesn't help either.

Grievance Trends Inc. said...

Every cause wears thin eventually, but I think now a preponderance of whites born after 1980 aren't inclined to automatically feel sorry for every black person in any typical situation; that's been unfortunate for the metro Left, who are obviously out of ideas at this point, and their varied attempt to fashion the next latest greatest Civil Rights cause--gays, transgendered, mentally ill, women Navy SEALs, etc.--are not catching on so quickly as consultants had assured.

Predictable failed Civil Rights issues of the future:
1) ADHD sufferers
2) fat people
3) people who don't have their own cars--seems weird, due to longstanding emphasis on green monorails and whatnot, but I could see it

Anonymous said...

What most blacks want from politics is welfare and quotas in their favor.

To curry favor with black voters, the Republican Party would have to abandon white voters who are opposed to (and punished by welfare and quotas).


This goes to the arrangement (implicit or explicit) between the Scots Irish and blacks. The former floods the United States with foreigners in order to dissolve European unity and culture, while they hold the black quotas constant at around 5-10 percent. These plums largely defuse what should otherwise be strong black opposition to immigration. Recall Reverend Wright's comments about co-opting the elites from among your captives.

Anonymous said...

"Republicans long ago lost African-American voters. They are well on their way to losing Latinos. ..and they may lose Asians too."

How can you "lose" something you've never had?

Anonymous said...

I think I get it. This blog post shows the sly side of Sailer.

Though ostensibly about abortion, Sailer is really suggesting that some groups shouldn't be welcomed to the US because of their cultural barbarities. So, this blogpost is really about immigration.

Since Asian 'values' are so sick, Asians--and other morally dubious groups--should not be welcomed into the US. Since some Asians do here what they do over in their own countries--kill unborn babies based on sex--, the implication is there is no place in good ole USA for such louts.
So, even though Sailer seems to be arguing against sex-based abortion, he is arguing for race-culture-based immi-abortion, i.e. let's abort the arrival of non-whites from some cultures that tenaciously cling to barbarism.

(Btw, some Goppers wanna deny visas to white South Africans for being culturally tainted with 'racism'; now, THAT is truly traitorous.)

Anonymous said...

I think I know why many Jewish conservatives are supportive of Mormon Romney(and why many Jewish liberals prefer him to more traditional conservatives).
The logic is no different from the Jewish support for the gay agenda.
Jews are a small minority but hold elite privilege, power, and position in our society. Jews feel nervous about their status. Though possessed of vast power, they feel surrounded by goyim. So, it's been the Jewish desire to persuade the masses of goyim that minorities, aliens, and outsider groups have every right to rule over the vast majority. By normalizing and mainstreamizing gays, Jews have convinced Americans that the abnormal is the new normal(and that normal people have to prove their moral worth by embracing abnormality, or else, THEY are abnormal.)

Mormonism is an abnormal cult sect of Christianity, which is why most Christians hold it at arm's length--especially the Christian Right. But with a Mormon guy as the #1 guy in the GOP(which is now mostly controlled by Zionist neocons), it's like a mirror-reflection of Jewish/gay takeover of Democrats. Mainstream Cons and Christians have been pressured to accept an weirdo-alien-Christian(who sucks up to Zionists) as a mainstream Christian.

Thus we have the mainstreamization of abnormality. Jews want white conservatives to get comfy with the notion that minorities and outsiders have the right to rule and dominate.

On the other hand, Mormonism is one of the whitest, most homogeneous, and culturally conservative forces in America. That poses problems for Jews. So, Jews have this love/hate thing for Mormons. Love as fellow outsider-elites. Hate as the epitome of 'white bread morality and unity'.

Mormons, though not explicitly 'racist', have been implicitly white-ist. Its values, manners, and expressions are just more appealing to whites than to blacks or others.

Anonymous said...

"How can you "lose" something you've never had?"

GOP once did have the black vote. But GOP lost it in favor of southern redneck vote, and Dems lost Southern redneck vote in favor of Negro vote.

So, GOP became the party of Jesse Helms, and Dems became the party of Al Sharpton.

Whiskey said...

Selective Sex abortions increases the competition for available females which promotes racial-ethnic conflict over ... tada! Women! Which is not a good idea. Men fighting over Women has been destructive since that big fight over Helen by Paris and Agamemnon. See also Strongbow, Ireland, and Laudabiliter.

Selective Sex abortions means higher income Asian Men face a shortage of available women. Thus they will enter into competition with White guys to score the only available women, the same White/Asian pool of upward mobility young women in or out of college. [Black women are out of reach, only the most macho of men can compete for them, or high status, good if you are Bill Maher or Robert DeNiro or David Bowie, bad for most other guys, Hispanic women increasingly only mate among their ethnic/racial peers.]

Since unmarried White women tilt WILDLY hard left, a large group of Asian/White men competing for them, caused by the missing Asian women, will only accelerate the leftward tilt. Since espousing hard left ideas is mandatory in approaching unmarried young White women.

eah said...

Dems succeed in sinking bill against sex-selection abortion

The 246-168 vote, which mostly followed party lines, ... House Democrats, however, said PRENDA would not stop such abortions, but would harm doctor-patient confidentiality and restrict women’s rights to legal abortion.

Some Democrats might as well get the latter part tatooed onto their foreheads.

formerly no name said...

GOP once did have the black vote. But GOP lost it in favor of southern redneck vote, and Dems lost Southern redneck vote in favor of Negro vote.

The black vote shifted to the Dems during the New Deal. The majority of the Black vote in the *South*-where libs tell us black weren't allowed to vote anyway until the passage of the 1965 VRA-did go to the GOP as late as Nixon vs. JFK in 1960.

Anonymous said...

Though ostensibly about abortion, Sailer is really suggesting that some groups shouldn't be welcomed to the US because of their cultural barbarities. So, this blogpost is really about immigration.

Since Asian 'values' are so sick, Asians--and other morally dubious groups--should not be welcomed into the US.


I don't think Steve or anyone else needs to view Asians as "barbaric" or "morally dubious" to see that gynecide could be problematic for our American society. It is a situation where diversity, or the practices of a relatively exclusionary group, could end up imposing costs on other groups: as others have observed, male overpopulation could create issues. To the extent that such problems would be a product of lax immigration policies, it is one more strike against immigration.

ATBOTL said...

When are white people going to realize that paternalism is never appreciated?

Paul Mendez said...

I think I know why many Jewish conservatives are supportive of Mormon Romney...

I don't know that there is such a thing as "Jewish Conservatives" but there certainly are "Conservative Jews."

Reform Jews are socially liberal, but Conservative Jews are not. (I don't personally know any Orthodox Jews, but I'm guessing they're more socially conservative than Conservatives.)

Conservative Jews I know are politically liberal, but things like Clinton schtupping Monica Lewisnky with a cigar deeply offended them. The Conservative Jews I know seem to feel some genuine affinity for Romney's brand of Mormon social values. They also seem to be less enthralled with our schwartzer president every day.

Whether that will be enough to make them vote GOP, I don't know.

On the other hand, all the Reform Jews I know seem to universally loathe Romney & Mormonism.

mnl said...

There's something extremely ironic in Barbara Lee's support for what is essentially the stigmatizing of Asian Pacific female fetuses when she declares the bill will "lead to further stigmatization of women, especially Asian Pacific American women."

It's been a while since I've taken biology 101 but don't female fetuses, when carried to term, result in female women?

ATBOTL said...

"Since espousing hard left ideas is mandatory in approaching unmarried young White women."

The biggest players I know are generally non-ideological reactionary types who would vote for Ted Nugent if he ran for office.

Anonymous said...

I've heard the word "infanticide" before but never gave it much thought before learning about this context. The question I have is, do the Chinese actually kill female infants or just the fetuses?

Svigor said...

Libtards are going to do an about-face on this one, so mark it down in your notes.

See, patriarchal religions will eventually figure out they can achieve sustainable polygamy with sex-selection. Libtards may not have a problem with Muslims doing this, but they are going to have a coronary at the prospect of FLDS doing it.

Svigor said...

Is there any real reason that dog and cat meat should be outlawed?

Because that's how we want it?

Sometimes it's good to just impose your will because you can, and you want to.

Svigor said...

The biggest players I know are generally non-ideological reactionary types who would vote for Ted Nugent if he ran for office.

No no, the biggest players are always very honest with the chicks they're trying to bag. And talk about politics a lot.

Svigor said...

Black women are out of reach, only the most macho of men can compete for them, or high status

Black women non-black men are interested in competing for are a tiny minority of all black women.

Anonymous said...

No no, the biggest players are always very honest with the chicks they're trying to bag. And talk about politics a lot.

Is this true?

Anonymous said...

"Nicholas Eberstadt from his article, "The Global War Against Baby Girls""

btw it's fetus when we are talking about a woman's right to expel that tissue from her uterus.
And what do you mean that right to abortion means global war against both baby boys and baby girls?

"Selective Sex abortions increases the competition for available females which promotes"

marriage, monogamy and decrease in illegitimate children.
otoh starting with a lower male:female ratio from birth and then seeing that ratio plummet because of youf problems leads to

"Black women are out of reach"

ah, well.

Anonymous said...

"marriage, monogamy and decrease in illegitimate children."

I completely agree with you. Asians have the lowest divorce rates, and the lowest illegitimacy rates because of this phenomenon.

Anonymous said...

GOP once did have the black vote. But GOP lost it in favor of southern redneck vote, and Dems lost Southern redneck vote in favor of Negro vote.



Historically speaking, that is what is known as a "crock". The Democrats used to have both the Negro vote (everywhere outside the South) and the southern redneck vote. This was the case from the 1930's through the 1970's, maybe the 1980's.

Anonymous said...

The GOP would be better served by focusing on returning abortion to the states for just this reason.


The GOP is and has been focused on that for decades now. What do you think overturning Roe would actually do, if not "return abortion to the states"?

Fellow Traveler in Berkeley said...

Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.), identifying herself as a member of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus

I guess Barbara Lee is considered an 'Asian Pacific American' by some sort of extremist application of the 'Out of Africa' theory.

For those who are unfamiliar with her, please feel free to take a gander at the person who (ostensibly) represents me in the U.S. House of Representatives. Quite a career!

Barbara Lee Does NOT Speak For Me

Anonymous said...

"marriage, monogamy and decrease in illegitimate children."

I completely agree with you. Asians have the lowest divorce rates, and the lowest illegitimacy rates because of this phenomenon.


Doesn't this fly in the face of conventional wisdom today that most divorces are initiated by women. If women have more options (greater relative numbers of men) shouldn't we expect divorce rates to be higher?

Maya said...

""marriage, monogamy and decrease in illegitimate children."

I completely agree with you. Asians have the lowest divorce rates, and the lowest illegitimacy rates because of this phenomenon.

Doesn't this fly in the face of conventional wisdom today that most divorces are initiated by women. If women have more options (greater relative numbers of men) shouldn't we expect divorce rates to be higher?"

I'm talking out of my hat here since I haven't seen any studies on the subject. But I've witnessed quite a few divorces initiated by women up close, and those women usually claim that it's the husband who basically disengaged from the marriage, and they are merely the ones forced to bring up the issue, say it out loud and act upon it legally. Perhaps the husbands are less likely to actually file because the financial penalty is just too burdensome for them to take that step, but that doesn't mean that they don't withdraw from the relationship first. Again, my peers aren't dealing with this issue yet, so I'm no expert. Just s thought. But if my guess were to be aligned with reality, it would make sense that in a society where women are in short supply, men would try to avoid divorce for reasons even more compelling than dodging financial ruin, so they would try harder.

Maya said...

Am I missing something? How would outlawing abortion, but only when it's for the reason of sex selection, work in practice? Married couples choose to abort for career, education, financial and mental health reasons all the time. Can't an Asian woman check out the baby's sex, see that it's a girl, and then claim depression, promotion at work, her first kid going through a stage that requires all her attention, death of a family member or any number of other reasons? Just because an Asian couple aborts each time they get pregnant with a girl, it doesn't necessarily prove that they are selecting for boys on purpose. How would anyone prove that it's not merely a coincidence?

Maya said...

Whiskey,

Rich and powerful Chinese/Korean men aren't competing for white women on a large scale. They make up for the shortage of brides in their circle by going down a step and marrying middle class and lower middle class girls. In turn, middle class/lower middle class Chinese and Korean men take to the villages or they import brides from Vietnam and other third world Asian countries. The Chinese/Korean village men who aren't dirt poor also often import their wives from Vietnam. And the dirt poor Chinese/Korean men and the left over male Asian third worlders quietly drink themselves to death in a rice paddy.

Anonymous said...

"Doesn't this fly in the face of conventional wisdom today that most divorces are initiated by women. If women have more options (greater relative numbers of men) shouldn't we expect divorce rates to be higher?"

Yeah, modern sodom and gomorrah is a whole different story.
Greater number of men doesn't automatically mean more options for women, but it does mean increased male-male competition to fulfill women's wishes.

And women's wishes assumed to be good and proper.

In the U.S., a high sex ratio is statistically associated with high rates of marriage and low rates of illegitimate births.....
If there are a lot of men for young women, then the women will trade sex in exchange for what they value, which for most women is a stable relationship--that is, marriage and two-parent child care. But if men are scarce and women abundant, then women will lose their bargaining power and exchange sex for whatever is available: one-night stands, illegitimate children or even prostitution. In the U.S., African-Americans have a very low sex ratio, and the consequences of that fact are obvious.



However, and as whiskey would emphatically agree, that assumption(patriarchal relic) is no longer valid.

Maya said...

"Black women are out of reach, only the most macho of men can compete for them, or high status"

Are you telling me that you (a stable man with no birth defects and a job that puts you above the poverty line, I presume) have tried proposing to black women of average age, average weight and with an average number of kids, and they turned you down?

rob said...

[Black women are out of reach, only the most macho of men can compete for them, or high status

Shockingly enough, Whiskey's actually rightish. Most black women aren't attracted to very many white men, and the white men they would be interested have lots of other options. There are prolly tons of black chicks who'd date Tom Brady, but he'd rather date supermodels.

White men aren't much into black women either, so there's almost no anger or bitterness on either side.

Anonymous said...

""marriage, monogamy and decrease in illegitimate children."

I completely agree with you. Asians have the lowest divorce rates, and the lowest illegitimacy rates because of this phenomenon.

Doesn't this fly in the face of conventional wisdom today that most divorces are initiated by women. If women have more options (greater relative numbers of men) shouldn't we expect divorce rates to be higher?"

Maya, if you look at divorce rates by race in America, Asians are less likely to get divorced than Whites. I do believe it is partially explained by high male-female ratios in Asian communities.

Anonymous said...


I've heard the word "infanticide" before but never gave it much thought before learning about this context. The question I have is, do the Chinese actually kill female infants or just the fetuses?


Both.

By the way, Ted Nugent would probably make a better president than several recent ones I could think of. Yes, he's an oafish doofus, but so was GW Bush. Yes, he has a history of wild sex, but so did Bill Clinton. But with Ted you know just where you stand. And he is not stupid, which is something I'm less inclined to say every day about the incumbent.

Anonymous said...

"GOP once did have the black vote. But GOP lost it in favor of southern redneck vote, and Dems lost Southern redneck vote in favor of Negro vote."
Actually blacks shifted to the democrat party first, a half century after the fact the democrats then lost the white southerner vote. Republicans have been fairly passive thus far.

"When are white people going to realize that paternalism is never appreciated?"
Few of us mind them murdering their children, we want them gone from here though. And if this encourages them to leave then it is a win.

"See, patriarchal religions will eventually figure out they can achieve sustainable polygamy with sex-selection. Libtards may not have a problem with Muslims doing this, but they are going to have a coronary at the prospect of FLDS doing it."
Theres the rub, if they weed out male births without regards to which ones are going to be the "quality" men then their system will suffer. Civilization destroying violence is a feature, not a bug.

"Is this true?"
Game is politics neutral. Roissy has posted a few pieces on leftist women admitting that they simply aren't attracted to people that genuinely take their ideology to heart however. Be like Bill Clinton if you're going leftist.

"The GOP is and has been focused on that for decades now. What do you think overturning Roe would actually do, if not "return abortion to the states"?"
Precisely that, but the GOP hasn't framed it that way. They are focusing on morality and not a return to states rights, and if the moral argument is correct then abortion must be banned everywhere.

Anonymous said...

This wasn't a problem in America before 1965. Wonder why?

Dennis Dale said...

Married couples choose to abort for career, education, financial and mental health reasons all the time.

Seems to me this is why the opponents (who've already lost the vote) raise the issue here: sex selection is "choice" in action, and not, by far, in its most craven guise. Abortion opponents are forcing its supporters to openly defend Choice in its cruelest guise.

This is the reality of abortion and what its supporters demand, along with "can't afford a kid now (we can always have one later)" and "I don't want my breasts to sag".

This is the argument the anti-abortion people should make.

Anonymous said...

I know ordinary white guys married to nice black women. Black women don't seem so out of reach. Rather, they just have more appeal to black men than to men of other races.

Camlost said...

"Black women are out of reach, only the most macho of men can compete for them, or high status"

LOL

there's very few things easier than getting a black chick in bed. The 72% illegitimacy rate should have been your first clue.

All you have to do is go a step beyond what their baby daddies will do - pay their cell phone bill or spring for a decent name-brand dinner featuring lots of fruity liquor drinks.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if somebody e-mailed Dana Milbank yet with the obvious point about "they may lose Asian Americans, too"--is not the more proximate issue that Asian Americans will lose Asian Americans?

"Gentlemen, we at the RNC have lost fewer & fewer Asians with every generation"

Anonymous said...

http://ukcommentators.blogspot.co.uk/2007/12/yes-its-female-foeticide-uk.html

"Between 1990 and 2005 almost 1,500 fewer girls were born to Indian mothers in England and Wales than would have been expected for that group, researchers say. This represents one in ten girls “missing” from the birth statistics for Indian-born women having their third or fourth child. The findings will be revealed in a special radio programme to be broadcast on the BBC’s Asian Network digital radio station this evening.

One British-born mother, who has three daughters, tells the programme that she terminated a pregnancy intentionally last year. "Meena", an office worker in her 30s, said that she had no difficulty in finding a gynaecologist in Delhi willing to do a scan to determine the sex of the baby, and then to perform the abortion.

"Me and my husband decided to go to India and try and find out what we were having and unfortunately it was another girl," she said. “My husband and I thought the burden would probably be too much. So we decided to terminate."

Anonymous said...

"Koreans Busted for Stamina Pills Made from Dead Babies"

I just hope they don't pickle dead babies for kim chi.

Anonymous said...

if you look at divorce rates by race in America, Asians are less likely to get divorced than Whites. I do believe it is partially explained by high male-female ratios in Asian communities



You seem to be saying that divorce is mostly initiated by men and that when women are scarce then men hang on to the women they are married to.

The trouble with your theory is that divorce is not mostly initiated by men, but by women.

Maya said...

"You seem to be saying that divorce is mostly initiated by men and that when women are scarce then men hang on to the women they are married to.

The trouble with your theory is that divorce is not mostly initiated by men, but by women."

Do you suppose we could use trends in behavior of the husbands to predict the likelihood of their wives filing for divorce to any degree? Or do you suppose that women file for divorce completely at random? Just asking...

Joseph said...

While looking at the data at nyc41percent, I noticed that 11355, an Asian majority zip code, has one of the lowest abortion ratios in the city.

Skadhi_the_Raverner said...

Chinese, Asian Indians and Koreans have such foreign values they don't belong in the Anglo world, any more than Nigerian immigrants practicing muti slayings in Britain.

Then again sex selection was nowhere near as common anywhere in the world before prenatal screening became available and Western attitudes about the unborn child reached countries where abortion is a traditional sin.

Like homegrown terrorism, sex selective abortion is 'invade the world, invite the world'.

Maya said...

"Like homegrown terrorism, sex selective abortion is 'invade the world, invite the world'."

Abortion merely replaced infantcide and child abandonment in these cultures. Heck, murder and abandonment of little girls is still very common in both China and India.