There Will Be No Gays In The Future

Oh boy, look at that title. People are going to go ape sh~t. Add in that this post touches upon abortion and maybe it’s time to head for the old bunker? No. It’s cold down there, and the television reception stinks. Let’s just plow ahead. When we started this blog ten months ago, one of the first articles I posted dealt with the reasons I felt that gays should be very cautious about joining hands with pro-abortion groups. In light of some recent statistical evidence out of China and India, it’s time to revisit that discussion.

At the start, let me say that I’m not talking today about the morality of abortion or homosexuality. So let’s leave those issues for other days. What I am talking about here is the intersection between political decisions today and the world of tomorrow. All I want to do is ask the question of whether or not there will be gays in the future.

Gendercide: The Parental War On Girls

In nature, there are around 105 males born for every 100 females. These numbers have been constant all over the world for many decades. Indeed, these numbers are so constant that scientists are now sure that this is nature’s way to ensure a 1 to 1 ratio at the time of puberty because males are more likely to die than females before reaching puberty.

But China and India are turning nature on its head. In China and India, there is a distinct preference for males. This has led to what has been called “Gendercide” in both countries. Girls in China and India are often considered too expensive to keep. They require a dowry to marry off and they are perceived as “leaving” the family to marry, whereas sons stick around to take care of the parents as they age. Thus, for a long time now, baby girls have often been murdered at birth or left to die (not coincidentally, this resulted in an abnormally high suicide rate among young mothers).

Until recently, however, the effects of this were not very pronounced on the population numbers. Indeed, as late as the 1980s, the sex numbers were only slightly skewed above the 105 to 100 ratio. But in the past decade or so, the effects have become shockingly obvious as the numbers have spiked. In China, the ratio of males to females in the younger generations now averages 124 to 100! In some provinces, this number is as high as 130.

To give you a sense of the magnitude of this problem, the China ratio will translate into 40 million surplus males (or missing females) of marrying age in 2020. That is equal to the total number of expected males of marrying age in Germany, France and Britain combined in 2020. That is also the same number of marrying age males expected to live in the United States in 2020. That’s really bad news for China, as single males mean crime and upheaval. And it could be even worse for China’s neighbors, as war is a great way to thin the male population and bride-napping is becoming big business in some parts of the world.

And before you blame China’s one child policy, that does not appear to be the problem. Indeed, India has a similar ratio, but no similar policy. South Korea hit 117 to 100. The Philippines hit 109. Even somewhat western countries like Serbia (108), Macedonia (108), Armenia (117), Azerbaijan (117), and Georgia (111) have reached unnatural levels. And lest you think this couldn’t happen here, there is evidence of similar ratios starting to appear in Asian-American communities.

So what has caused this sudden surge? Ultrasound equipment. The introduction of ultrasound has coincided with the spike in sex-selection based abortions. Indeed, this is borne out even within these countries, where abortions are much more prevalent where ultrasound machines are introduced. India has tried to combat this by making it illegal to abort a child to choose the sex of the child. But women have gotten around this by getting ultrasounds from one doctor and then having another abort the girls.

What all of this tells us is that people find early term abortion much more palatable than infanticide. We can conclude this because the preference for males has not changed in these countries, yet the number of abortions spiked with the introduction of ultrasound gear. That means that parents are much more willing to abort a fetus than they are to kill a child after it is born. Moreover, the massive numbers indicate that a shockingly large number of parents are willing to make this decision, perhaps as many as a third.

Gendercide Round II: The Coming Parental War On Gays

So what does this have to do with gays? Everything.

First, I accept the idea that homosexuality is genetic. I don’t accept this because gays claim to feel born that way. Indeed, our own justifications mean nothing when it comes to explaining human nature, because humans are inherently self-delusion and are extremely good at justifying their own behavior to themselves. What convinces me is the ever-more-proven fact that most of our impulses, especially when it comes to sex, are genetic in nature.

In fact, over the past few years, scientists have discovered that despite our culture’s obsession with skinniness, men and women do not prefer skinny partners. They prefer partners who have the “appropriate” proportion between hips and waist -- no matter what the size of the body. These results transcend culture, race and age, and, apparently, we don’t even consciously realize that we are using this as a search criteria. Similarly, a link has been found between race preferences and body fat percentage when people engage in interracial dating. Other recent studies have shown that all humans, again regardless of culture, find near-symmetry beautiful in humans (but not perfect symmetry, which we find disturbing). They have even found now that the biggest indicator of what will attract mates is smell, which may clue us in regarding the “genetic distance” and health of a potential partner. Interesting.

What all of this tells me is that our sexual impulses are hardwired by our genetic code, and that we are not even consciously aware of why we act the way we do. Thus, I have no reason to think that homosexuality isn’t anything more than a genetic variation.

Now here’s the catch. If this is true, then we will soon find the “gay gene.” If the gene can be repaired, then I have little doubt that parents will have it fixed before the child is born. Why? Because as genetics takes greater leaps into remaking the human being, we are already seeing parents opt for a variety of preferences. If it becomes common to remake children to be stronger or smarter or change their eye color, it will certainly become common to remove genetic defects that lead to diseases or other negative hereditary conditions -- like baldness or stuttering, for example. Under such circumstances, it is simply inconceivable that parents would leave in place a gay gene that gives the child impulses that run counter to what 97% of the general population possess.

In other words, even leaving morality out of this, it is inconceivable that parents would leave in place genes in their children that limit their chances of finding a happy mate to less than 3% of the population (a percentage that will shrink continually as other parents make similar choices).

More importantly, even if no fix is ever found for the gay gene, just being able to locate it will be enough to start the cascade of abortions that will eliminate homosexuality. Indeed, if parents think nothing of eliminating baby girls because they want to control the sex of the child, there is no reason to think that they would be any more troubled in eliminating children with the gay gene, especially if devices like ultrasound allow for the clearly more palatable choice of early term abortion.

Thus, it is likely that parents will start to eliminate homosexuality from our species through these practices, and I suspect that there will be no significant amount of homosexuality within a few generations.

Can this be stopped? Probably not. If you make abortion a right, then you can’t really say “except where we don’t like your reasoning.” Indeed, as I noted in my first article on this, Sweden has now ruled that if abortion is to be a right, then the state cannot prohibit sex selection as a motive. And even if you did prohibit abortion based on the presence of the gay gene, how do you keep parents from doctor shopping as they do in India?

Should this be stopped? I guess that’s up to you. But if you’re gay, then you might want to reconsider who your political friends are. Maybe helping to make abortion a right is not a great idea. In fact, as China and India are demonstrating now, maybe letting people select the “options” their kids will have is not a great idea for anyone?


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Meeting That Changed The World

When Obama was elected, one of the side-effects was supposed to be a return of American prestige. We were told the free world would rally behind Obama and we would enter a new age of international cooperation. Our enemies would stop their evil ways and our friends would join us in creating a brave new world. But our enemies saw Obama’s strategy of leadership through weakness as just plain weakness. And now it looks like our friends are abandoning us as well. . . for China.

Over the past year, we’ve seen a lot of hints about the erosion of American prestige among our friends. When the Honduras issue arose, “our friends” in South America didn’t turn to us to solve the crisis, they looked to Brazil. Our friends in South Africa have ignored our efforts to solve the man-made disaster (an appropriate use of the term) in Zimbabwe, and have actively embraced the creature that destroyed the country. Moreover, much of Africa now looks to China for leadership.

Turkey, long considered the most important Muslim country by America, turned away from us as well. They have become increasingly anti-American and anti-Israeli, and are actively looking for new friends in Iran, Syria and throughout the Middle East.

Europe spoke about a new era of cooperation with the United States and then promptly turned their back on us. Rather than embrace Obama’s new regime, they have increasingly looked to the influence of Putin’s Russia on the issue of energy and to China on the issue of economics.

India too seems to have laughed off American leadership. During the cold war, India was relatively neutral, with a slight bias toward the communists. When the cold war ended, India turned its attention to America and worked hard to become our friends. The high point of that relationship came near the end of the Bush administration, when Bush condoned India’s violation of the non-proliferation treaty. Under Obama, that relationship has all but collapsed into mockery.

Brazil, India, and South Africa are considered the most important democracies in the third world. They are the up and comers, the ones that many internationalists think will dominate the future. I don’t buy that, but it would be foolish to deny their significance.

And when Obama ran for office, he specifically mentioned these countries, among others, as candidates for what he saw as a “league of democracies,” a group of like-minded countries that could work together to make the world a better and more free place. Thus, it is quite a blow that these countries have turned away from American leadership. It is even more of a blow that they have chosen instead to look to totalitarian China for leadership.

There was a little-reported event at the Copenhagen summit that highlights exactly how much this relationship has changed. Get this. . .

When Obama arrived at Copenhagen, he tried to hold a meeting of 20 nations. But to his surprise, the Chinese sent vice foreign minister He Yafei instead of Premier Wen. This was an intentional snub.

In response, Obama demanded a private meeting with Wen and got it. But when he arranged a follow up meeting, they sent an even lower ranking envoy.

An upset Obama demanded another meeting with Wen, but was told that he was at the airport. At the same time, Obama tried to arrange a meeting with India, Brazil and South Africa. But. . . He was told that Indian Premier Manmohan Singh had already left Copenhagen. South African President Jacob Zuma at first agreed to the meeting, but then cancelled when he “learned” that India would not be there. Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva refused to attend as well on the basis that India would not be there.

Eventually, the Chinese agreed to meet with Obama. Obama was told this would be a one-on-one meeting with Premier Wen. So imagine Obama’s surprise when he walked into the meeting and found a meeting already on-going. In attendance were China’s Wen, India’s Singh, South Africa’s Zuma, and Brazil’s Lula. There was no chair set out for Obama.

As White House aides scrambled to find Obama a chair, Obama apparently stated: “I’m going to sit by my friend Lula.” He then attended the rest of the meeting and “achieved” his non-agreement agreement, which he trumpeted as the agreement that saved the conference. . . a claim which official Chinese newspapers called “grandstanding” and which environmental groups call fraud.

There has been much debate outside of the MSM about what this event means. Team Obama has tried to downplay this as mere confusion and by claiming Obama didn’t crash the meeting because he was invited by the Chinese. But that’s all about saving face.

In reality, this is an ominous signal that these three “great democracies” no longer see American leadership as relevant. They now look to China for leadership. There simply is no other interpretation for these leaders lying to Obama about being in Copenhagen and then meeting secretly with China.

By the same token, the one thing most observers have missed is that the Chinese invite had to be intentional. So far, everyone who has discussed these events has attributed China’s inviting Obama either to confusion or to Obama crashing the meeting. But they’ve all missed the point. The reality, I’m afraid, is a bit more obvious -- China wanted Obama to arrive at this meeting and see them leading Obama’s “friends” by the nose. This was a set up to demonstrate China’s new influence to Obama in the most personal of ways.

While this is no doubt embarrassing to Obama, this should be of greater concern to all Americans. If we have lost our leadership role among the world’s democracies, then it’s going to be an ugly century. The Chinese way is mercantilism, not free trade; oppression, not freedom or human rights; and neocolonialism and client-states, not a world of colleagues.

This could get ugly.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Barack Doctrine: Status Quo, Status Quo Ante

Teddy Roosevelt walked softly and carried a big stick. James Monroe declared that the United States would not interfere in Europe, and warned Europe to stay out of the Americas. Harry Truman believed in containment, Jimmy Carter in human rights, and Ronald Reagan in engagement. . . trust but verify.

Is there a Barack Doctrine? Indeed there is. President Obama has shown repeatedly that he desires to vote “present” in foreign policy, and that his administration will toss aside all of their principles to maintain the status quo (as things are) or, where the status quo has been shattered, to return to the status quo ante (as things were).

Status Quo

During the campaign, candidate Obama spoke of engaging the world in dialog. He promised to improve America’s image and to defend human rights. He criticized modern soft-dictators like Chavez, who were elected as democrats, but ruled as tyrants, and he talked of breaking with the past. But that was then.
Observe that in each of the following instances, Obama subsumed his principles to maintain the status quo. . .

• China. . .

The first test for the young administration was China. Candidate Obama criticized China for its human rights, for their failure to fight intellectual piracy, for their suppression of Tibet, for the safety of their products, and for their currency manipulation. He swore he would hold their feet to the fire and might even ban some of their products.

But President Obama wants China to buy his debt. So his first official act was to send Hillary Clinton to bow and scrape and to assure China that he would never pressure them. When this was not enough, and China threatened to stop buying U.S. debt, Obama sent Tim Geithner to plead for the status quo.

• Russia. . .

Next came the Russians, who had invaded Georgia, cut off natural gas supplies to Europe, worked tirelessly to help Iran develop nuclear power, and threatened several NATO allies. Candidate Obama boldly proclaimed that he wouldn’t “shy away from pushing democracy, transparency, and accountability.”

His efforts to date? Obama sent Hillary Clinton with a gag gift (a reset button) and otherwise refrained from any actions that might upset Russia. End result: status quo maintained.

• India. . .

George Bush was roundly criticized by the left for allowing India to make a mockery of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under that Treaty, all signatories must withhold civilian nuclear technology from any regime that has not ratified the Treaty. Even though India refuses to sign the Treaty, Bush negotiated a deal with India, whereby the United States would transfer nuclear technology to India. Obama’s party called this despicable and said that it sends the wrong message to countries like Iran and North Korean.

President Obama claims that non-proliferation is a primary focus of his foreign policy. Yet, not only did he publicly state that he is “fully committed” to implementing the Bush deal, but Hillary Clinton even voiced the hope that this arrangement (which violates the Treaty) can “serve as the foundation of a productive partnership on non-proliferation.” Again, the status quo is preserved.

• North Korea . . .

Candidate Obama promised “sustained, direct and aggressive diplomacy” to handle North Korea. He called for the strengthening of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the imposition of “strong international sanctions” against North Korea for any violation of United Nations resolutions. He even stated his belief that the United States needs a missile defense system to counter North Korea’s threat.

President Obama has warned that North Korea is a “grave threat” and said that he would “not tolerate” North Korea’s strategy of extracting rewards with belligerent behavior.

But beyond that, no amount of nuclear tests, missile tests, threats to rain a “fire shower of nuclear retaliation” on South Korea, or seized journalists has resulted in anything approaching a “strong sanction” or “sustained, direct, or aggressive diplomacy.” Again, Obama avoids disturbing the status quo.

• The Arab World. . .

The Arab world is a mess. The “good” countries are run by tyrannical dictators. The poorly run ones are run by the theologically insane. They support terrorism world wide and hate America for things we have never done and never will, and they use their hatred of America and claims of victimhood at our hands as a crutch to justify their own failures.

Candidate Obama told us that he was uniquely suited to travel to the Arab world and change this. Unlike honkus maximus, he could gain Arab sympathy. He was a fresh start, and that would let him set the record straight -- America has no interest in a crusade, he would proclaim, and all would be good.

President Obama traveled to Egypt, birth place of the Muslim Brotherhood (an old guard member of the terrorism fraternity) and home to a repressive Egyptian regime, and from his mouth did come the words: (and I paraphrase) “it’s not you. . . it’s us. We need to change. Give us time. Don’t do anything until I get back to you.” And thus, the status quo was preserved.

• Guantanamo Bay. . .

Candidate Obama promised to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and restore habeas corpus for the detainees before his rear hit the Oval chair. When President Obama learned this would cause problems, he opted for the status quo.

• Iraq. . .

Candidate Obama promised to “responsibly end the war in Iraq,” and to remove all U.S. troops by the end of 2009. President Obama plans to remove only “combat” troops, by the end of August 2010, though this will leave “30,000-50,000 troops in advisory roles.” Once again, he opts for the status quo.

Status Quo Ante

But what will Obama do when the genie has left the bottle and shattered the status quo? In that event, Obama’s policy becomes one of status quo ante -- the quest for the peace before. Thus, if you want to know which party Obama will support in any conflict, do not look for his stated principles, look to see who caused the issue to become of international interest, he will oppose that party.

• Iran. . .

Candidate Obama promised “tough, direct presidential diplomacy” with the Iranian regime to solve the misunderstanding that had vexed Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. He extended his open hand, and Iran spit in it. Obama quietly slunk off.
Then in 2009, after a rigged election, the people of Iran flooded their streets in a budding revolution akin to those that crushed the tyrants of Eastern Europe. Obama, the human rights candidate, the man who thought he could solve everything with words, found himself strangely silent. Indeed, he barely raised a peep as the regime shielded the eyes of the outside world and crushed their own people.

Why did he not even speak out for the protection of these people? After all of his talk about human rights and supporting democracy around the world, would it not seem to make sense that he would support the people of Iran? I would, except that it was the people attempting to overturn their government that were disturbing the status quo. It was their actions, not the rigged elections, which brought this issue to a head as an international issues, rather than just an intranational issue. Thus, he remained silent in the hopes of restoring the comfort of the status quo ante.

• Honduras. . .

The final piece of the puzzle came last week. Obama sided with the repressive regimes in China and Iran, so giving a quick nod to a “military junta” should be no big deal. But it was. Why? What was different? This “junta” was disrupting the status quo.

By arresting Zelaya and throwing him out of the country, the Honduras Supreme Court and military elevated their dispute with President Zelaya from an intranational issue to an international issue. It did not matter that Zelaya acted illegally or that he provoked the incident, or that the Honduran government acted in accordance with the rule of law. . . they forced the issue to rise to the level where Obama had to become involved. Thus, he chose the side of Zelaya, in the hopes of restoring the status quo ante, so that he could return to ignoring the country.

Whether you call Obama’s policy supporting the current world order or the policy of hope for no change, it is clearly guided by a strong desire to avoid anything that disrupts the status quo. And as this becomes more and more obvious, look for foreign governments to learn that they can exploit his desire to vote present to extract amazing concessions.

Indeed, this week, India and Russia both proposed ending the dollar’s status as a reserve currency. Neither country is likely serious because the effects would be disastrous on the vast reserves of dollars they hold, but it will get concessions from Obama.

Russia is demanding the scrapping of the Eastern Europe missile defense system and the abandonment by NATO of Georgia and the Ukraine. North Korea wants money. And everybody else is getting their wish lists ready. [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Word of Advice To The Gay Community: Rethink Your Friends

Before we get into this, let’s be absolutely clear about one thing . . . I am NOT taking a stance on abortion or on homosexuality in this post. I may in the future, but not today. So DO NOT start arguing about whether abortion/homosexuality is right or wrong. Capiche?

Many of you may have missed it, but the other day Sweden became the first country in the world to decide that the government (and doctors) may not stop women from using abortion to select the gender of their children. This practice is already wide-spread in India and China, where the number of males now far exceeds the number of females, even though both governments have made the practice illegal. In Sweden, it is now a right.

As India and China have shown, and as Sweden is now demonstrating, a great many parents are willing to go to fairly extreme lengths to get the “perfect” child. Indeed, many fear that as genetic manipulation becomes more prevalent, parents will begin selecting specific traits for their children. Want an athlete, add the strength and speed gene. Want a scientist, give them the brainiac gene. Want a natural leader. . . Khhaaaaaan!!! Pushed too far, we could even end up with multiple strands of humanity -- the athletic, the intelligent, and the rest of us.

Why should this bother gays? Most gays firmly believe that they are gay because their genes have made them so. The jury is still out on this, but it’s certainly highly possible. And if this is true, then it is only a matter of time before that gene can be found.

Now let’s put two and two together. If parents will abort a normal healthy child because they don’t like its gender, or because it has some genetic disease or an unfavorable genetic trait, how do you think they will act when they discover that their child carries the gay gene?

So does it make any sense for gays to align themselves with the abortion rights crowd? Isn’t that like helping to build the gallows from which you will be hung?

I could understand the position of gay groups if they thought it was going to be illegal to abort children because of their homosexuality, but Sweden tells us that it won’t be. If Sweden won’t protect fetuses based on gender, how can they protect children based on sexual orientation?

Moreover, even if such a law could be put in place, the Indian and Chinese experience tells us that parents will find ways around it.

So as a word of advice, you might want to rethink your allies.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...