Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Hour Is Late [self-extermination of entire nations}
CE ^ | January 19, 2009 | Patti Maguire Armstrong

Posted on 01/19/2009 4:40:18 PM PST by Salvation

The Hour Is Late

January 19th, 2009 by Patti Maguire Armstrong

Ladies and gentleman,

May I have your attention please?  Put down the birth control.  You heard me.  Put it down and walk away.

I don’t like to be harsh, but the hour is late.  The citizens of many countries belong on the endangered species because they are dying out.  Never before in the history of the world have so many countries lost so many people without disease or war to blame.  This loss is by choice and it’s downright suicidal.

Why?

swan.jpgI am not telling you to have more children if you do not want them.  I am telling you to want them.  Couples have come to think that there is some cosmic balance that limits families to two children.  Of course there are families that want to have children but can’t and those that can’t have more.  This article is not addressed to them.  Or do I (or I hope anyone) give dirty looks to small families assuming they are not doing their parts.  It is between them and God.  Even when people express shock at learning I have ten and proceed to either categorize me as a “special person” or announce the reasons why they don’t want more, I don’t judge them.  Alas, I was once in the group that thought family planning was all about the planet, money and freedom.  These are the main reasons people choose not to be open to new life.

Money.  Portfolio or another soul?  I get that this is between you and God.  Do you?  It’s not between you and the banker.  Children cost money.  How much depends on your perspective and spending habits.  For the record, my kids get jobs to buy their own cars and get themselves through college.  We might wear brand names if we stumble onto them at rummage sales or on sale, but really, we don’t care about labels.  So, my kids cost less than some.

For thousands of years children were considered treasures and investments for the future — including eternity. Poor families tended to have large families because their children represented help and security.  But in the last few decades it’s all about money.  Nowadays, children are treated like siphons on the ledger sheet.  Spending money on children leaves less for parents.  For many couples, there’s a level of comfort and financial security they refuse to dip below.  Pity.

Population control.  Now, this reason has become a real hoot.  We were lied to and bullied senseless.  People were made to feel guilty for even having children at all.  During the sixties and seventies, people were told we would run out of food and natural resources.  The opposite occurred.  We still pay farmers not to farm.  Our technological advances have provided for abundant food production.  As for the natural resources, they are there, but in many countries, there are just not enough people to get to them.

The lies have been revamped as global warming — oh wait — make that “climate change” now that we have many months where average temperatures are below normal.  Climate has always fluctuated but now anti-people groups blame humans for the change and change is not good according to them.  The solution: stop making new people.

Climate change actually even reared its head in the seventies with the bestseller in 1976, The Cooling: Has the New Ice Age Already Begun? Can We Survive?  I’m all for taking care of our planet.  It’s a gift from God and I absolutely hate pollution.  But radical environmentalists like to throw birth control at every problem.  In reality, we need humans to fix the problems.

Are we running out of space?  Yeah, right.  Get out of the city and take a trip across the country.  Entire books have been written debating both sides of the overpopulation debate so I’m not going to cover this in depth.  Ironically, the latest and most troubling news is actually the exact opposite of what we were warned about — there are not enough people.  It’s as if we went to sleep to one scenario and woke up to another.

Freedom.  People often count 18 years from the birthday of their youngest to figure out when they will be “free” again.  Or, they just don’t have children and openly admit they are too selfish to do so.  In such a case, may God have mercy on them.

The Numbers Tell the Story

In Europe, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Japan and Russia, the only thing we are running out of is people.  There are not enough babies.  We are witnessing the self-extermination of entire nations.

According to the United Nations Population Division discussing the 2007 population changes in Eastern and Central Europe: “The expected global upheaval is without parallel in human history.”  Germany’s population is down 10.3 %, Poland’s is down 20.5%, the Russian Federation’s is down 24.3%, and Bulgaria dropped 35.2%.  The only population increase in Western Europe will be due to the large migration from Africa and Asia.  There are pockets of growth here and there, but this is due to Muslim populations.  For instance, among the districts in Russia there are exceptions to the dying trends — the high abortion, high HIV infection, low birthrate, high alcoholism and other social ills.  Twelve of the eighty-nine Russian federal regions showing substantial population growth are Islamic regions.  Islam is growing rapidly in a country where the native population is in the death throes.  This is a country awash in natural resources except the most important one — people.  It possesses a resource — rich eastern hinterland that it cannot get to without people.  It is also the land of nuclear weapons and know-how.  The future possibilities are frightening.

The number you need for merely maintaining a population is 2.1 babies per woman.  Seventeen European nations are now at the “lowest-low”, 1.3 births per woman.  This is the rate from which, according to demographers, no human society has ever recovered.  In theory, countries at the “lowest-low” are falling fast, halving every thirty-five years or so.  In reality this will likely happen much faster.  Imagine the social upheaval as an aging population grows increasingly dependant on youth to support all the government services they need (certainly not enough children to take in parents).  It’s likely that many young people will head for the hills, or at least another continent where their entire livelihood will not be sucked up into government social security.  It also seems inevitable that euthanasia will become ever more popular and aggressive.  With more old people to support and less young people to do it, the pressure will be to reduce the burden.

Why are so many countries, more educated, more peaceful, wealthier and healthier than at any other time in history, failing to create the next generation?  On June 24, 2008 in Moscow, His Holiness Alexy II, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia spoke to the Bishop’s Council of the Russian Orthodox Church on the population decline.  He attributed Russia’s demographic crisis to the pitiable status of family and marriage and the low level standards of morality and spirituality.  His Holiness claimed that any attempts to overcome the crisis by economic means only, without a spiritual component, are “doomed to failure since the sources of the crisis are not in purses, but in the souls of people.”  He said it is not accidental that believers have more children than non-believers in identical economic conditions.

“Demographic problems do not arise in poor countries that have kept their religious traditions,” he observed. “Thus Russia should be looking for a way out of the demographic crisis in a spiritual and moral transformation of the person and society” (1).

In a sermon at a Neocatechumenate meeting in Jerusalem on March 27, 2008, Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, issued an attack against birth control, blaming it for Europe’s declining birth rate.  He blamed his predecessors for lacking the courage to speak out after the publication of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, that reiterated the constant teaching of the Church on birth control.

“But those bishops,” said Cardinal Schonborn, were “frightened of the press and of being misunderstood by the faithful”.  Blame lay not only with the bishops responsible at the time — none of whom is still alive — but with all bishops for the fact that Europe is “about to die out” (2).

In the Unites States, Christianity is a bigger part of everyday life than post-Christian Europe.  Prayer, church membership and participation are higher.  Also encouraging is that America still is willing to share its future with children.  Although our birthrate was declining for many years and generally falls in around the 2.1 replacement, the United States reported a rise by 3.1% between 2005 and 2006 reaching almost 4.3 million births.  According to the National Center for Health Statistics, that is the largest single-year increase in the number of births since 1989.

An Associated Press examination of global data also shows that the United States has a higher fertility rate than every country in continental Europe, as well as Australia, Canada and Japan.  Fertility levels in those countries have been lower than the U.S. rate for several years, although some are on the rise, most notably in France.  “Americans like children.  We are the only people who respond to prosperity by saying, ‘Let’s have another kid,’” said Nan Marie Astone, associate professor of population, family and reproductive health at Johns Hopkins University (3).

Yes, this is somewhat encouraging.  Statistics show we pray more and have more children than Europeans.  But really, our tendency to teeter at replacement is not a position of strength.  Let’s go back to Europe — the motherland for many of us — to see what is accompanying the decline in native births.

Changing Faces

Europe’s increasing social welfare programs depend on a growing population.  Unable to generate such an increase on their own, they depend increasingly on immigration.  And the majority of immigration is from Islamic cultures that are becoming increasingly more radical.  Immigrant Muslim populations are not acclimating to the European culture.  Europe gets older and its faith grows ever more feeble while Muslim populations within Europe increase due to the need for immigration to support the aging population.  Muslim religious fervor is strong and they have large families, thus their population is increasing on both ends.  Christianity fades while Islam increases.  Already, much of Europe is catering to Sharia law.  In Brussels, ten of the eighteen members of the ruling Socialist Party Caucus are Muslim.  ”That’s to say, the capital city of the European Union already has a Muslim-majority governing party.”  The introduction of Sharia bonds make London the world capital of Islamic banking.  In country after country, civil laws, schools and cultural norms accomodate Sharia sensibilities (4).

According to his book, America Alone, Mark Steyn contends that the growing, youthful populations of Europe will ultimately take over.  “What’s the Muslim population of Rotterdam?  Forty percent.  What is the most popular baby boys name in Belgium?  Mohammed.  In Amsterdam?  Mohammed.  In Malmo, Sweden?  Mohammed.  What country today has half its population under the age of fifteen?  Spain and Germany have 14 percent the United Kingdom 18 percent, the United States 21 percent — and Saudi Arabia has 39 percent, Pakistan 40 percent, and Yemen 47 percent.  Little Yemen, like little Britain two hundred years ago, will send its surplus youth around the world-one way or another” (5).

If you look at it in terms of birthrate, consider these birthrate numbers from Islamic countries:  Niger is 7.46; Mali, 7.42; Somalia, 6.76; Afghanistan, 6.69; Yemen, 6.58.  Yes, we can change the world, and we are; by disappearing.  The future belongs to those willing to create the next generation.  Islam is the fastest growing religion in North America and Europe.  And throughout the world, Muslims are becoming more radical and aggressive in their faith.

By now, some readers have branded me racist for comparing the dwindling populations with the growing populations given who’s who in the scenario.  Well, don’t even go there.  I have two boys from Kenya, as dark as they come, who call me Mom.  Besides, Muslims are not of a single skin color or culture.  Am I phobic of non-Catholic religions? Don’t go there either. The books in the Amazing Grace series that I co-authored included stories from people of other faiths.  God’s grace is for everyone. This is not a war of who has or has not the most people; it is spiritual warfare. We are losing because we aren’t living our faith.

In 2008, the Vatican announced that Islam has surpassed Roman Catholicism as the world’s largest religion.  “For the first time in history, we are no longer at the top: Muslims have overtaken us,” Monsignor Vittorio Formenti said in an interview with the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano.  He said that Catholics accounted for 17.4% of the world population — a stable percentage — while Muslims were at 19.2% (6).

The growth is attributed to both aggressive conversion tactics and large families.  While millions of Westerners have bought into the secular one-or two-child mentality, Islamic societies are rapidly increasing in numbers.  If current trends continue, Europe will make up just 7.5 percent of the world’s people by 2050, compared to 22 percent in 1950.  At the same time, the countries with the most youthful populations will all be Muslim:  Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Iraq.  Worldwide trends indicate that by 2050, Muslims will comprise 30 percent of the world’s population, with Christians making up 25 percent (7).

If anyone walks away from this article thinking that I’m sounding an alarm based on them versus us, they would be misinformed.  This is really about us.  What has happened to us?  Why are we dying out or just teetering on existence?

I contend it’s all based on a people that have become worldlier and less religious.  God matters less and the world more.  Religion has taken a back seat to Wall Street.  Selfishness precludes parenthood, and people are hugging trees instead of babies.

If the statistics alone convince you to have more children, then, again, you are not hearing me clearly.  If our homes and hearts are not open to more children, then we need to go back and open them.  We do this by putting God at the center.  Whatever stands in the way of openness to life, needs to be pushed aside.  Souls, life, God, eternity… these are of the greatest value.  The rest will fade away, just as it should.  For it is the world that should be fading away and not us.

(1)  “Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II: Demographic Crisis Can Only Be Overcome by Morality not Money”, translated by Andrey Bystrov, July 8, 2008, LifeSiteNews.com

(2)   ”Cardinal Schonborn Lambasts the Failure of Bishops to Condemn Contraception”, CatholicActionUK.com, November 6, 2008

(3)  “More U.S. Babies Born, Fertility Rate up, Defying Low-birth Trend in Europe”, Mike Stobbe — Associated Press, January 15, 2008

(4)  Steyn, Mark, America Alone, Regnery Publishing, Inc., xii

(5)  Ibid, pp. 6-7

(6)  “Vatican: Muslims Now Outnumber Catholics”, USA TODAY, 4/2/2008

(7)  Ali, Daniel and Spencer, Robert, “Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics”, Ascension Press, 2003

 
Patti Maguire Armstrong is the mother of ten children including two Kenyan AIDS orphans. She is a speaker and the author of Catholic Truths for Our Children: A Parent's Guide (Scepter). She is also the managing editor and co-author of Ascension Press's Amazing Grace book series. Her website is RaisingCatholicKids.com.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: birthcontrol; catholic; demographics; moralabsolutes; population; populationcontrol; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last
Do we want this to happen in the United States?

Or is it happening already?

1 posted on 01/19/2009 4:40:19 PM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; Lady In Blue; NYer; ELS; Pyro7480; livius; Catholicguy; RobbyS; markomalley; ...

**“Demographic problems do not arise in poor countries that have kept their religious traditions,” he observed. “Thus Russia should be looking for a way out of the demographic crisis in a spiritual and moral transformation of the person and society” (1).**


2 posted on 01/19/2009 4:42:26 PM PST by Salvation ( †With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Applies to any country — not just Russia.


3 posted on 01/19/2009 4:44:03 PM PST by Salvation ( †With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Pinged from Terri Dailies


4 posted on 01/19/2009 4:45:26 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; 185JHP; 230FMJ; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


5 posted on 01/19/2009 4:46:22 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
The current depopulation crisis will solve itself.

In the past a large percentage of the people that had kids had them for purely selfish reasons, i.e. they could send out their kids to work for money, and they could depend on their kids in their old age.

Now the vast majority of people in rich countries that are having kids are having them because they want them. This is most likely a genetic trait which will be passed on to their offspring.

As time goes on those people who don't want to have kids will be outnumbered by those that do. When that happens the world will start worrying once again about a population explosion.

6 posted on 01/19/2009 4:49:21 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear (The cosmos is about the smallest hole a man can stick his head in. - Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

If this is a problem, then the solution is to encourage girls to have babies as soon as they are physically ready.


7 posted on 01/19/2009 4:49:48 PM PST by dbz77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Hmmph -

Done my part; two ex-wives, a 39 year old daughter, 38 and 37 year old stepsons, a 12 year old son, a 3 year old daughter and a 1 year old son.

Thanks to prostate cancer, no more after this - but it was a good run while I was going..

8 posted on 01/19/2009 4:50:33 PM PST by Chinstrap61a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dbz77

There are connections among people’s attitudes about marriage and family, the availability of birth control, marriage being delayed or deferred by many young people today.

A lot of people don’t want the responsibility of children. Birth control is very reliable when used properly, and with abortion on demand as a back-up, many people avoid unwanted child bearing.


9 posted on 01/19/2009 4:58:10 PM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
It's already happened. Put down the divorce/cohabitation industry by repealing all of the feminist laws first (laws passed by Republicans as much as Democrats).

There are at least 15 million fathers'/family rights voters out here. Continue to scoff at them at your own political, cultural and economic risks.


The Presumption Against Marriage

by Bernard Chapin

No writer that I know, and I am absolutely no exception, has the right to speak as an authority for all men.  No matter what I say about honor and pride, some guy somewhere is going to spend his last dime on a dominatrix or propose to a coke whore.  There’s no getting around it.  It’s a fact.  We can quibble and pretend dominated males are exceptions, but there are legions of guys out there who will put up with any abuse that a woman sends their way.  That being said, I would like to address this column to those not pining for the submissive’s chair or anxiously awaiting a girl on a white horse who’ll allow them to pay off her car note and college loan without saying thank you.  

The fundamental question is, “Should a man nowadays get married at all?” 

My take on the issue is that the appropriateness of marriage has to be determined on a case by case basis but that presumption, in this day and age, should always be against marriage.  To put it more simply, the tie cannot go to the runner.  Men, when in doubt, walk away.  If you have serious reservations about a woman and you marry her, a number of things may happen.  One of them is good.  Your negative intuition could turn out to be wrong and you’ll end up having a wonderful, blissful life with your bride.  Unfortunately, lots of bad things could happen as well:

1. Your intuition was right and she divorces you.  She thereby acquires half, if not

all, of your assets and possessions.  The state is thoroughly biased against men and seems to have no threshold for its love of male suffering.  This is a very real and tragic possibility.

2. Your intuition is right and she’s unreliable.  You experience strange men calling the house and hanging up should you be the one to reach the phone first.

3. Your intuition is right as your experiment with paying for her college education ends in her befriending evil radical feminists who call the house and scream “rapist” at you as a greeting.  They then follow up this pleasantry with asking if their “play kitty” is home.

4. Your intuition is right and she spends money like a gay party boy on Fire Island leading you slowly but gaily into Chapter 7.

5. Your wonderful children get aborted as she decides they’d take up too much time during the day.

6. You spend all your free time with her at the mall or, far worse, with her family and friends.

Well, you see my point.  It’s bad scenario a-go-go.  So, in the spirit of the boss from the film “Casino”: “Why take a chance?”

That’s easy for me to dismissively say, but then there’s tons of dopes like this writer who are smart enough to know better but then get married anyway.  When I got engaged at Christmas time, Eric Ericson emailed me and said something to the effect of, “Have you lost your mind?”

As it turned out, I had not.  I sanely and soberly weighed the pros versus the cons and determined that this particular woman was unlike all the others I had met and that she gave me the best chance of fulfilling my dream of fathering a couple of little critters and having a faithful, intelligent person as a partner.  Yet, even with such a rational determinations made in advance, the situation changed and in April I found myself in the midst of an ugly soap opera on which I turned out to be only a temporary, non-recurring character.  I was written out of the series before summer hit.  For the future, I’ve decided, that unless its near-perfect, there is no way I’ll get engaged again.

My decision is not respected by many of the women I know who attempt to use what I call “shame-based” therapy as a means of coercing guys like me into finding a wife.  I am at the point where I can vigorously beat back their attempts to manipulate me, but I thought I’d share my responses with the reader in the hopes that my words can be of benefit in case they encounter similar harassment. 

First, I say that the situation had changed with men and women.  It used to be that when a man got married, he got a deal.  A woman would remain faithful to him or, at the very least, cook and clean for him.  You’d get something in exchange for what you brought to the table.  Today, men get very little in comparison with the past.  I have met no end of women who ask in advance if I cook because they themselves do not.  When I tell them that I cook every day, they are quite impressed (although I leave out my belief that pre-made salads, brats, and pizza are the height of fine dining). 

Promiscuity is another issue.  The promiscuity of the modern female makes marriage a very dubious proposition indeed.  Who the heck wants to marry a girl that’s had more sleeping partners than a bed at the Motel 6?  Not me, that’s for sure.  I’d rather die a cold and lonely death than marry a skank; Paul Craig Roberts produced a magnificent column on this phenomenon a few years ago.  I’ve never understood the argument that “all their experiences make them good in bed,” either.  If they’re attractive, how good do they have to be?  If you ask me, no amount of tricks she’s learned can make up for huge “Tyrone” that her ex-boyfriend had tattooed upon her back (and he was smart enough not to marry her).  

Another huge factor to me is the obesity epidemic.  While I acknowledge that it’s not really an epidemic by most definitions, weight increases seem to heavily affect married women.  I’m 34 years old now, and I’ve met countless females who ballooned to MGM proportions after getting hitched.  To me, this is deplorable.  I knew one who showed me a picture of her when she was 22.  She was better looking than most movie stars.  Her body was hard and trim and her face was pure allure, but by age 28 she had gained 65 pounds and wore pants that William Perry could have fit into.  I’d look at her husband sorrowfully when she talked of having children.  The act of conception with her would have required the courage of St. George.  No mere oral dose of Viagra would do.  It would require hypodermic injections to get old Bumpty into Humpity form. 

My last argument is also my most recently derived one.  If it’s at work where I’m getting harassed about my lack of romance (read: susceptibility), and it usually is, I tell them: “I have plenty of masters here.  Why do I need one at home?”  No more accurate words could be spoken.  I’m ordered to do things all day long at work.  When I get home, I want to relax.  I’m not going to waste time doing unnecessary chores or shopping for things I do not need.  The homage we domestically have to pay to our wives is outrageous.  Why are they my boss?  Here’s what I say now, “Let’s take an IQ test and if you win, then you can tell me what to do.”  I’ve had no takers yet, as I’m not giving out a big enough point spread.

In summation, with women, unless they’re without flaw, my advice is to ride the train for as long as you can, but let some other sucker pay for its maintenance and servicing, and always make sure you get off of the route before it reaches matrimonial terminal.              

   

June 10, 2004

Bernard Chapin is a writer from Chicago.


10 posted on 01/19/2009 5:00:01 PM PST by familyop (combat engineer (combat), National Guard, '89-'96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote, http://falconparty.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

“There is nothing new under the sun.” More energetic populations have always overtaken those in societal decline. The places worth populating (and some that aren’t, imo) will be populated by *somebody*. If it’s not by descendants of those presently claiming the locale, cebu. You *may* keep what you *can* keep.


11 posted on 01/19/2009 5:00:47 PM PST by Tax-chick (To oppose the god of this world by lifting up Christ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Wasn’t it the Algerian president, Boumedienne who, in his 1974 address to the UN General Assembly, made the claim that Islam would soon conquer Europe with the womb?

(thanks to poster SpankyandAlfalfa for raising the question)...here...

http://www.libertas.bham.ac.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=118

Thanks for the ping, Salvation.

Where’s Our Gang when we need them?


12 posted on 01/19/2009 5:02:18 PM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

**A lot of people don’t want the responsibility of children.**

To me, this is pure selfishness.

God made us, man and woman to reproduce, be fruitful.


13 posted on 01/19/2009 5:06:24 PM PST by Salvation ( †With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
...also from the Strike the Root site. Bernard's articles are also available from numerous other publications. Here's Part II.


The Presumption Against Marriage, Part II

by Bernard Chapin

“Bachelors know more about women than married men.  If they didn’t they’d be married, too.” – H.L. Mencken.

A great sage predicted I’d take some serious abuse for what I wrote about marriage the other day.  He was right, but for the benefit of our readers, I’m going to provide public refutation to some of the arguments and whines that were thrown my way en masse–if nothing else, their vaginations actually strengthened my overall position.

Burn the Heretic!

As I have noted in a previous article, Supine or Fall, whenever a man stands up for himself on gender issues, he is immediately accused by women of being unmanly.  Why?  It’s because we stood up to them, and that’s not right.  That’s not manly.  We’re supposed to let them walk on us.  These women, and those lickspittle male orcs who hobble in their wake, would be wise to remember that the western world now embraces equality between the sexes (at least officially), and that no one should be de facto superior to anyone else.  Walking on men, in theory, is not allowed. 

Furthermore, it’s a man’s duty to define and defend himself, and I can think of no occasion when this is more true than in making personal life choices.  Marriage can be life joy or it can be life sentence, but there’s no room to make allowances for political correctness when thinking deeply about such eventualities.  Why would any women be aghast at our pontificating over it?  Should we not stop to smell a flower before picking it?  I say stop and smell, inspect its structural base, and chemically analyze the ground around it before making a purchase.  Perhaps some women became irate at me because they secretly realize that marriage does not offer men the advantages it once did, so their awareness causes them to go after heretics like myself who threaten to make this knowledge public.

I’ll recall the case of Darren Blacksmith here.  Darren wrote a “just say no to marriage” piece and got kerosene poured all over him.  His offense was such that he quit the business.  Luckily, this would never be my response.  I’m incorrigible.  Harassing me only produces more words.  It’ll take more than a few china dolls to deter me from tackling this subject, and if I keep hearing from them, Part III will be even better than Part II!

Nuance Lost:

As much as I hate the word “nuance,” with its outraged tobacco-addicted, post-modernist French professor connotations, I think that the nuance of my argument was lost on some of my critics.  Emotions run so scarlet on marriage that many a female reader did not understand the point that I was trying to make.  Marriage certainly can be a very good thing and it is, on the aggregate, beneficial for society, but in this day and age, PRESUMPTION must be against it.  Our default position should be–“it’s not a good move.”  That does not mean it isn’t a good move for everybody in every situation.  There are over three billion women on this planet, and many of them could make excellent wives, but you should be vigilant, and nowhere is this more true than in the über-spoiled United States .  Men have too much to lose if things don’t work out.  Think of my friend Robert and the trauma that he went through.  Western independent females, as a rule, do not make the best wives.  They’re too “me” oriented for that line of work.  One must be very careful indeed.  Sit and observe closely before making any decisions. 

Who’s Fault Is This Predicament?

Is it the fault of free marketeers like myself clamoring for government to get more of its vile fingers into our private lives?  Hell no!  Ask the individuals who keep voting for political figures who brag about increasing taxes and adding to the burden with which government sabotages our lives.  Many of those who automatically look to the state to provide solutions are the same ones who complain about the decline of marriage today.  If they didn’t elect redistributionist judges and politicians, men would not fear marriage the way we do.  It shouldn’t be, “if you can’t marry a man, marry the government.”  Let’s change it to “solve problems amongst yourselves.”  I think that’s an ideal solution.  If the divorce courts end their war on men, then we will once again become more friendly regarding matrimonial vows.  Until then, it’s best to harken back to the wisdom of Benjamin Disraeli: “Every woman should marry–and no man.”

An Elite Club:

Women of the sistahood view marriage as being an elite club and want nothing more than full-time membership.  They, whether they deny it or not, admire their friends who are married, and this admiration can sometimes even be transferred onto their friend’s husbands.  Women who are married, even if it’s to users who care nothing about them, are higher on the social plane than women who are single.  This is implicit acknowledgment of the sweet deal many women receive through marriage.  Personally, I do not begrudge them their social hierarchies and care little about affairs apart from my own, but these same women then try to fit guys like me into their social parameters, which is absurd. 

Male Diversity Verboten:

This attempt to coerce men into accepting their worldview is quite disturbing but also rather comical.  Ironically, it indirectly benefits fellows like me as the fact that I’ve been married before makes me seem far more legitimate than most of my friends.  I am a man who could be amenable to their terms and line of reasoning, or non-reasoning as the case may be.  After all, I made the vow once and bought rings twice, so I must be on their wavelength.  Am I not?  Not.[i]  Yet, my friends, like the infamous Dianabol, are knocked out of the box repeatedly because they’ve never been married before.  Why should he be part of the caste of untouchables?  They’d say because he’s a 40 year old perpetual bachelor.  Therefore, he must be a loser.  I even heard a girl say this very thing about him the other day.   She assumed that since he was never married before that there must be something wrong with him.  Why did she not assume that there may be something very right about him?  Dianabol is a prince of man.  He exercises five days a week and drinks for four on the weekends.  He works constantly, makes serious coin, and has an apartment that looks like it came out of “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.”[ii]  Dianabol’s a profoundly educated man with a high thrill-seeking personality who strikes the great majority of girls as being the epitome of fun, but his uncomplicated (legally speaking only) past precludes him from some of their considerations.  Guess what?  It’s their loss. 

What’s In It For Me?

I found out yesterday that I’m not supposed to be asking this question about marriage.  It appears that many women believe our default position should be “why ask why” on the topic (rather than “why me”).  One girl even called me selfish for putting forth the proposition!  Shouldn’t I be selfish about my own interests?  Maybe I’m not supposed to have any interests.  Perhaps my having interests is really a plot to dehumanize women.  It seems that the message sent is, “you will marry a chick the size of Toronto and you’ll like it!”  Ah, no.  I think I’ll pass.  I don’t want her, you can have her, Toronto ’s too big, and socialistic, for me.   

Contrary to what many a woman may say, I believe that “What’s in it for me?” is the central question one should ask before signing one’s life away.  If you derive no benefit, then run, don’t walk.  Again, of course, there’s the nuance thing, as it’s situational.  My life certainly is worth signing away in a fight against Hitler or Pol Pot, but I refuse to fall down upon my sword in a scrape for Calphalon pots or Lancome makeup. 

Well, you’ve heard what I have to say about the matter, but never forget the triumphant words of Zsa Zsa Gabor before making your own decision, “A man is incomplete until he is married.  Then he is finished.”


[i] Of course, I say that now but got engaged a second time at Christmas.  I suppose if the right youthful Laotian national comes along next year, I may have to eat my above words.  I’m just letting you know in advance due to a history of snap decisions on my part. 

[ii] His ex-girlfriend decorated it!

           


14 posted on 01/19/2009 5:06:37 PM PST by familyop (combat engineer (combat), National Guard, '89-'96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote, http://falconparty.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGalt

You saw this footnote reference then?

**(6) “Vatican: Muslims Now Outnumber Catholics”, USA TODAY, 4/2/2008**


15 posted on 01/19/2009 5:08:46 PM PST by Salvation ( †With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I notice the lady’s section on “Freedom” was about two sentences long and written with a scowl. I’ll add my own scowl to all her advice and add: IF YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF CHILDREN STAY MARRIED TO THE SPOUSE YOU HAD THEM WITH!

The endless divorce-remarriage-divorce garbage does alot more damage to society than barren singles could ever conjure.


16 posted on 01/19/2009 5:10:51 PM PST by avenir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

3 kids here...love em


17 posted on 01/19/2009 5:13:49 PM PST by Former MSM Viewer ("We will hunt the terrorists in every dark corner of the earth. We will be relentless." W 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

BTW, I’m not saying that men should resolve to be single for the rest of their lives. I’m arguing that our laws regarding relationships between men and women have made marriage and reproduction a game that often ends in fatherlessness for too many of the children. Accusations (often to cover for promiscuity) by one party in such relationships are all that is needed to cause the children to be fatherless and to ruin and/or even imprison innocent fathers. Also, in a society so romanticist and consequently morally bankrupt, men and women should take great lengths of time without sexual relations before considering marriage.


18 posted on 01/19/2009 5:16:54 PM PST by familyop (combat engineer (combat), National Guard, '89-'96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote, http://falconparty.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Fertility rates trump military superiority over time. Demographics are destiny.


19 posted on 01/19/2009 5:26:53 PM PST by Eternal_Bear (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

“Or is it happening already?”

It’s happening. Our birthrate is right at replacement level. For caucasians, it’s below replacement and has been for quite awhile. The reason why our population is increasing is mostly the result of immigration.


20 posted on 01/19/2009 5:36:40 PM PST by RKBA Democrat (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson