American Death and Romanticizing Evil

We may never know what was going though Aurora shooter James Holmes’s mind when he committed his heinous mass murder. We don’t know what kind of psychosis, or precisely what evil influences, he might have been subject to. What we do know is that, in wanting to be the Joker and not Batman, the villainous and not the virtuous, he reflects something prevalent today: The romanticizing of evil. And to whatever extent he was imitating art, this trend certainly is not art imitating life.

I remember when Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega was taken into custody by U.S. forces. Here was this fellow, who we’d seen giving fiery speeches from podiums and talking about killing political adversaries, now doing a perp walk in shackles. No longer the strongman, he looked neither strong nor like much of a man; it was as if he’d shrunk. He looked pathetic — like any dime-store thug in a mug shot. It was then that one understood what writer Hannah Arendt meant when, after observing Nazi war criminals, she coined the phrase “the banality of evil.”

Evil people aren’t very interesting, but you wouldn’t know it from our popular culture. It serves up fantastical fiction such as the all-seeing serial killer Hannibal Lector, the superhuman Cape Fear criminal Max Cady, and the philosophizing hit men in Pulp Fiction. It certainly titillates and triumphs at the box office, but what, ultimately, is triumphing in the hearts and minds of generations weaned on such fare? What is their conception of good and evil? Which is more attractive to them?

I wouldn’t say that. Girls who are more physically fit, within reason, tend to be better at the full range of femininity. They have a stronger frame, an orderly hormonal flow, have more and healthier children, and raise them better, because they are able.

To call this masculinization is unfair, because it is based on an incorrect notion of the range of female capability. It is like saying that women should not drive cars or use guns, because those are masculine activities.

Of course there are extremes as well. A female body builder can look grotesque, and a woman can be as gross and crude as a man. But for the most part, good health and intestinal fortitude make a better person, male or female.

Man is violent, always has been, always will be.

Violence is relative.

Is it violent to strap someone down and cut them with a knife? What if you're a surgeon?

Is it violent to take a gun and shoot a man dead? What if that man is trying to commit mass murder?

Is it peaceful to protect religious freedom? What if that means men can drag girls away and cut out their genital in the name of Allah?

Is it tolerant for liberals to embrace and celebrate muslim students? What about the gays they hang wherever they find them, and have the power to seize them?

Critical thinking - it's not just a river in Egypt.

Yes, well, you wouldn’t say that because you haven’t thought it through thoroughly. By the way, masculinizing women leads to them having fewer children, not more. This is one of the main reasons why Western peoples aren’t reproducing.

It’s also why women today are generally mixed-up feminists.

It isn’t about their being “physically fit.” It’s about their being masculinized, instilled with masculine ambitions and norms.

See through the spirit of the age.

I’ve been studying demographics for a while. When a given society hits an economic level unique to them, suddenly their birthrate drops from high growth to sustainable, which is 2.1 to 2.3 children per family.

Mexico and the Arab nations are the most recent to see this phenomenon.

However, while government and culture are not particularly able to increase the birthrate, they can lower it further, by encouraging sex outside of marriage, birth control, and abortion, as well as raising the standards for raising children.

This is unrelated, however, to more masculine women.

Women do have a small amount of testosterone in their blood. But those women with a more than average amount are able to develop their musculature faster, and they are more prone to assertiveness.

However, the most noteworthy aspect of having more than the average amount of testosterone is that women “enjoy sex more.” Both in frequency and pleasure. As such, they are more likely to get pregnant in the absence of birth control.

And being physically fit, again unless they overdo it, makes them somewhat more fertile.

I suggest that you watch the documentary “Demographic Winter.” At the end of it, a professional demographer—who is a progressive, mind you—said that the only solution to the problem of declining birthrates was “patriarchy, properly understood.”

By the way, what you say isn’t entirely accurate. While Saudi Arabia has long been very wealthy, their birthrate is still quite high. This is because they have maintained patriarchy. (Of course, this doesn’t mean that I endorse their brand of patriarchy.)

Anyway, if you don’t see how feminism and the masculinization of females has twisted women, you don’t have your finger on the pulse of Western civilization.

By the way, a woman dressed in traditionally masculine garb (e.g., military or police uniform) is no different than a man dressed in drag. It’s just that people have been conditioned to accept it.

According to the CIA Factbook, Saudi Arabia’s birthrate is now 2.26 children per woman, which is just slightly growing.

This shows how rapidly their birthrate has plummeted since the data used in “Demographic Winter” (2008) (my guess around 2005), when they did have a very high birthrate. And this collapse is not just with them, but with most of the Arab nations.

It happened in Mexico about this fast as well. For years an exploding birthrate pushing people North, and a few years later almost stable (and just slightly higher than SA.)

I can well imagine that their government demographers about pooped themselves when these stats first came out.

In any event, I don’t think cultural forces can be blamed for something this dramatic.

Well, if the birth rate in SA has recently dropped so precipitously, it’s not due only to wealth because they’ve been prosperous for a long time. I would guess that it’s because, in part and to some extent, they’ve loosened the reins on their women (they have women participating for the first time in the Olympics).

The fact is, though — and it is a fact — that if you keep women’s focus on the domestic realm, birth rates tend to remain high.

Oh, and it is mostly cultural forces that determine these things. It’s not as if God said “Poof! I’m going to limit your fecundity now.”

Anyway, given your attitude, let me guess: you have daughters?

While you’re very determined about your point of view, I can only cite demographics that say otherwise. It is not culture that reduces birthrate, but prosperity. A level of prosperity unique to that nation, time and again, accomplishes this, no matter the cultural changes or lack thereof.

Once that birthrate has dropped to sustainable, only then can culture, and government, limit it further. And usually by raising the quality of standards for care of children.

In demographics, this is explained that in more primitive agrarian societies, there is a very high child mortality rate, and prior to the use of antiseptics about one in four women died in or shortly after childbirth, whether or not the child survived. Likewise, larger families are associated with prosperity, as only they will provide either insurance or retirement to their parents as they get older.

Importantly, this close family cohesion and caring for the elderly is still seen in Mexico, though its birthrate has plummeted, and the vast majority of women still occupy traditional family roles.

What does cause demographic damage to a population is not the masculinity of females, but the embrace of sex outside of socially enforced marriage. This is happening to slave descended black Americans and its demographic damage is extraordinary.

In mammalian biology, the male prerogative is to spread their DNA to the offspring of as many children as possible. But females have a double prerogative to get both the best sperm for their offspring, and the best provider male to help them raise their offspring.

However, humans have innovated socially enforced marriage as something better for men, women and their children. Children raised by such couples are oriented to success; whereas children raised by single parents are oriented to survival. Men give up multiple partners for greater assurance that the children have their DNA. And women give on having the best sperm and best provider male, on condition that the same male will only provide for her offspring.

Marriage as a system can be corrupted by dowry, which has led some to imagine it as being an unneeded social fabrication. Likewise they imagine sex as being for fun, not procreation. But the ramifications of this are very destructive.

They require long term birth control, in the limited window of time when it is best to have children, abortion for unwanted children, and results in survival oriented children 60% more likely to become criminal offenders.

So, in a manner of speaking, it is not the masculinity of females that is demographically damaging, but unbridled sexuality, of sex for fun instead of for the serious purpose of reproduction.

Yes, there are many factors, but you’re kidding yourself if you think that the masculinization of women and their embrace of careerism don’t play a role. Demographic Winter even mentions this, citing the working-woman phenomenon as one of six factors that reduce birth rates.

Anyway, there are many reasons why deviation from traditional roles is destructive, not the least of which is that it has led to the sexes becoming competitors.

And it’s not just that I’m determined about my point of view, but also that I have little patience for men who accept these ridiculous, evil feminist norms. They were, by the way, established by the liberals of yesteryear, but now conservatives mindlessly accept them. It’s pathetic.

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.